Examining Frannie #2: A Critique of her Teaching on Emptying the Mind

Recent research into a New Age ministry in the Diocese of Colorado Springs has led me to a comprehensive appraisal of One Simple Voice, cofounded by Richard Hanifen and Frannie Rose. This short reflection explores what the Church has said concerning the nature of meditation/contemplation as it relates to Frannie's teaching of emptying the mind. As always with any of my critiques, if a position becomes clarified or is rejected by the adherent then I will modify my critique accordingly.

Foundational Documents

There are two Vatican documents which all Catholics should read and correctly understand as it relates to the teachings of Frannie Rose. 

1) Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of Christian Meditation

2) Jesus Christ, The Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian Reflection on the "New Age"

Recommended Source for Spiritual Direction

Likewise, it would also be beneficial for one to be familiar with the critiques that have been written against others who espouse similar ideas, especially Thomas Keating. A highly recommended site for spiritual direction for those interested in this subject that is faithful to the magisterium is Spiritual Direction (dot) com.

Can I Trust Thomas Keating

Can I Trust Thomas Merton part 1

Can I Trust Thomas Mertion part 2

Frannie Rose Vs. Vatican Documents

Frannie teaches that in order to make space for God through meditation one must clear the mind of everything we have been taught about God. This method basically leads the participant to question and abandon God's Revelation through the Church so that they can be indoctrinated with Frannie's New Age teachings.

Frannie has stated: "We have to be emptied of what we think we know about God." "...in order to fully experience God you have to let go of what you have been taught." Frannie includes in this what we have been taught by the Church. She wants people to ignore what the Church has taught about God and wants us to completely empty our minds and listen to a spirit speak to us, as if God is going to tell us something different than what Christ has said through his Church. Her method presumes that the Church does not teach the revelation of God and refers to it as "...traditional religion very set in the old ways of doing things...". She presumes that this spirit that she listens to and teaches others to listen to is the proper, and direct revelation of God.

However, this manner of emptying the mind of God's revelation, and moving away from Christ, is not the way one ought to interpret the mystics to mean when they speak of “emptying” oneself. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in their Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of Christian Mediation puts it this way:

"Therefore, one has to interpret correctly the teaching of those masters who recommend "emptying" the spirit of all sensible representations and of every concept, while remaining lovingly attentive to God. In this way, the person praying creates an empty space which can then be filled by the richness of God. However, the emptiness which God requires is that of the renunciation of personal selfishness…”

In the following paragraph the document becomes more explicit on this point:

“As St. Ignatius says in the Spiritual Exercises, we should try to capture "the infinite perfume and the infinite sweetness of the divinity" (n. 124), going forward from that finite revealed truth from which we have begun. While he raises us up, God is free to "empty" us of all that holds us back in this world, to draw us completely into the Trinitarian life of his eternal love. However, this gift can only be granted "in Christ through the Holy Spirit," and not through our own efforts, withdrawing ourselves from his revelation.""

Likewise, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, in their document Jesus Christ, The Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian Reflection on the "New Age” states:

“All meditation techniques need to be purged of presumption and pretentiousness. Christian prayer is not an exercise in self-contemplation, stillness and self-emptying, but a dialogue of love, one which “implies an attitude of conversion, a flight from 'self' to the 'You' of God”.”

The Church makes certain that whatever is to be meant by contemplation in this manner will never involve the emptying of our minds of divine revelation. Frannie’s error consists in her rejection of the uniqueness of the Christian Revelation as the fullness of Truth as subsisting in the Catholic Church. Rather she contends that the mind can’t know anything about God. In this radical, extreme apophaticism, there is nothing that can be affirmed about God, except perhaps what she is told by this spirit. She proposes whatever the mind thinks it knows must be emptied because it will only hinder our hopeful encounter with the voice of God. Her religious indifferent perspective leads her to think of religion of any kind as a mere vehicle to God, rejecting the unique Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ, and His establishment of the Church as the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Contrary to this Frannie states: "Religion is just a vehicle to God, if you take every faith as a piece of a pie, cut up a pie into pieces, every faith touches at the center, every piece of the pie touches at the center and that is where God is. A religion is just a vehicle and to get it right is not the point, to find God is"

When she teaches Catholics and other Christians to follow her technique with these presumptions then any experience obtained will only be interpreted to support those presumptions rather than to question them. While there can and will be some benefit  to her method, and in some cases perhaps significant, it nevertheless contains material heresy that people may not be able to properly discern. Even if a Catholic does not completely abandon their reason in this matter, the influence works against Catholic Teaching and the recommendations concerning meditation and contemplation. 

