Assemblies of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnakeMauler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tqualey,

Are you familiar with charismatic Catholic Masses where people may or may not speak in tongues and/or get slain in the Spirit?
 
charismatic Catholic Masses where people may or may not speak in tongues and/or get slain in the Spirit?
Click to expand...
Are these Masses served by Roman Catholic Priests - Latin Rite?
If not, I’d never go near one.
And probably won’t even if they are.
Something just isn’t quite right there…
 
catsrus said:
Are these Masses served by Roman Catholic Priests - Latin Rite?
If not, I’d never go near one.
And probably won’t even if they are.
Something just isn’t quite right there…
Click to expand...
Yes. I’m sorry you feel that way but the Charismatic movement in the Catholic church has been around at least since the 70’s when priests and Protestant ministers came together for a meeting where the Holy Spirit made himself very evident manifesting in various ways at the meeting. That was the beginning of the Charismatic movement in the Catholic church and was approved by the Holy See. As we see now, the various ways of worship among Catholics and Protestants. There is not just one way to worship.
 
originally posted by ladybri77
priests and Protestant ministers came together for a meeting where the Holy Spirit made himself very evident manifesting in various ways at the meeting
Click to expand...
So…it’s a meeting. Not a Mass.
The Holy Spirit makes Himself “very evident” every minute or every hour of every day in every way. As Catholics, we do not need to “meet” with protestants for Him to manifest Himself.
And approval by the Holy See does not mean obligatory so therefore, no; I, nor many others, will ever participate in something like this.
A Priest once told me, “be very careful what it is you open your mind to.”
 
catsrus said:
So…it’s a meeting. Not a Mass.
The Holy Spirit makes Himself “very evident” every minute or every hour of every day in every way. As Catholics, we do not need to “meet” with protestants for Him to manifest Himself.
And approval by the Holy See does not mean obligatory so therefore, no; I, nor many others, will ever participate in something like this.
A Priest once told me, “be very careful what it is you open your mind to.”
Click to expand...
I’m afraid you misunderstood what I was saying. I was explaining to you the origin of how the Charismatic movement started in the Catholic church. You can read about it through any Catholic source or on-line if you wish. It originated at a meeting between Catholics and Protestants. I do not know why they were meeting. They were not meeting so that the Holy Spirit would appear, that is just what happened.

There were and are Charismatic masses which take place. In my town we have what’s called a “healing Mass” in one of our churches. This is where after the Mass, which consists of praise and worship, people line up to be prayed over for healing of a particular issue, “laying on of hands”, which is scriptural, and are thus prayed over. This is a powerful way to pray for people as the Lord instructed his disciples to do in the New Testament. Also, speaking in tongues is scriptural as you can read in Acts when the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus’s disciples, and they spoke in tongues.

Charismatic Masses are not obligatory, I was just explaining to you the origin of such and that it is safe and very biblical and approved by the church. You could ask a priest to explain it to you better.
 
Hi, Ladybri,

Actually, I am not.

Can you tell me about them?

God bless
ladybri77 said:
tqualey,

Are you familiar with charismatic Catholic Masses where people may or may not speak in tongues and/or get slain in the Spirit?
Click to expand...
 
originally posted by ladybri77
Also, speaking in tongues is scriptural as you can read in Acts when the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus’s disciples, and they spoke in tongues.
Click to expand...
Tongues, as used in Acts, is obviously referring to the ability given to the Apostles to be able to speak in languages unfamilar to them. They had to be able to do so to be able to spread the good news of the Gospel. How could a group poor Galileans tell others about Jesus if they could not communicate? It’s common sense.
Had they been speaking unintelligently, the Gospel would have never left 1st century Jerusalem.
 
Hi, Catsrus,

Actually, this comes very close to my thinking, too! Then I did a bit of research … and while your position is not wrong, I would recommend you look at this EWTN site: ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm

Here is a paragraph that IMO captures the heart of the analysis:

The Church clearly wishes to follow a middle course, between a rationalistic skepticism and a blind credulity in alleged workings of the Holy Spirit. In the past the Church had condemned what it called Pentecostalism, understood as the total dependence, even theologically, on the presence and manifestation of charisms. Such a dependence is blind, for it fails to allow itself to be guided by the full content of the faith and the judgement of the Church’s teaching authority. It is total when such “gifts” displace the means of grace in the life of the Christian, such as the sacraments. On the other hand, the Church cannot condemn charisms, since they are part of the patrimony of our apostolic faith. What we have seen in our time is the appearance of the Charismatic Renewal, an apparent outpouring of the extraordinary charisms. This doesn’t mean that one has to be a charismatic, that charismatics are better Catholics, or that every alleged charism is authentic. Yet, as the Council noted, the Church must respect the workings of God, discerning the authentic from the inauthentic.

