How do Pentecostals and Catholics differ?

[ltwin]

This is copied from your post:
“Assuming we do so, this has some rather important implications to us.
(1) Whatever the theological differences exist between us, they are not on a level to stop God from moving in the Catholic church. Put another way, while y’all might still be “wrong” on certain issues, you can not be “that wrong” (and who is to say that we are not “wrong” either).
(2) While we may not endorse certain Catholic practices, these also can not be wrong to stop God from moving in the Catholic church. Put another way, while we still may not be particular fans of praying to saints, the practice can not be that bad such that God can’t move in the Catholic church. So in other words it is not witchcraft and idolatry (as I have heard it said). And again who is to say that some of our practices are not “wrong” either.”

I used the phrase “invalid expression” you said “wrong practices”, they mean the same thing.

You approached your post from the position that you, as an ASG member, are correct or at least mostly correct and the Catholic Church is wrong or at least mostly wrong. My response was to say just that the CC has the tradition and the authority from Jesus through the Apostles to be the standard of Christian expression or the Church to be in agreement with.

I think you misunderstand the poster. Maybe I can give some background and context.

Before the Charismatic Renewal began in Catholic Church and other traditional Christian communions, the Assemblies of God had aligned itself with Evangelicalism. As part of this alignment, it had wedded its theological understanding of the fullness of the Spirit to a theological and cultural context of baptistic evangelical theology and, by the 1950s, had emphasized certain doctrines and practices as requisite for Spirit baptism. Charismatics challenged these views by claiming to receive Holy Spirit baptism outside of this context (such as remaining in liturgical churches, failing to reject sacramental theologies, and not adopting Pentecostal taboos on dancing, drinking, smoking, etc.).

Therefore, the Charismatic Renewal challenged Pentecostals on what it meant to be Pentecostal. No longer could these historic churches be simply dismissed as “spiritually dead” because in fact the Holy Spirit was moving in those churches.

In short, Pentecostals had a Peter moment. It was humbling and a wake up call. We were forced to recognize that the Holy Spirit was not limited to our “Pentecostal” context and that indeed the wind of the Spirit does blow where it will. If God’s power was present in these churches than who are we to judge them as spiritually dead.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I think you misunderstand the poster. Maybe I can give some background and context.

Before the Charismatic Renewal began in Catholic Church and other traditional Christian communions, the Assemblies of God had aligned itself with Evangelicalism. As part of this alignment, it had wedded its theological understanding of the fullness of the Spirit to a theological and cultural context of baptistic evangelical theology and, by the 1950s, had emphasized certain doctrines and practices as requisite for Spirit baptism. Charismatics challenged these views by claiming to receive Holy Spirit baptism outside of this context (such as remaining in liturgical churches, failing to reject sacramental theologies, and not adopting Pentecostal taboos on dancing, drinking, smoking, etc.).

Therefore, the Charismatic Renewal challenged Pentecostals on what it meant to be Pentecostal. No longer could these historic churches be simply dismissed as “spiritually dead” because in fact the Holy Spirit was moving in those churches.

In short, Pentecostals had a Peter moment. It was humbling and a wake up call. We were forced to recognize that the Holy Spirit was not limited to our “Pentecostal” context and that indeed the wind of the Spirit does blow where it will. If God’s power was present in these churches than who are we to judge them as spiritually dead.

Thank you. You said it better than me.

 

[RTully]

The Catholic Church and the Protestant church differs by 1500 years, I really don’t need to say more.

Yes, actually you do. Why was this? How many had to be tortured, jailed and burned at the stake for not conforming to Catholic dogma before German Princes protected the Reformers? Lets not short shift history here. Untold numbers of people tried to break from the church for centuries and most were killed and jailed.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

John Adams

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, actually you do. Why was this? How many had to be tortured, jailed and burned at the stake for not conforming to Catholic dogma before German Princes protected the Reformers? Lets not short shift history here. Untold numbers of people tried to break from the church for centuries and most were killed and jailed.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

John Adams

RTully,

You’ve got quite a mudslinging trend going here.

Origin of the Catholic Church thread:

Lets be honest. Alot of groups tried to branch off and disagreed with the Catholic Church for centuries. They were jailed, burned or tortured by the Empire and the church {Inquisition, Haus et all} . It wasn’t until the German Princes offered protection to the Protestants {Luther} until they were actually able to break away.