The Words of St. Tesesa Avila

Since Frannie Rose often mentions St. Teresa as if the Doctor of the Church supports her approach to the spiritual life I have included some more lengthy quotes to show that not only did St. Teresa speak against the suspension of the intellect but states that it is actually a hindrance.

"One preparation for listening to Him, as certain books tell us, is that we should contrive, not to use our reasoning powers, but to be intent on discovering what God is doing in the soul; for, if His Majesty has not begun to grant us adsorption, I cannot understand how we can cease thinking in any way which will not bring us more harm than profit, although this has been a matter of continual discussion among spiritual persons. For my own part, I confess my lack of humility, but their arguments have never seemed to me good enough to lead me to accept what they say. One person told me of a certain book by the saintly Fray Peter of Alcantara, which would certainly have convinced me, for I know how much he knew about such things; but we read it together, and found that he says exactly what I say, although not in the same words...God gave us our faculties to work with, and everything will have its due reward; there is no reason, then, for trying to cast a spell over them - they must be allowed to perform their office until God gives them a better one." (Interior Castle, Fourth Mansion, III, pp.87-89, Garden City: NY, Image Books)

"Taking it upon oneself to stop and suspend thought is what I mean should not be done; nor should we cease to work with the intellect, because otherwise we would be left like cold simpletons and be doing neither one thing nor the other. When the Lord suspends the intellect and causes it to stop, He Himself gives it that which holds its attention and makes it marvel; and without reflection it understands more in the space of a creed than we can understand with all our earthly diligence in many years. Trying to keep the soul’s faculties busy and thinking you can make them be quiet is foolish."

"And I say again, even though it may not be understood, this effort to suspend the intellect is not very humble. Although there may be no fault, there is no lack of a penalty; labor will be wasted, and the soul will be left with some little frustration, as in the case of a person who when about to leap forward is pulled back by someone else. For now, seemingly, it has used its energy and finds that it hasn’t achieved what it wanted to achieve with it. And whoever desires to observe will see in the small gain that results this tiny lack of humility I mentioned….It seems to me I have explained this matter, but perhaps I’ve only made it clear to myself. May the Lord by means of experience open the eyes of those who read this." (Teresa of Avila, The Book of Her Life, 12-5, in The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, vol. 1, trans. Keiran Kavanaugh and OtilioRodriguez (Washington D. C.: ICS, 1976), 12-5, 87-88.)

Spiritual Discernment and the True Voice of God

The true voice of God is to be found within Christ, the only and unique incarnation of God, as contained in the teachings of the apostles, as passed on through the tradition of the Church. It is this Christ that is the radiance of his glory, the exact representation of his being, the image of the invisible God, the fullness of deity in bodily form, the definitive Word of God! This is how we properly discern what impressions we may receive from God are authentic, that they are consistent with what God has already told us.

Scripture tells us: "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." (1 Timothy 4:1) Therefore we must be able to properly discern what we think is the voice of God in order to avoid deception. 

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1) The best way to test a spirit is to compare what is being taught with the teachings of the Church. If one has been deceived and is actively involved in deceiving others then the Catholic faithful must have recourse to the Church.

"We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error." (1 John 4:6) It is important that everything that we follow be consistent with the teachings of the Church.

"Test all things and hold fast to that which is true" (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

St. Frances de Sales tells us that we must test the impressions which we think we are receiving from God.

"...before you consent to inspirations with regard to important or extraordinary things, always consult your advisor so that he my examine the inspiration and see whether it is true or false. When the enemy sees a soul ready to consent to inspirations he often proposes false ones in order to deceive it. He can never accomplish this as long as that soul humbly obeys its director." (St. Frances de Sales. Introduction to the Devout Life, trans. John K. Ryan.Garden City NY, 1972, 111.)

And certainly "...Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light" and so we should expect that his deceptions will be convincing. Likewise, "there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies" and it is the role of the faithful to be able to discern and speak against this influence within the Church. 

