stances, may thus assist at Mass for days or even weeks at a time. This development puzzles me. What is to be said about it?

Answer: There are circumstances in which this manner of assistance at Mass may preserve for the priest a greater attention and devotion than he could have if he offered his Mass in the usual sacerdotal manner. Most of us have, at some time or other, at large gatherings of priests, had the experience of offering Mass in a room crowded with altars and with considerable surrounding activity (new arrivals and departures, servers, cruet-filling, etc.). There is considerable distraction and even a feeling of frustration in such circumstances. Hence it is that many have hoped that the Vatican Council will approve a form of true concelebration for such priestly gatherings, and I believe we can still cherish that hope.

But it seems to me that the tendency you note may easily become an abuse. A great deal depends on the motivation, the thinking that prompts the behavior. Pius XII, in the Mediator Dei, after stressing the social nature of the Mass and after clarifying the notion of "offering," as applied to the laity and to the priest, gives a warning: "We must, however, deeply deplore certain exaggerations and over-statements which are not in agreement with the true teaching of the Church" (# 94). He then points out, among other things, that "there are some who assert that priests cannot offer Mass at different altars at the same time, because, by doing so, they break up the community of the faithful and imperil its unity" (#95). In his Allocution to those present at the First International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy at Assisi in Sept., 1956, he returned to this subject and made stressed points which are particularly relevant to our present question. Citing an Allocution of Nov. 2, 1954, he said: "Therefore it is the priest-celebrant, and he alone, who, putting on the person of Christ, sacrifices: not the people, nor clerics, nor even priests who reverently assist. All these, however, can and should take an active part in the sacrifice." He then continued in the Assisi Allocution itself:

We emphasized, then, that owing to a failure to distinguish between the question of the participation of the celebrant in the fruits of the Mass and that of the action he performs, the following conclusion had been reached: namely, that the offering of one Mass, at which a hundred priests assist with religious devotion, is the same as a hundred Masses celebrated by a hundred priests. Of this assertion, We said: 'It must

be rejected as an erroneous opinion,' and We added in explanation: 'With regard to the offering of the eucharistic sacrifice, the actions of Christ, the High Priest, are as many as are the priests celebrating, not as many as are the priests reverently hearing the Mass of a bishop or a priest; for those present at the Mass in no sense sustain, or act in, the person of Christ sacrificing, but are to be compared to the faithful layfolk who are present at the Mass' (1954 Allocution). On the subject of liturgical congresses, We said on this same occasion: 'These meetings sometimes follow a definite program, viz. only one offers the Mass, and others (all or the majority) assist at this one Mass, and receive the holy Eucharist during it from the hands of the celebrant. If this be done for a good and sound reason, . . . the practice is not to be opposed, so long as the error We have mentioned above is not underlying it'; that is to say, the error which holds as equivalent the celebration of a hundred Masses by a hundred priests, and that of a Mass at which a hundred priests assist with devotion (The Assisi Papers, Collegeville, Minn., 1957, pp. 228-9).

JOHN P. MCCORMICK, S.S.

COMMENT

GLOSSOLALIA

"Dyoso ki-i-yeno mayashi," one of the congregation cried loudly. But in what language? Pidgin English or highbred Esperanto? Some claimed it was "speaking in tongues," the glossolalia of the New Testament. In the last few years many Protestant groups in the United States have witnessed a revival of the spontaneous speaking which they say is a gift of the Holy Ghost, but which sounds like gibberish to most listeners. Long associated with Pentecostal sects, glossolalia is now springing up among the old-line denominations: Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians. Its supporters say it is a special sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which enables the individual to bear witness to Christ unreservedly. Some critics say that at the worst it smacks of Satanism and at best is destructive of sincere religious devotion. What do we know about this phenomenon?

St. Paul in I Corinthians describes the charism of speaking in tongues as a gift of the Spirit. The Corinthians had strange notions about this and had misused it in their worship. He does not condemn this gift. Rather he tells the Corinthians that "I should like all to speak in tongues" (I Cor. 14:5), and that "I thank God that I speak with all your tongues" (I Cor. 14:18). Even though he prefers the gift of prophecy, which was more valuable for religious instruction, he admits that the gift of tongues can be used for public worship (I Cor. 14:27), for the personal edification of the recipient (I Cor. 14:4), and as a sign to unbelievers (I Cor. 14:22). Paul gives certain practical directions for the use of the gift. Only three people at most should speak at a public service and they should speak in turn, not all at once. If there is no interpreter present, there should be no speaking at all. Women are not to speak since "it is unseemly for a woman to speak in church" (I Cor. 14:35). Paul recognized the dangers of abuse in the use of the charisms. They might be a source of spiritual pride. He warns, therefore, that the gift of tongues be controlled. "Let all things," he concludes, "be done properly and in order" (I Cor. 14:40).