Origin of the Baptist Church thread:

. . . .If Catholics have even more truth due to the history of the church that’s great for them but it is not needed for salvation. It shouldn’t be hard for Catholics to see why non Catholics have their doubts about this when you look at things like the Inqusition, Crusades, hus, Galileo, Constantine’s pagan beliefs and on and on and on. . . .

What does ‘Church no, Jesus yes’ mean? thread:

. . . .However history proves the “infailible” Church, not the Bible started the Crusades, an attempt to occupy the holy lands that was a losing effort and cost millions of lives. Do Roman Catholics believe they should still invade the holy lands or did God change his mind? Or the fact that the Catholic Church damned all to hell {or at least denied salvation} those who were not Roman Catholic until the last 75 years or so. Has God changed his mind on this also? Or the fact both Catholic and Protestant churches burned “witches” and “heretics” at the stake. These historical facts prove the church is and can be corrupted. I don’t believe there is historical proof the New Testement was corrupted.

What does ‘Church no, Jesus yes’ mean? thread:

. . . .It wasn’t until the Church started getting massive political power that it became corrupted. If it means anything to you I do not believe the current Roman Catholic Church is corrupt. It’s just hard to look at history and claim the Roman Catholic Church and Pope of past centuries were not corrupt.

I mean seriously, selling indulgences, starting holy wars for occupation of lands, Popes claiming non Catholics can not be saved. These are historical events that Catholics have to defend if they still want to claim infailability.

What does ‘Church no, Jesus yes’ mean? thread:

You can google/wikipedia all you want on Indulgence sales and the Crusades from that period, the info is readily available. I have trouble agreeing that the Pope doesn’t use “infailability” on such topics as Salvation and War though. To me that’s a copout when things that were clearly bad that has been done by the Pope/Church on such issues to say “he wasn’t using infailability in that case”. Why would he not use it on the most important issues?. . . .

You somehow manage to bring up the same issues, even when the issues are not in any way related to the threads on which you post them.

Anna

 

[RTully]

RTully,

You somehow manage to bring up the same issues, even when the issues are not in any way related to the threads on which you post them.

Because they are always relevent and when someone in the thread says something like “there were only Catholics for 1500 years” I need to correct their misunderstanding. I always simply respond to what someone else has already written.

Roman Catholics of course believe they have authority over Christianity due to Matthew 16:13-19. In that verse it says ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’. It’s the backbone to nearly all their arguments. In my opinion, it’s clear when you look at the Inquisition, the Crusdades, cover up of child molestation, burning people at the stake, selling indulgences and many many other things that the Gates have clearly prevailed at least at certain points of history. So it seems clear the real meaning of the verse is the faith in Christ Peter acknowledged is the rock that the gates of hell will not prevail against.

Anyway, this is my last post on this site. I’ve realized Catholics will never submit their percieved authority and non Catholics that know the history will not believe they are the one true church so there isn’t any reason to continue discussions other than my interactions in my day to day life.

Take care

 

[guanophore]

Roman Catholics of course believe they have authority over Christianity due to Matthew 16:13-19. In that verse it says ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’. It’s the backbone to nearly all their arguments.

You misunderstand, RTully. First of all, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. There are 23 Rites of Catholics all in communion with the successor of Peter in Rome. Only one Catholic Rite is Latin (Roman). It happens to be the most common in Eastern Europe and America, so many do not realize there are others.

Secondly, the Church does not draw authority from the Scriptures, since the authority Jesus gave to the Church predates the Scriptures. What we see in Matt. 16, and all other Scriptures, is a reflection of what the Church believes not the Source. Jesus is the Source of authority in the Church. The Church He empowered and authorized produced the Bible.

In my opinion, it’s clear when you look at the Inquisition, the Crusdades, cover up of child molestation, burning people at the stake, selling indulgences and many many other things that the Gates have clearly prevailed at least at certain points of history.

It seems this way to you because 1) You have a deficient understanding of the nature of the Church and 2) You don’t seem to understand the Gift of Infallibility.

So it seems clear the real meaning of the verse is the faith in Christ Peter acknowledged is the rock that the gates of hell will not prevail against.