Examining Frannie #1: New Age Thought in the Diocese of Colorado Springs

On March 20th, 2016, the Gazette, a newspaper of Colorado Springs, Colorado, published an article by Debbie Kelley on the topic of One Simple Voice. Entitled ‘Ministry teaches how to listen for God's voice’, the article labels those who participate in this ministry as ‘converts’ and ‘followers’. Both which are probably the most adept descriptions of those drawn into its way of thinking.

http://gazette.com/ministry-teaches-how-to-listen-for-gods-voice/article/1572566

(An earlier article on January 16th, 2015, in the Colorado Catholic Herald by Theresa Ward can be read here: http://www.signatureflip.com/cocath/herald/2015-01-16eEdition.pub/index.html#16/z )

While the ministry has grown and influenced many people within the Diocese of Colorado Springs there are those who are greatly concerned over the content of its teachings, and rightly so.

Bishop Emeritus Richard Hanifen explains his initial response to Frannie’s ideas, and how it took over two months for him to come to accept her proposal. While a bishop ought to follow their more educated sensibilities and strive to preserve that faith which was once and for all given unto the saints, we have an unfortunate example here of how people are drawn into new movements attempting to improve upon the faith, either by additional teaching, or in the use of words that are not rooted in the Christian tradition. A bishop who would require ‘convincing’ that they were hearing God’s voice is more than disconcerting and reveals the process of one being drawn into occultism, especially when led by someone who has functionally taken the role of a guru.

That one who has been influenced by false teaching, yet unable to detect it, is the very heart of deception. They become those who deceive and are being deceived. The way out of these deceptions is to take to heart the concerns of those we know to be fully knowledgeable in Church Teaching, and understand the history of Occultism. We must come to trust in these individuals to draw us back to the light of reason from the subjective naivety they now find themselves. All the more difficult when their reputation has been placed into question within the public. All the more difficult when they have also participated in the on-going deception of the new movement, and how their influence with people as a spiritual leader has allowed the movement to spread among those who have come to trust in them.

Frannie Rose, the co-founder and champion of this new movement, has perhaps revealed the underlying motive of her approach: "That's not to say the old ways are wrong," Rose said. "It's pushing things aside to make more room for what God is going to teach you, and when you take them back, they're richer." This statement, no matter how one attempts to interpret it in a favorable manner, reveals several striking ideas which ought to give pause to any honest reader.

1) What is being characterized as ‘old’ refers directly to the teachings of the Catholic Church, particularly how they relate to interacting with God. The term ‘old’ is not here used to refer to that original deposit of faith, once and for all given unto the saints during the days of Christ and his apostles, rather, it is used to denote ‘out-dated’. Neither are we discussing doctrinal development where an implied meaning is made explicit which is consistent with its intrinsic meaning, but rather, new ideas are being interpolated into a framework that is diametrically opposed to them, giving a new shape to the whole.

2) Divine Revelation ought never to be pushed aside for any reason whatsoever. Anything that God teaches us will conform to what He has already taught us. In fact, God teaches us within the context of what He has already taught us, not to its exclusion.

3) The process of bringing the ‘old ways’ back once the person has been indoctrinated by this new method is precisely how occultism infiltrates Christian groups. Once the new language is adopted, it becomes the locus of control upon other thoughts and in the end, the ‘old ways’ are now ‘enriched’ with new meaning which was not intrinsically subsisting in the original concept. Like bringing a new connotation to a term that does not denote it at all, at least from a Christian perspective.

Frannie continually uses the language of New Age thought to share her ideas. And it has been divisive in the Diocese of Colorado Springs precisely because her teachings have blurred the distinction between Christian Theology and New Age Spirituality. Those who are not properly versed in both perspectives are much more vulnerable to accept the new amalgamation as true Christian thought.

The language of theology is rooted in the expression of divine revelation. Taking a language that may have been best to describe new age techniques is not the best language to describe Christian theology. The Reading list from Frannie's book ‘Fixing Frannie’, reveals New Age influences from authors who are very much considered as teaching New Age concepts. People who first read her book and then ventures into her reading list will expose them to Occultism further and further. Unfortunately, there is a mass of people who cannot tell you the difference between the one system of thought verses another. Some simply assume that when the divine is considered that it all bleeds together. Not being fully catechized, a Catholic, may not be able to detect fraudulent attempts at describing how we relate with God having never fully grasped the Catholic perspective in its fullness.