God bless
catsrus said:
Are these Masses served by Roman Catholic Priests - Latin Rite?
If not, I’d never go near one.
And probably won’t even if they are.
Something just isn’t quite right there…
Click to expand...
 
catsrus said:
So…it’s a meeting. Not a Mass.
The Holy Spirit makes Himself “very evident” every minute or every hour of every day in every way. As Catholics, we do not need to “meet” with protestants for Him to manifest Himself.
And approval by the Holy See does not mean obligatory so therefore, no; I, nor many others, will ever participate in something like this.
A Priest once told me, “be very careful what it is you open your mind to.”
Click to expand...
No, of course it’s not obligatory. All the same, were I Catholic, I’d probably not be dissing something blessed by the two most recent Popes (both of whom I admire and greatly respect, even though I’m not Catholic). 😉
 
Churches do vary, and AG is rather loosely organized. With that in mind, I’ve been a member of my AG congregation for a little over 3 years now, I attend at least 1 service every Sunday (about 95% attendance record), and I’ve never seen an altar call in it.
 
Hi, Izdaari,

That was very well said. 👍

On a personal note, I had never heard of Missional Anglicostal before - and when I searched for that name, I did not find it - but, did find some postings. Since you listed this as your “Religion” in the bio and then mentioned you attend an AG church… well, I am a bit confused…😃

So, Izadaari, what is a Missional Anglicostal?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless
Izdaari said:
No, of course it’s not obligatory. All the same, were I Catholic, I’d probably not be dissing something blessed by the two most recent Popes (both of whom I admire and greatly respect, even though I’m not Catholic). 😉
Click to expand...
 
tqualey said:
Hi, Izdaari,

That was very well said. 👍

On a personal note, I had never heard of Missional Anglicostal before - and when I searched for that name, I did not find it - but, did find some postings. Since you listed this as your “Religion” in the bio and then mentioned you attend an AG church… well, I am a bit confused…😃

So, Izadaari, what is a Missional Anglicostal?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless
Click to expand...
😃

Yes, I am a member of an AG church, one that happens to be rather “missional”. That’s not a denomination, but a descriptive adjective.

Here’s Scot McKnight’s explanation of it as recorded on someone’s blog: gavoweb.com/hit_the_back_button_to_mo/2008/04/scot-mcknight-m.html

And here’s an illustration of it:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

As for “Anglicostal”… well, that one I made up myself by jamming “Anglican” and “Pentecostal” together. That fits me, since I seem to be somewhere between the two. My current church is AG, mainstream within the Pentecostal group, and I’m very happy with it. However, mostly because of the strong influence on my faith of C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright, I will always think of myself as at least an honorary Anglican.
 
originally posted by **Izdaari **
All the same, were I Catholic, I’d probably not be dissing something blessed by the two most recent Popes (both of whom I admire and greatly respect, even though I’m not Catholic). 😉
Click to expand...
“dissing?”
Interesting choice of words.
And thanks for admiring Christ’s vicar on earth - even though you’re not Catholic.
I stand by my comments though. “Tongues” = Languages that can be understood by other humans.
 
catsrus said:
Tongues, as used in Acts, is obviously referring to the ability given to the Apostles to be able to speak in languages unfamilar to them. They had to be able to do so to be able to spread the good news of the Gospel. How could a group poor Galileans tell others about Jesus if they could not communicate? It’s common sense.
Had they been speaking unintelligently, the Gospel would have never left 1st century Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
I believe you misunderstand the meaning of tongues. Tongues is a gift and manifestation of the Holy Spirit within the true believer which when uttered can only be understood by God and used for edification of the believer or the congregation if the believer is speaking in tongues in the presence of others. The only way someone would be able to understand what they are saying is if they had the gift of interpretation of tongues which they could then interpret for the others in the congregation.

I hope this explanation is not confusing to you.

Blessings
 
Hi, Catsrus,

Here is a link that can give you some additional information…🙂 scripturecatholic.com/tongues.html

God bless
catsrus said:
Tongues, as used in Acts, is obviously referring to the ability given to the Apostles to be able to speak in languages unfamilar to them. They had to be able to do so to be able to spread the good news of the Gospel. How could a group poor Galileans tell others about Jesus if they could not communicate? It’s common sense.
Had they been speaking unintelligently, the Gospel would have never left 1st century Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t hang out with them much but I understand the essentials of their beliefs and practices, (after all, I was a deacon in an AoG for some time).