Peter cannot be separated from his confession of faith. The promise was made to the Church, which is made up of faith filled people. The teaching of error is what causes persons to pass through the gates of hell. In the examples of sins you give above, these persons have already passed through the Gates of Hell. Sin separates people from God, and therefore, from the Church. The Church is the pure and Holy Bride of Christ, and cannot be sullied, even by the sins of her fallible members. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. IT is the Divine elements of the Church that make her infallible, not the human.

Anyway, this is my last post on this site. I’ve realized Catholics will never submit their percieved authority and non Catholics that know the history will not believe they are the one true church so there isn’t any reason to continue discussions other than my interactions in my day to day life.

Take care

You have certainly highlighted some of the misperceptions that continue to cause wounds to the unity of His One Body, the Church. You are right, a properly catechized Catholic will never abandon the authority that Jesus gave to the Church.

 

[ltwin]

Perhaps we can get back on topic. Pentecostals are adamant about the reality of divine healing. What is the Catholic Church’s belief regarding healing?

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps we can get back on topic. Pentecostals are adamant about the reality of divine healing. What is the Catholic Church’s belief regarding healing?

Divine Healing is one of the doctrines of the faith infallibly preserved in the Catholic Church that has been retained by our Pentecostal brethren.

 

[ltwin]

Divine Healing is one of the doctrines of the faith infallibly preserved in the Catholic Church that has been retained by our Pentecostal brethren.

Ok. In Pentecostal churches, if someone is sick then they come before the church and the elders pray for them and may apply anointing oil on their forehead. Is there a similar practice in the Catholic Church? Also, don’t Catholics believe healing can result from the intercession of the Saints and Mary?

 

[guanophore]

Ok. In Pentecostal churches, if someone is sick then they come before the church and the elders pray for them and may apply anointing oil on their forehead. Is there a similar practice in the Catholic Church? Also, don’t Catholics believe healing can result from the intercession of the Saints and Mary?

This is a Catholic practice that has been retained.

Yes, we believe that members of the Body of Christ are still alive and well when they are united to Christ after leaving this live.

 

[ltwin]

This is a Catholic practice that has been retained.

Yes, we believe that members of the Body of Christ are still alive and well when they are united to Christ after leaving this live.

But how do saints relate to prayer for healing if at all?

 

[guanophore]

But how do saints relate to prayer for healing if at all?

Just the way you described, except that they don’t use any oil. We approach them as elders, and ask them to pray for the sick.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .You somehow manage to bring up the same issues, even when the issues are not in any way related to the threads on which you post them.

Because they are always relevent and when someone in the thread says something like “there were only Catholics for 1500 years” I need to correct their misunderstanding. I always simply respond to what someone else has already written.

graceandfaith,

The Catholic Church and the Protestant church differs by 1500 years. . .

Actually, ufamtobie posted this statement: “The Catholic Church and the Protestant church differs by 1500 years.” This is true. There were no Protestants prior to the 16th Century, unless you can provide a credible source that says otherwise. It is very clear that ufamtobie was not opening up a debate about history; but providing information to the OP about the differences between Catholicism and the Pentecostal faith.

So, bringing the Inquisition, the Crusdades, child molestation, burning people at the stake, and selling indulgences into the discussion serves no good purpose on this thread; and is not an answer to the OP’s question. It’s not even an answer to the age of Protestantism.

A Reminder of the Original Post and premise of this thread (blue emphasis is mine):

I was raised Pentecostal and I start RCIA this September. I had many good friends in high school who were Catholic. Through the years I have thought about all the good examples and good Catholics I had in my life growing up. I started over the past few years really doing some soul searching-trying to get beyong the flakey-ness and falsehoods. Can anyone just give me advice on what to expect with RCIA and the main differences on the beliefs of Pentecostals and Catholics? . .

graceandfaith, is asking what to expect with RCIA and the main differences in the beliefs of Pentecostals and Catholics.

Forum members are listing and contrasting Pentecostal and Catholic beliefs in response to the Original Post by graceandfaith.

Anyway, this is my last post on this site. I’ve realized Catholics will never submit their percieved authority and non Catholics that know the history will not believe they are the one true church so there isn’t any reason to continue discussions other than my interactions in my day to day life.