There is no prescribed method that can influence God to speak or interact with us. There is nothing that we can do to raise ourselves to contemplation in this manner. Such an experience will always be infused by God when he determines to interact with us in this regard. Sure, entering into prayer is helpful, and even listening in some manner similar to emptying the mind, if of course this means to push aside distractions so that we can focus on Christ. It is this Christ that is the radiance of his glory, the exact representation of his being, the image of the invisible God, the fullness of deity in bodily form, the definitive Word of God! This is very different than what is proposed by Frannie and her followers. When one ventures away from a meditation upon Christ and begins to construct a language around experiences we have when emptying the mind, as Frannie suggests, we begin to give credibility to spirits that ought to be tested, rather than merely trusted. “…looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith…” Hebrews 12:2

Sometimes I will stare into the sky, or at a blade of grass, just allowing itself to press upon me in that moment but this activity never empties my mind. God created the mind and engages all of us with all that He is. Never will God engage us in such a way that the mind is unfruitful. Leaving our minds open to the impressions of anything that may come our way leaves us vulnerable to deception and is precisely how New Age Occultism influences people. God gave us revelation for many reasons, one of which is so that it is always before our mind. And it is upon this basis that we approach God for it is the very method He uses to approach us.

To use one of my favorite lines from the movie, Luther, “You, Frannie Rose, will not draw into doubt those things which the Catholic Church has judged already, things that have passed into usage, rite, and observance... the faith that Christ, the most perfect Lawgiver, ordained, the faith the martyrs strengthened with their blood."

For an examination of her teachings on emptying the mind: Exposing Frannie: A Critique of her Teaching on Emptying the Mind

The Divine Comedy: Sexuality and the Intellect

The following is a multimedia assignment for my graduate course covering Dante's The Divine Comedy. The narration follows the terza rima, when translated means "third rhyme', first used by Dante. The rhyming scheme follows the following structure:

a, b, a
b, c, b
c, d, c

The topic covers images of sexuality in both the Inferno and Purgatorio as it relates to the relationship between the will and the intellect.

Video Script:

Dante is startled to realize that he is in the Dark Wood of Error.
He gets a glimpse of where he wants to go but all he can do is stare
with no route other than the one beset by three beasts and is left in terror.

The She-Wolf of Incontinence would drive Dante back into the wood in despair.
Virgil, representing Reason, is sent to Dante to show where he’s been,
a much longer route which will lead him through Hell but did not know where.

By way of Hell, Dante is exposed to the sinfulness of sin
which leads him to see it for what it really is, a smell
and twist of beauty, agony, regret, and the tearing of skin

The continual impressions which he received in Hell
drove him further and further from seeing the rust
as if it were gold, no longer worth the mind to dwell

Francesca and her lover Paolo locked in eternal lust
for one another, wrapped in pleasure’s pretext
as they were alive, a betrayal of their marriage trust

Dante encounters the minotaur, a reminder of violence and perversity of sex,
how a woman developed an unnatural lust for a bull to induce
and hiding herself in a wooden cow… I think you know what happened next

Myrrha, in an act of fraud, disguised herself to seduce
her father, obtaining a momentary incestuous thrill
now with madness and thoughts which only insanity could produce

In all these cases the intellect did lead that will
informed by that which seemed the greater in that place
and driven by interior principle and intellective skill

From here Dante is brought to purgatory through divine grace
where he seeks the removal of seven P’s placed upon his head
leaving it all behind and turn from sin without a trace

He dreams of a siren whom appears broken and dead
bending its image accordingly as one great to behold
an allurement of the temptress to reduce him to bread

Once with skin which was pale and terribly cold
blinding now with beauty and seductive look
a woman so divine, more precious than gold

Dante finds himself mesmerized and caught up on her hook
Virgil draws his attention back to his sense
she again became a mangled body all dirty and crook

A heavenly woman stands tall and speaks a word against
heaping ridicule upon the pride of one so vain
thinking one self to be the epitome of lust immense

What we can learn from all these words is plain
We must follow reason as far as the mind will go
in order to keep our intellect from going insane

Don't take a step beyond the path or you will slide down below
into that pit where sin ensnares and the mind will stray
even the blackest night as pitch will begin to glow

