Article 24

[intheway]

XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.

What does one do with this verse?

1Cr 14:39 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr014.html#39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

[Naomi4Christ]

It means that we conduct our services in English (or whatever the prevailing language of the people is), rather than Latin.

Tongues have no place in public worship.

[DeoJuvante]

Not that that stops us from using Latin in the Mass (only for some of the Proper and only when we are using a Latin setting). We use more Latin than the local Romans.

[RadixLecti]

Not that that stops us from using Latin in the Mass (only for some of the Proper and only when we are using a Latin setting). We use more Latin than the local Romans.
I'm not familiar with this but I'm curious can you tell us more.

[erin74]

XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.

What does one do with this verse?

1Cr 14:39 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr014.html#39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
For someone to use tongues in a service there ought to be someone to interpret or they are to stay silent. So the language thing wouldn't be an issue.

This is actually about having services in a language the people don't understand, ie latin.

[DeoJuvante]

I'm not familiar with this but I'm curious can you tell us more.
Well, at my church the choir always sings the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, etc. Sometimes they use English settings and sometimes they use Latin settings. So that means that often the choir will sing the Gloria, the Sanctus and the Benedictus in Latin. People can still read the English in their prayer books, if they don't know it already. We have also had immigrant members of our community read the Scriptures in their native language, in which case the congregation was furnished with the translation. Actually, I was quite excited because I happen to be studying that language. :)

[higgs2]

Well, at my church the choir always sings the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, etc. Sometimes they use English settings and sometimes they use Latin settings. So that means that often the choir will sing the Gloria, the Sanctus and the Benedictus in Latin. People can still read the English in their prayer books, if they don't know it already. We have also had immigrant members of our community read the Scriptures in their native language, in which case the congregation was furnished with the translation. Actually, I was quite excited because I happen to be studying that language. :)

Although I'm sure it's very beautiful and I'm sure I would enjoy a service like that, I don't think I would like not particpating in those parts of the liturgy and just listening to the choir if it was on a regular basis.

[DeoJuvante]

Although I'm sure it's very beautiful and I'm sure I would enjoy a service like that, I don't think I would like not particpating in those parts of the liturgy and just listening to the choir if it was on a regular basis.
My church is a cathedral and in that context it works quite well, but I agree that it is probably not the best practice for a parish church.

[Colabomb]

XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.

What does one do with this verse?

1Cr 14:39 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr014.html#39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

The two have completely different contexts.

The Article was written in response to the Roman Catholic Church who at the time held their services ENTIRELY in Latin, all over the world with no exceptions. The People had NO CLUE what was going on and thus had no deeper understanding of the Service. At the time the word tongue meant language.

The Scriptural Passage was referring to a Gift of the Spirit, it has nothing to do with the order of worship.

[Polycarp1]

IMO, Colabomb said it most clearly.

In a congregation comfortable with the charismatic movement, prayer in tongues at an appropriate point is in conformity with the rubrics (in America; let's not forget that we're a communion of many national churches!).

Saepius, if I may venture a criticism of what is no doubt a beautiful act of choral worship, one of the key points where we have differed from Rome is that the Eucharist is in form a dialogue between priest, people, and God, rather than an act of intercession by priest before God for the silent congregation. (They're reformed their liturgy since, of course, but I'm talking historically.) And one of the key points of that is that there are three points in the Eucharistic Prayer/Canon of the Mass where the congregation adds its voice to the prayer led/offered by the priest: the initial Sursum Corda (which is a formalized dialogue in which the priest proposes and the people assent to his offering Mass at that time); the Sanctus, where priest and people add their voices to the heavenly choir and to all Christians across time and space in praise of God; and the final Amen, which I was once told that joining in is the one thing mandatory on anyone attending a Eucharist. No matter how beautiful a choral composition, substituting a choral Sanctus for one in which the people join is depriving them of an important part of their liturgical heritage and of the theological nature of the Eucharistic Prayer.

[Simon_Templar]

The articles was intended to adress the custom of holding services in latin when the people didn't understand latin. It was not intended to comment on the speaking of tongues (which was not really an issue).

However, the basic truth is still there according to Paul's comments on tongues. Tongues should not be spoken in a public service unless they are interpeted. The reason is that service is to edify the whole body and if the peolpe don't understand, it doesn't help them. Thus speaking in tongues is actually grouped into a similar concept as holding the service in a language that no one speaks.

Its pointless for the people because it doesn't edify them or teach them. Tongues can be spoken but they must be interpreted or they are useless. (in public of course, privately is another matter)