RTully,

The sad thing is that you are leaving without actually engaging in serious discussion about Catholic doctrines or doctrines of other faiths. You’ve spent most of your time making disparaging remarks about Catholic history. The Crusades, Inquisition, etc. are not relevant to most of the threads on which you have posted.

Also, I disagree that there is no reason to continue discussions with Catholics, because of a disagreement over their claim as the one true Church.

I am an Anglican. Catholics do not believe our Priests have valid orders/Apostolic Succession, etc. Baptism is probably the only one of our 7 Sacraments recognized as valid by Catholic Church. As an Anglican, I disagree with Catholic claims regarding Peter and the Keys–as do Orthodox Christians.

However, through many rich, and sometimes very passionate discussions on these forums; I have come to a better understanding of Catholic doctrine and why they claim to be the one true Church. As an Anglican Catholic in the Anglican Communion; I share many Catholic beliefs. Catholics have helped me with so many issues over the last two years. CAF has been a lifeline, when I needed it most.

RTully, I hope you will stay and actually engage in a discussion, without the insults and disparaging remarks–which are against forum rules, btw.

We can all benefit from respectful dialogue; and hopefully move closer to the unity of all Christians.

Whatever decision you make, I wish you peace on your journey; and I pray you will find God’s truth.

Anna

 

[Irish_Polock]

This is a Catholic practice that has been retained.

I am not sure how they could retain any validity in their Unction without a ordained priest. To imply that they have is quite an understatement, and dishonest. The sacrament of Extreme Unction - and the traditions that accompany it - differ greatly then what that poster has described.

999 In addition to a bishop, the following can bless the oil to be used in the anointing of the sick:

1/ those equivalent to a diocesan bishop by law;

2/ any presbyter in a case of necessity, but only in the actual celebration of the sacrament.

1000 §1. The anointings with the words, order, and manner prescribed in the liturgical books are to be performed carefully. In a case of necessity, however, a single anointing on the forehead or even on some other part of the body is sufficient, while the entire formula is said.

§2. The minister is to perform the anointings with his own hand, unless a grave reason warrants the use of an instrument.

1001 Pastors of souls and those close to the sick are to take care that the sick are consoled by this sacrament at the appropriate time.

1002 The communal celebration of the anointing of the sick for many of the sick at once, who have been suitably prepared and are properly disposed, can be performed according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop.

1003 §1.** Every priest and a priest alone validly administers the anointing of the sick.**

§2. All priests to whom the care of souls has been entrusted have the duty and right of administering the anointing of the sick for the faithful entrusted to their pastoral office. For a reasonable cause, any other priest can administer this sacrament with at least the presumed consent of the priest mentioned above.

§3. Any priest is permitted to carry blessed oil with him so that he is able to administer the sacrament of the anointing of the sick in a case of necessity. (Code of Canon Law 999 - 1003)

 

[guanophore]

I am not sure how they could retain any validity in their Unction without a ordained priest.

I made no such claim. I stated that it is a practice that has been retained. The faith upon which it was retained is the same as ours. We believe that divine healing is possible and accessible through prayer.

To imply that they have is quite an understatement, and dishonest. The sacrament of Extreme Unction - and the traditions that accompany it - differ greatly then what that poster has described.

One rarely finds any doctrine or practices in Protestantism that have not drifted from their original source (the Catholic Church).

Pentecostals believe in the annointing with oil and the prayer of the elders because of what they read in their Catholic book.

 

[Irish_Polock]

I made no such claim. I stated that it is a practice that has been retained. The faith upon which it was retained is the same as ours. We believe that divine healing is possible and accessible through prayer.

Through prayer of a validly ordained priest, and a priest alone. Correct? Using validly blessed oils that have been blessed by the local bishop, or pastor when necessary. Correct? Using words within a certain formula carefully. Not to mention the traditions that accompany this Rite. I don’t see the comparison in the two, other then they use an nondescript and invalid oil of some kind.

One rarely finds any doctrine or practices in Protestantism that have not drifted from their original source (the Catholic Church).

Pentecostals believe in the annointing with oil and the prayer of the elders because of what they read in their Catholic book.