What we apprehend as the good will deceive and betray
and our will, craving as it does, the rational appetite
moved towards that very thing, it can be no other way

Our intellect must be informed by what is truly right
to accurately perceive and know the proper greater good
leading our thoughts to a much more pleasant flight

Dante progressed by reason and grace just as he should
Virgil will soon leave him with Beatrice, a glorious lady above
for he had taken Dante as far as he could

The Predominance of the Intellect

The following is a reflection upon the Thomistic understanding of the predominance of the intellect in its relation to the will of man as it is described in Eleonore Stump’s article "Aquinas's account of freedom: Intellect and will." The final section which applies this principle to the deception of Eve is my own reflection which may change the more I dive into the question.

What is the precise relationship between the intellect and the will of man? Unlike the Voluntaristic notion that the will is completely autonomous as it relates to the intellect, the Thomistic perspective gives the place of predominance to the role of the intellect. As we will see every act of the will is preceded by an act of the intellect, but not every act of the intellect is preceded by the will, but only in those cases where will follows the intellect in its apprehending of that act as the greater good.

The will is considered a rational appetite, and this rationality can be understood, for example, as relating a means to an end. When the intellect is presented with multiple options, it will apprehend one means as the most desirous method for achieving a particular end and so will follows the determination of the intellect. Therefore, the will has an inclination towards the good but it requires the intellect to perceive or apprehend the good. We will what we will because we perceive or apprehend that choice to be the best option to achieve the desired end over all other options in that moment. Because the will makes no determinations of its own the intellect can then be said to move the will as the final cause. It can not be said to do so efficiently since one could will for the intellect to re-evaluate its determination of goodness, but then that act of the will would also be apprehended by the intellect to be the greater good over settling for the previous determination.

Why then do we to choose to sin in one instance but yet restrain ourselves in another if we apprehended the resistance of temptation as the greater good in those instances where we restrained ourselves? We certainly do not forget everything we learned about our previous battles against concupiscence but our intellect either did not take them into consideration through forgetfulness or some other factor that hindered those goods to be presented to our intellect. For instance. the will can also decide what it presents to the intellect for consideration such as the case where one attends to one thing to the neglect of others. Though likewise, one wills to do this precisely because the intellect perceives it is as a greater good than to not. The case of double-mindedness is owed to the fact that the intellect is perceiving one to be a greater good over the other in that particular instance given what is presented to it. If we are finding ourselves tempted, and therefore drawn to a particular perceived good, we have to understand that in that moment our intellect is not being presented counter-offers, or at least any offers that are being perceived or apprehended as a greater good. What we are perceiving or apprehending as good is in that particular circumstance, with a certain set of factors, and under certain descriptions.

One of the reasons why we might bring to mind the promises of God in Scripture is to keep presenting our intellect with the good of virtue as opposed to the lesser goods we are attempting to obtain in that moment. Temptation can be defined as that moment when the intellect is presented the lesser goods to the exclusion of the greater goods. Take the scene with Eve and the serpent into consideration: “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate…” (Gen 3:6a) It was on this basis that she chose, for she perceived it a greater good in that moment to obtain these lesser goods without serious regard for the consequences. To perceive or apprehend a good greater than it actually is, or to apprehend a lesser good as if it were greater is why sin occurs, it is why one turns from the Creator who is all good and deserving of all our love and turns towards the created which is good in and of itself.

I find this scene with Eve and the serpent to be very interesting. We have already established that Eve choose to sin because of what she perceived and apprehended in that moment as the greater good. And since her will did not choose to re-evaluation this determination then we can conclude that she did not apprehend such a re-evaluation to be the greater good, if the possibility was even considered at all. Likewise, she had apprehended it as a greater good to neglect other things that she could present to the intellect. So the question is raised whether she could have done otherwise. Can we conclude from this perspective that the presentation from the serpent was so impressionable, that it so impacted the intellect, so overwhelmed the senses, that no other alternative could be perceived as a greater good in that moment? It was said that the serpent deceived Eve and perhaps no doubt involved passions that also impacted the intellect, such as fear, anger, etc.

