The Charismatic Movement

[Lapey]

No one said it will happen the first time. Indeed sometimes the pressure of having too man people with you will produce the opposite effect. I think I tried twice with my Youth Group a few years ago, both attempts failed. No one should be pressured into it.

I already replied to this objection earlier. They’re not the same “tongues.”

Yeah but very few Pentecostal churches actually say that only “true Christians” speak in tongues, or that it is necessary for salvation. Most of these are part of the Oneness groups.

Mainstream Pentecostals do not state that, nor even require you to practice it “often.” It is simply recognized as a gift that God freely bestowed to us. They do not place any more emphasis on the charismatic gifts than salvation, baptism, or other concepts. Perhaps a very tiny number do, but 99% of the time, it is imagined by those who generally don’t have much experience with Pentecostal groups. I’ve been to Assemblies of God churches where I haven’t heard tongues at all, either prayed silently nor publicly exhorted.

You can characterize my opinions, which is what they are, how ever you wish. But I produced my personal experiences and that of others in and outside of my own Catholic Church. So to say the “99%” of the time it is imagined is a generalization you cannot back up in respect to my comments. I don’t want to be confrontational, but don’t twist what I said.

My comments were not on the particular “types” of tongues, simply the use or misuse of these gifts. I agree with you there are different “types”, I hate that term because it doesn’t describe what I am referring to.

It doesn’t matter if there are very few, if there is one church misusing these gifts of God, then it’s one too many; including the Catholic Church or it’s members.

I didn’t say this fly by night church was Pentecostal, I said I didn’t know. I just know what they do there and the damage they do to faithful Christians because of it. I know this because I help pick up the pieces of what is left when they dry up and move on, and they will. Remember the branch separated from the vine will whither and die, and then be burned in the fire.

But you must understand and accept that only I can describe what I have experienced. I have never been part of anything Protestant, I am a cradle Catholic and have no reason to leave what I believe is the truth, the vine.

PS. What do you mean when you say “you tried twice with your youth group”? Do you mean you tried to make them speak in tongues, or use charismatic gifts? It appears that’s what you are talking about. If so I know why it failed. If I misinterpret your word I am sorry.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I shall just like to clarify that both beliefs are legitimate to hold, and neither are “disgusting.” There is no orthodox Pentecostal denomination out there that teaches that a person who does not speak in tongues is “less holy,” “less of a Christian,” or an “inferior Christian” than those who have not. It is simply held as another experience subsequent to salvation that all Christians should obtain.

I do not reject either more liturgical forms of worship or more modern low church services. I actually very much enjoyed the Catholic Mass the time I attended, as well as the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. That being said, a call for order is not necessarily the same as needing a more solemn form of worship. I’ve never heard of a Pentecostal church that allows total chaos in its services through tongues. Heck, I’ve once attended a friend’s Oneness Pentecostal church, who believe that tongues are even necessary for salvation, and I didn’t even hear tongues in that service. I think that worry is more imagined than actually real.

I am good with dialogue. However, I would say that it is a bit difficult to have any form of ecumenical progress when you do call yourself the “One True Church.” Whether I believe that assertion is beside the point, though it is a valid point to hold. I just don’t think there can be progress with that assumption in mind (I don’t know, it might be what you prefer - that the Catholic Church should try to convert, not have dialogue, which is also valid).

In discussions referencing Peter being given the keys, Catholics have provided detailed explanations, word by word, scriptures in view of scriptures according the times, and in as much context as possible; who, what, where, when and how something was spoken. In response we’ve seen ‘it was said in a future tense’, ‘Christ could have changed his eye contact or turned to another person’, and ‘they keys were given to a confession of faith’. These are speculative, at best. When we went further into the details, word by word, verse by verse, scriptures in light of scriptures as understood in those times, cultures, etc. etc. The responses are ‘I reject it’ or ‘I don’t believe it’, with no explanations, scriptures or any other resources to support their rejection or disbelief. It is rare to see someone honestly state, I can see how you arrive at this interpretation. The majority of those rejecting and not believing won’t even do this. This is an example of the dialogue that takes place here.

Then we’re told our views are ‘disgusting’.

Now, we’re converting and not entering into a dialogue?

We explain our beliefs to remove the misconceptions presented here by people, who prefer to tell us what we believe and that it’s only because the Church tells us to believe it.