So why not explain to them that they are in error, and how so, and that their elders anoint and pray in vain? It seems like you are being a wee bit to ecumenical. Fraternal correction is often an act of charity.

 

[AmateurPianist]

So why not explain to them that they are in error, and how so, and that their elders anoint and pray in vain? It seems like you are being a wee bit to ecumenical. Fraternal correction is often an act of charity.

Oh really.

So when our elders anoint and pray and people are healed it is in vain. That makes no sense.

It seems like you are being a wee bit to ecumenical.

Well then your popes are too ecumenical then.

Catholics and Assembly of God worked together on the document Evangelicals and Catholics Together.. Was this document “too ecumencal”.

Show me one current official Catholic document that addresses divine healing in the current Pentecostal/Charismatic movements and says it is “invalid” and I will believe you.

Otherwise I will assume you are just a dissident Catholic and will ignore you.

Folks like you who are a major turn off here.

I see I need to go back to hibernation.

 

[guanophore]

Through prayer of a validly ordained priest, and a priest alone. Correct?

The Church is bound by the Sacrament, but the HS is not. The HS can, and does heal through the prayers of those who are not part of the Apostolic Succession.

Using validly blessed oils that have been blessed by the local bishop, or pastor when necessary. Correct? Using words within a certain formula carefully. Not to mention the traditions that accompany this Rite. I don’t see the comparison in the two, other then they use an nondescript and invalid oil of some kind.

He is not describing the Sacrament, as you are. They don’t use any of these elemtents. Though they have retained certain aspects of the faith, these are not among them. I don’t believe any “comparison” was being made. I never claimed that they were using valid forms, or matter.

The member asked if Catholics believe in Divine Healing, and in annointing with oil.

So why not explain to them that they are in error, and how so, and that their elders anoint and pray in vain?

They are doing the best they can with what they have. They have received a truncated version of the faith, and many of them follow it passionately, not even realizing what they are missing. Besides, no prayers are “in vain”. God can, and does, hear the prayers of those who are not Catholic, and who do not have valid forms and matter.

It seems like you are being a wee bit to ecumenical. Fraternal correction is often an act of charity.

Then you have provided the charity that you perceive I am lacking, thank you.

 

[guanophore]

Well then your popes are too ecumenical then.

Catholics and Assembly of God worked together on the document Evangelicals and Catholics Together.. Was this document “too ecumencal”.

Unfortunately there are some very rigid and bigoted Catholics who do believe that the Popes are in error, and that documents such as these are, indeed, much “too ecumenical”.

Show me one current official Catholic document that addresses divine healing in the current Pentecostal/Charismatic movements and says it is "invalid" and I will believe you.

Otherwise I will assume you are just a dissident Catholic and will ignore you.

There are no such documents, since the Bishops have affirmed the working of the Holy Spirit through the charisms. He has taken a dissident position.

Folks like you who are a major turn off here.

I see I need to go back to hibernation.

Well, please pray for them, that God will heal them, and open their hearts to their brethren in Christ. Do not allow yourself to be “turned off” by bigotry, but rather, return unity in the bond of peace. Satan loves to divide us over such things.

 

[jerry_joseph]

You do realize that the first Christian places of worship were homes? Furthermore, ecclesiastical architectural styles developed over time. There is no inherent reason why a Christian place of worship has to have a cross displayed in its exterior. However, in the USA many Pentecostal churches will display crosses prominently.

Beautiful buildings are nice and possess many benefits, but they are hardly needed to create a “christian atmosphere”. That is made when two or three are gathered in Christ’s name. There are Pentecostal churches in the USA which are aesthetically pleasing. There are others which are more pragmatic. The important thing for Pentecostals is not what the building looks like, because the building is not the church. The people are the church.

Another thing to consider is that, especially in less developed countries, Pentecostals tend to be on the lower end of the social order. It may not be so much that they dislike nice buildings as much as it is that they do not have the financial means to have them.

Church buildings are silent witness of Christian faith in an area. Icons and statues of Jesus and Saints have its own importance. Showing the statue or picture of a crucified Jesus is more good and fruitful than a hundred speeches about crucification. It silently conveys message of crucification and exists in the mind of believers.

Regarding display of crosses, All ancient churches (Orthodox and Roman Catholicism ) have the tradition of displaying crosses in churches.