First, we know that she was free in her act because both her will and intellect were fully engaged and so can be said to be moved by an intrinsic principle. Second, God could have given Eve a stronger impression. As I have mentioned elsewhere: “It is God who determines these first perceptions of men, either by the prepared providential action of exterior causes, or interiorly by a Divine illumination given to the soul.” In this scene God allows the exterior factor to present itself to Eve’s intellect, and does not appear to give an interior divine illumination.

In other words, the will follows what the intellect determines as the greater good; the intellect, whether moved by will or not, makes determinations based upon what is presented to it in that moment; and those things which are presented to the intellect, whether moved by will or not, regards external factors that are not under our direct control. The conclusion that we could draw from this is that God could have given that grace in the midst of her deception from the serpent but yet withheld this grace knowing that it would not proceed in any other manner without His assistance.

The Biblical Nature of Tongues

There are many Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants who express concern over their observation of the Charismatic Renewal movement within the Catholic Church, and rightfully so. There seems to be confusion over the biblical nature of tongues, a gift of known languages. Catholics are being charged with following the Corinthian aberrations in allowing unintelligible speech in both private and public devotion. The true biblical teaching of tongues is nowhere condemned in Scripture, but the interpretation of the gift that is now being circulated was popularized in the early 20th century during the Azusa Street Revival. Since tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit it would be blasphemous to discount the gift as if it is not the work of God. However, what is the true nature of the gift of tongues? How should it be properly interpreted? 

Verses such as Mark 16:17, Acts 2:4, 10:46, 19:6 all demonstrate the gift of tongues as a known language, implying intelligible speech. Consider Acts 2:8,11 “And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language”, “we hear them telling in our own language the mighty works of God.” Many understand Pentecost as a kind of reversal of the tower of Babel, where the Spirit gifts a special ability to bridge confusion and difficulty between different known languages. Interpretation may not have been necessary if the language spoken in a tongue is one’s native language, but if others are present who do not understand that particular language then interpretation would be required. Those who are not listening to their native language could misunderstand the teacher to be using ecstatic speech, unintelligible to the listener. This is why interpretation is necessary. This may also be one source of the confusion at Corinth. According to Paul, not even the speaker of a different language may know what is being said hence, “he who speaks in a different language should pray for the power to interpret (1 Cor 14:13).” If I started speaking in Spanish and understood by someone who knows Spanish, then although the language is not intelligible to me, it is to them who know the known language, and it is for me to pray to understand it, so that it may be intelligible to all involved. 

Paul addresses some aberrations that are occurring at Corinth mainly, “if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. (9), …if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me (11).” In other words, if one is not speaking a known language then it is much like infantile babbling. It is important to note that the Book of Acts was written years after Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians. In the first usage of tongues in Acts, Luke insists upon the intelligibility of the gift (Acts 2:6, 8, 11).

Paul is offering correction to the Corinthians, the most problematic congregation among the churches in the New Testament, and tells them “do not be children in your thinking; be infants in evil, but in thinking be mature (14:20).” Paul explains to the Corinthians that “tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers” (22), and tells them that if they all spoke in what they think is the gift of tongues while outsiders and unbelievers visit, “will they not say that you are mad? (23)” In other words, if you do what you think is the gift of tongues the unbelievers and outsiders will think they are insane, while the true gift is a sign for unbelievers because it presents the Gospel to them in their own known language from a speaker foreign to them.

The city of Corinth was a port city and housed multiple languages in its society, bringing Christianity to the city may have brought with it foreign languages that may not have been intelligible to the local population. If foreign languages are being spoken then confusion could easily result in Christian worship. The letter to the Corinthians is one of the books of the bible that seems to be difficult to read. Therefore, it has become customary for the letter to the Corinthians, in relation to the doctrine of languages, to be read in light of the book of Acts. It is very possible that even a greater problem existed at Corinth. It is probable that another source of confusion is derived from pagan converts from mystery religions bringing with them practices from their background. The phenomenon of “tongues” exists in many pagan and non-Christian religions. The experience that one encounters with this practice is not unique to Christianity and may have its origin in paganism. Paul’s pastoral approach to the Corinthians is important to note. The entire tenor of Paul’s letter is to correct misunderstands and address aberrations. Paul characterizes the Corinthians as unspiritual and sinful people who boast about adultery, claim ecstatic speech, and possibly baptizing believers for the sake of the deceased. The influence from paganism is quite clear.