There are some, Southern and independent fundamentalist Baptists, and probably some others as well, who are pretty down on all of that. I was essentially dropped from any chance of entering the ministry as a Southern Baptist because I professed that I believed the gifts of the spirit were scripturally shown to be for today.😃

That said…speaking/praying in tongues (called glossolalia) is somewhat overrated IMO, and I don’t do it anymore, though I still find many of the other gifts of the Holy Spirit at work in my daily spiritual life. 🤷

One thing that tends to get somewhat shoved to the side is that the church and the scriptures both express both approval and caution with regard to this issue.

Just where do you think that the church will draw it’s guidance from as to the CCR? From non-Catholic theology? No…it will look to the scriptures for guidance and discipline. As well it should…

All the approval has done is allow and encourage the spiritual practice and devotion within the context of the orthodoxy of the Catholic faith. To go beyond that in either pro or con directions is unwise at best.

1 Corinthians 14 gives some pretty clear instructions on what not do and what to do during Mass. It’s my understanding that the church in Corinthian was doing what a lot of Pentecostals do today. Everyone was speaking in tongues. St. Paul clearly gets onto them for that.

23 **So if the whole church meets in one place and everyone speaks in tongues, and then uninstructed people or unbelievers should come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if everyone is prophesying, and an unbeliever or uninstructed person should come in, he will be convinced by everyone and judged by everyone,
25 and the secrets of his heart will be disclosed, and so he will fall down and worship God, declaring, “God is really in your midst.”
26 So what is to be done, brothers? When you assemble, one has a psalm, another an instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Everything should be done for building up.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let it be two or at most three, and each in turn, and one should interpret.
28 But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church **and speak to himself and to God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others discern.
30 But if a revelation is given to another person sitting there, the first one should be silent.
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.
32 Indeed, the spirits of prophets are under the prophets’ control,
33 since he is not the God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the holy ones

As an ex-deacon in an Assembly of God church I have to say that though I have prayed in tongues, prophesied in tongues and interpreted tongues, as well as discerning within me when it was not of the Holy Spirit I have no real interest in the Charismatic Catholic movement, for several reasons.

Mainly it is because of the kind of scriptural abuses that I have witnessed in my days in the AoG. One time I nearly had to turn around during Mass and tell a guy to be quiet during the consecration. :mad:

My biggest gripe is that the vast majority of Pentecostals/charismatics I have encountered try to act like the passage cited above doesn’t exist and speak out without interpretation. None of that is scriptural and none of it is obedient either to the Word of God or to the Church. That is plainly wrong.

If I was in a Mass where that was allowed to happen, I would stand up and walk out and dare anyone to say a word to me about it.

Tongues is grossly overrated my friends. Certainly it can and does exist, but only in certain contexts and always in obedience. If the people cannot be obedient to the Word of God, then what does that tell you as to its source?

I agree with St. Paul when he said "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. " (1st Corinthians 14:19).

The other thing that is a problem with this is their theology. I have talked to charismatic Catholics who say precisely the same things that Evangelicals do as to “accepting Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior”, which is nowhere found in scripture or in the historic teachings of the Church and is in fact an error that comes directly from non-Catholic preaching. And it’s wrong…

I no longer speak in tongues at all, though I enjoy praying in Latin sometimes. I no longer see any need for that in my life and in fact I feel a strong leading of the Holy Spirit away from that.

Are there some good and holy folks among the Charismatics? Yes, I know several. Do I go to their meetings and in any way give even the impression that I agree with charismatic/Pentecostalism? Not a chance.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
catsrus said:
“dissing?”
Interesting choice of words.
And thanks for admiring Christ’s vicar on earth - even though you’re not Catholic.
I stand by my comments though. “Tongues” = Languages that can be understood by other humans.
Click to expand...
You are correct partly. There are cases where the gift of speaking in tongues occurs where people of differing people group actually understand the language because it is there own or they have knowledge of it.
Examples:
  • the day of Pentecost
  • Assemblies of God missionaries in China. There was a case where early on in the movement people went to China with no knowledge of Chinese. On one occasion while speaking in tongues was manifested it actually resulted in the utterance of a dialect of classical Chinese that a Chinese man understood. This resulted in many conversions.
  • I have also heard of a charismatic, Catholic priest who spoke in tongues on the air and this was understood by a native american man (he was speaking his language). (I heard this on Relevant Radio).
  • There have been many other accounts of this kind of manifestation around the world and across denominations
There is another type of tongues that is completely unknown both to the speaker and those in the midst. This is why St. Paul encouraged people who had the gift of tongues to pray for the gift of interpretation and instructed that utterances of tongues given aloud in the gathering of assembly to be interpreted b/c they were of no use to anyone else since they could not understand it (it only edified the individual and not the whole congregation). This is also why Paul says he would rather speak one word in an intelligible language then a thousand words in a tongue. Also, he speaks of how the Spirit intercedes for us with groans to deep for us to understand. Likewise, he prays in the spirit, i.e. tongues, but also with his mind.
Scripture references
  • Mark 16:17
  • 1 Corinthians 13:1
  • 1 Corinthians 14:1-19
  • Romans 8:25-27
I highly encourage you to look up these Scriptures. If you don’t have a Bible at hand you can look it up at biblegateway.com. I hope this clears up some of the confusion.
 