What exactly was the gift of tongues in the New Testament? Scripture commentators are at variance on this point. Father Rees, for example, in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, p. 1095, writes that the gift of tongues was the same that the Apostles received at Pentecost: "the miraculous power of speaking languages not previously learnt." Father Bévenot, S.J., in the same commentary, p. 792, states that the phenomenon described in Acts is not the same as the one in Corinthians. He characterizes it as "an apparently ecstatic condition in which articulate or inarticulate utterances were voiced. . . ." The non-Catholic commentary, Harper's Bible Dictionary, p. 768, describes glossolalia as “inarticulate and unintelligible speech, meaningless sound, jargon, uttered in times of extreme emotional excitement or religious frenzy."

Modern glossolalists insist that it is not an irrational experience which transports one into a trance. Lutheran Pastor James Hanson from Glendive, Montana, reports that "at a given point in this experience the seeker finds his tongue being taken over and a new language being formed by a power other than his own." A Methodist minister who had experienced this gift writes: "I was suddenly overpowered by the presence of God in me and through me. . . It was not an emotion in the normal sense of the word. It was a most meaningful moment in my life."

Over one hundred sects in the United States practice speaking in tongues. Among the Pentecostal churches, such as the Four Square Gospel churches, the Assemblies of God, and the Churches of God, speaking in tongues is a normal part of the services. Faithhealings, ecstatic confessions of faith, and rousing hymn singing are other features of their church devotions. The Pentecostal church, which numbers more than one million members in this country, is the fastest growing Protestant denomination in the Western Hemisphere. It has been estimated that in Latin America one out of every three Protestants is Pentecostal. The strong emphasis on emotionalism in Pentecostal churches reflects the general unconcern for intellectual foundations of their beliefs.

Criticism of the recent manifestation of glossolalia comes from many sources. Episcopal Bishop James A. Pike labeled the excesses of glossolalia as "heresy in embryo" which "in its more extreme forms... is associated with schizophrenia." The editorial opinion of Dialog, a Lutheran publication, is that this gift has no place in

the church and that "it is a virtual denial of incarnational theology." Frank Farrell, Assistant Editor of Christianity Today, after a lengthy analysis of the problem, concludes that most informed evangelicals believe that "God is working in and through this movement but are questioning how close it may be to the biblical ideal." Perhaps the most decisive criticism against the movement is that it lacks any theological direction. So far no adequate theological explanation has been given for the unexpected revival of glossolalia. Many of those who have experienced the speaking in tongues are, by their own admission, spiritual backsliders who suddenly received the "fullness of the Spirit." Whether another fad or a genuine religious experience, speaking in tongues, as St. Paul was aware, can be dangerous. Almost unheard of since the early days of the Church glossolalia lends itself to abuse. Glossolalia may well, however superficially sincere, represent a psychopathological manifestation reminiscent of the Ouija board madness of the 1920's and the convulsionnaires of the cemetery of Saint Médard in Paris, two centuries earlier. If it is indeed from God then ultimately the marks of authenticity will be present and discernible.

AUTRES, TEMPS, AUTRES MOEURS

No one is at all surprised at the clergy using all forms of public transportation. The American priest puts in much mileage on busses, trains, and planes, without feeling that this is an obstacle to his spiritual advancement. In the last century, however, Abbé Dubois, Rector of the Seminary at Coutances, France, wrote soberly against the prevalent dangers of clerical travel. The Tablet (London) some years ago described the Abbé's views. Whenever a priest travels, the Abbé wrote, his spirituality suffers. Seeing so many people, changes of scenery, and often less than edifying sights, the priest is in a dangerous position. Travel, then, should be avoided, but if it is necessary, let the priest come prepared for the journey. Abbé Dubois advises him to carry openly his breviary, the New Testament, the Imitation of Christ, a volume of Church history, and a book on theology. Armed with these works, the priest should earnestly set about reading them. Several holy pictures should be used for bookmarks, since they serve to edify fellow travellers and, if the occasion arises, can be given away. Abbé Dubois has one further piece of advice. The priest should