Concerning chapter 14, the Corinthians seemed to have understood tongues as an ecstatic non-rational Spirit language. This can be seen as a kind of personal devotion to God which can not be understood by others and therefore is not edifying to the church. Tongues is characterized as one who “speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit” (2) “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays… (14)”. “If you bless in the spirit… (16)” Paul seems to be responding to the aberration of the Corinthians and addressing their own concerns in worship. 

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia states the following in this regard: “...the Corinthian peculiarities were ignoble accretions and abuses. They made of "tongues" a source of schism in the Church and of scandal without (14:23). The charism had deteriorated into a mixture of meaningless inarticulate gabble (9, 10) with an element of uncertain sounds (7, 8), which sometimes might be construed as little short of blasphemous (12:3). The Divine praises were recognized now and then, but the general effect was one of confusion and disedification for the very unbelievers for whom the normal gift was intended (14:22, 23, 26). The Corinthians, misled not by insincerity but by simplicity and ignorance (20), were actuated by an undisciplined religious spirit (pneuma), or rather by frenzied emotions and not by the understanding (nous) of the Spirit of God (15). What today purports to be the "gift of tongues" at certain Protestant revivals is a fair reproduction of Corinthian glossolaly, and shows the need there was in the primitive Church of the Apostle's counsel to do all things "decently, and according to order" (40). …Faithful adherence to the text of Sacred Scripture makes it obligatory to reject those opinions which turn the charism of tongues into little more than infantile babbling (Eichhorn, Schmidt, Neander), incoherent exclamations (Meyer), pythonic utterances (Wiseler), or prophetic demonstrations of the archaic kind.”

When considering the biblical nature of tongues we need to understand the corrections which are required to be applied to the Church today. As Catholics we should recognize that not everything which claims to be the gift of tongues is authentic Christian teaching. The kind of aberrations that existed in Corinth can be found practiced among certain Protestant groups today, in fact, it is a rare occurrence even among Protestants. Therefore, as we receive converts into the Catholic Church we need to be sensitive to and gentile with those who wish to continue practicing these aberrations within the Charismatic Renewal. What support can these individuals offer? I personally have not found any support in Church councils, church history, the fathers, papal encyclicals, or an official document from Rome to substantiate a view of tongues as either an unknown language (babbling) or a secret prayer language. Although I do not doubt that some modern Popes or modern documents may be proposed, but the idea that such a view of tongues has not been held by all Catholics throughout the century fails the test of catholicity. How could this be Catholic if it was not always, everywhere, and by everyone maintained?

Like some of the other writings of Paul, it can often be difficult to understand precisely what he is saying if he is addressing a specific problem within a certain historical context. Below is a short exposition of the manner in which I have understood Paul on this subject.

1 Corinthians 14:1-24

1 Follow after charity, be zealous for spiritual gifts; but rather that you may prophesy.2 For he that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man heareth. Yet by the Spirit he speaketh mysteries.

[If anyone within the Corinthian congregation engages in pagan babbling, what you claim to be the gift of tongues by means of the Holy Spirit, no one will be able to understand you, and certainly it is not something directed towards men to be understood by them since it is not at all intelligible, for if you were saying anything at all, as if speaking a new language that is not known to any man, but conveying meaning with sounds and symbols that do not correlate to any known language among men, only God would be able to understand such a thing. BUT...]

3 But he that prophesieth, speaketh to men unto edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in a tongue, edifieth himself: but he that prophesieth, edifieth the church.

[But this Corinthian usage of pagan babbling from mystery religions among you only serves as an edification of oneself, whereas the Spirit who does speak through us will be edifying to the Church, as it is through the gift of prophesy, the gift that I would rather you focus upon.]

5 And I would have you all to speak with tongues, but rather to prophesy. For greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues: unless perhaps he interpret, that the church may receive edification.

[I would like for all of you to actually have the real, authentic gift of the languages, as has been demonstrated at the time of Pentecost, but of course, even then, it is preferred that you prophesy, for it is a much greater gift. But if the Spirit does speak through you a different known language, the real gift of tongues, be sure that you will be able to translate it, or have someone else translate it, so that others in the congregation that may not speak that particular language can also understand, in order that the entire congregation can hear and understand in their own language what is being said and therefore be edified thereby.]

6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine?