Church_Militant said:
I don’t hang out with them much but I understand the essentials of their beliefs and practices, (after all, I was a deacon in an AoG for some time).

That said…speaking/praying in tongues (called glossolalia) is somewhat overrated IMO, and I don’t do it anymore, though I still find many of the other gifts of the Holy Spirit at work in my daily spiritual life. 🤷

One thing that tends to get somewhat shoved to the side is that the church and the scriptures both express both approval and caution with regard to this issue.

Just where do you think that the church will draw it’s guidance from as to the CCR? From non-Catholic theology? No…it will look to the scriptures for guidance and discipline. As well it should…

All the approval has done is allow and encourage the spiritual practice and devotion within the context of the orthodoxy of the Catholic faith. To go beyond that in either pro or con directions is unwise at best.

25 and the secrets of his heart will be disclosed, and so he will fall down and worship God, declaring, “God is really in your midst.”
Click to expand...
26 So what is to be done, brothers? When you assemble, one has a psalm, another an instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Everything should be done for building up.
27** If anyone speaks in a tongue, let it be two or at most three, and each in turn, and one should interpret.
28 But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church **and speak to himself and to God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others discern.
30 But if a revelation is given to another person sitting there, the first one should be silent.
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.
32 Indeed, the spirits of prophets are under the prophets’ control,
33 since he is not the God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the holy ones

As an ex-deacon in an Assembly of God church I have to say that though I have prayed in tongues, prophesied in tongues and interpreted tongues, as well as discerning within me when it was not of the Holy Spirit I have no real interest in the Charismatic Catholic movement, for several reasons.

Mainly it is because of the kind of scriptural abuses that I have witnessed in my days in the AoG. One time I nearly had to turn around during Mass and tell a guy to be quiet during the consecration. :mad:

My biggest gripe is that the vast majority of Pentecostals/charismatics I have encountered try to act like the passage cited above doesn’t exist and speak out without interpretation. None of that is scriptural and none of it is obedient either to the Word of God or to the Church. That is plainly wrong.

If I was in a Mass where that was allowed to happen, I would stand up and walk out and dare anyone to say a word to me about it.

Tongues is grossly overrated my friends. Certainly it can and does exist, but only in certain contexts and always in obedience. If the people cannot be obedient to the Word of God, then what does that tell you as to its source?

I agree with St. Paul when he said "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. " (1st Corinthians 14:19).

The other thing that is a problem with this is their theology. I have talked to charismatic Catholics who say precisely the same things that Evangelicals do as to “accepting Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior”, which is nowhere found in scripture or in the historic teachings of the Church and is in fact an error that comes directly from non-Catholic preaching. And it’s wrong…

I no longer speak in tongues at all, though I enjoy praying in Latin sometimes. I no longer see any need for that in my life and in fact I feel a strong leading of the Holy Spirit away from that.

Are there some good and holy folks among the Charismatics? Yes, I know several. Do I go to their meetings and in any way give even the impression that I agree with charismatic/Pentecostalism? Not a chance.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

You may not agree with charismatic Catholicism, but in fact, there is nothing wrong with it since what they do is scriptural except for those times as with evangelical churches, they all speak at once in tongues against what Paul describes, and it is certainly approved by the Holy See.

To have a personal relationship with one’s personal Lord and Savior is a great thing to have. It can mean different things to different people, but I believe one should have a personal relationship with God and accept Him into their hearts, meaning “knowing” Him and loving Him with all our hearts which is the first Commandment. I heard a recent Catholic teaching on this, that this is the goal, to invite Jesus into our hearts. Not simply “believe” in God as the demons do this’. Scripture?

We are supposed to have a relationship with God, i.e., being able to talk to Him as a friend, confide in Him, pray to Him, listen to Him, study His Word. That is what a good friend or relationship consists of talking and listening, being present, comforting, etc. If that is not a healthy relationship, I don’t know what is!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top