[Consider this... what if I were to come to you with pagan babbling, as you claim to be the gift of the “tongues”, how could this be of any benefit to you at all unless I speak in a manner that is intelligible, which is precisely how revelation, knowledge, prophecy, or doctrine is communicated to your intellect.]

7 Even things without life that give sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction of sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

[All communication among men is served by distinctions in sound carrying meaning in a manner that is known to those who listen to it.]

8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

[If those distinctions are not clear, known, and intelligible, then how can that meaning be properly conveyed from one person to another?]

9 So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue plain speech, how shall it be known what is said? For you shall be speaking into the air.

[Likewise, the pagan babbling among you is not a known language, it is not plain intelligible speech, and therefore how can anyone know what is being said among you. For all intents and purposes you might as well be speaking gibberish at the sky because no one will understand you.]

10 There are, for example, so many kinds of tongues in this world; and none is without voice.

[This should be very plain from observing all the known languages through out the world, all of which carries meaning to its hearers by means of clear sounds that is commonly known among those who understand those languages.]

11 If then I know not the power of the voice, I shall be to him to whom I speak a barbarian; and he that speaketh, a barbarian to me.

[If a language is spoken to me that I do not know then the speech is foreign to me, I will not know the meaning of it. Both the speaker and the listener will not be able to communicate to one another because they do not share a common language.]

12 So you also, forasmuch as you are zealous of spirits, seek to abound unto the edifying of the church.

[You who are zealous of spiritual gifts should always seek to edify the Church with intelligible speech.]

13 And therefore he that speaketh by a tongue, let him pray that he may interpret.

[Now that we know that the gift of tongues is a true gift of intelligible speech of known languages, as demonstrated on the day of Pentecost, we should also seek from the Spirit that we may also understand the language we are speaking, just as it is being understood by those who speak that language so that it may be intelligible to you as well.]

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit.

[Even in the case when the Spirit speaks a known language through us, it could be the case that the person so moved by the spirit may not know what is being said and the result is that the understanding of the speaker remains unfruitful but this should not remain the case.]

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, I will sing also with the understanding.

[The result of seeking the Spirit in this regard will result in being fully engaged in what is being said so that you too may fully understand what is being said. It is not only important that others understand what is being said, but that the speaker should also be able to understand it as well.]

16 Else if thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that holdeth the place of the unlearned say, Amen, to thy blessing? because he knoweth not what thou sayest.

[Likewise, if there are people around you who may not understand the language being spoken they will not be able to participate in the prayer or blessing if they do not know what is being said.]

17 For thou indeed givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

[You may be thanking God well enough, but these who do not know the language you are speaking will not be edified by your speech.]

18 I thank my God I speak with all your tongues.

[I am thankful to God that I know and understand all the different languages you speak within this congregation.]

19 But in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also; than ten thousand words in a tongue.

[In the Church, I would prefer to speak in a language that we both understand so that you will be properly instructed, than to use a language with which none of you are familiar.]

20 Brethren, do not become children in sense: but in malice be children, and in sense be perfect. 21 In the law it is written: In other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; and neither so will they hear me, saith the Lord.

[It is written in the law that different languages will be used to communicate with people in this age.]

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers; but prophecies not to unbelievers, but to believers.

[Therefore this gift of being able to speak in all these different languages is meant to be a sign among unbelievers that God is working among them, such was the effect on the day of Pentecost for all the surrounding people to witness. It is not a gift that was meant to be done within the Church only to be observed by believers, less was it for their sake and private edification. Rather, it is the gift of prophecy, which I have encouraged you to seek, which is to be used among believers within the context of the Church.]

23 If therefore the whole church come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned persons or infidels, will they not say that you are mad?

[If the congregation gathers together and you are all engaging in this pagan babbling that you call “tongues” will not the unbelievers be thrown into confusion if they were to visit while all of this was going on? Will not all the unintelligible and ecstatic speech lead them to think you are crazy, and cause them to be repulsed by what you are doing instead of inspired as the true gift of languages did on the day of Pentecost?]

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or an unlearned person, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all. 25 The secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so, falling down on his face, he will adore God, affirming that God is among you indeed.

[It is much preferred that all of you prophecy in clear, intelligible, known languages so that people who visit will hear true and authentic Christian teaching in a manner that will appeal to the mind and convict the heart.]