We are defending our faith on a Catholic forum. We are not evangelizing. Evangelizing is going out with intent to convert. That is like going somewhere and telling someone their beliefs are wrong, possibly disgusting, rejected and disbelievable.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

You can characterize my opinions, which is what they are, how ever you wish. But I produced my personal experiences and that of others in and outside of my own Catholic Church. So to say the “99%” of the time it is imagined is a generalization you cannot back up in respect to my comments. I don’t want to be confrontational, but don’t twist what I said.

My comments were not on the particular “types” of tongues, simply the use or misuse of these gifts. I agree with you there are different “types”, I hate that term because it doesn’t describe what I am referring to.

It doesn’t matter if there are very few, if there is one church misusing these gifts of God, then it’s one too many; including the Catholic Church or it’s members.

I didn’t say this fly by night church was Pentecostal, I said I didn’t know. I just know what they do there and the damage they do to faithful Christians because of it. I know this because I help pick up the pieces of what is left when they dry up and move on, and they will. Remember the branch separated from the vine will whither and die, and then be burned in the fire.

But you must understand and accept that only I can describe what I have experienced. I have never been part of anything Protestant, I am a cradle Catholic and have no reason to leave what I believe is the truth, the vine.

I am not doubting what you saw, I am only clarifying some points.

PS. What do you mean when you say “you tried twice with your youth group”? Do you mean you tried to make them speak in tongues, or use charismatic gifts? It appears that’s what you are talking about. If so I know why it failed. If I misinterpret your word I am sorry.

No! It’s the reverse.
They tried to have me speak in tongues. I can’t speak in tongues. The first time they thought they were successful because they heard me praying in another language. I felt bad telling them that it was just Italian (as they know I am a native Italian speaker and generally feel more comfortable praying in Italian).

 

[FabiusMaximus]

In discussions referencing Peter being given the keys, Catholics have provided detailed explanations, word by word, scriptures in view of scriptures according the times, and in as much context as possible; who, what, where, when and how something was spoken. In response we’ve seen ‘it was said in a future tense’, ‘Christ could have changed his eye contact or turned to another person’, and ‘they keys were given to a confession of faith’. These are speculative, at best. When we went further into the details, word by word, verse by verse, scriptures in light of scriptures as understood in those times, cultures, etc. etc. The responses are ‘I reject it’ or ‘I don’t believe it’, with no explanations, scriptures or any other resources to support their rejection or disbelief. It is rare to see someone honestly state, I can see how you arrive at this interpretation. The majority of those rejecting and not believing won’t even do this. This is an example of the dialogue that takes place here.

Then we’re told our views are ‘disgusting’.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Catholic views are “disgusting” I just feel that some of them are doctrinally incorrect. Some probably do use that word though, yet wrongly.

Now, we’re converting and not entering into a dialogue?

We explain our beliefs to remove the misconceptions presented here by people, who prefer to tell us what we believe and that it’s only because the Church tells us to believe it.

We are defending our faith on a Catholic forum. We are not evangelizing. Evangelizing is going out with intent to convert. That is like going somewhere and telling someone their beliefs are wrong, possibly disgusting, rejected and disbelievable.

I think you misunderstood me.
I’m not saying you are out there trying to convert or that that is the purpose of the forum. I am merely saying that if the Catholic Church believes that it is infallible, then there is no purpose in trying to seek dialogue with other churches because it would be a waste of time. In that light, the Catholic Church should concentrate more on evangelizing rather than dialoguing.

 

[tweetymom]

I am not doubting what you saw, I am only clarifying some points.

No! It’s the reverse.
They tried to have me speak in tongues. I can’t speak in tongues. The first time they thought they were successful because they heard me praying in another language. I felt bad telling them that it was just Italian (as they know I am a native Italian speaker and generally feel more comfortable praying in Italian).

Number you can’t try to speak in tongues or not. So they were wrong in trying to get you to speak in tongues. It has to be something you either accept or not. I have seen people like that and they are so misguided. My firsy husband spoke in tongues something that he had been praying for and when it happened he was in bed praying and it happened, and what a glorious thing it was. I praise God for this happening.

 

[cheese_sdc]

I pray that “incapable” is incorrect.

I spent almost 6 years trying otherwise. Finally had to give it up. I could only conclude that either a) the Christian God as I was taught doesn’t exist or b) It was so mean and spiteful that I wasn’t really interested in pursing him (or she, or it).

But recognize that the hurt you experienced was due to an abused form of charismatic life, not the essence of it.

So you say. I say different.

[quoteYou’re here reading at CAF. Perhaps a portion of your soul knows God better than your conscious mind does. God is none of those things you mentioned.
[/quote]

I come back to remind myself why I left and rejoice that I’m gone.

Ask Him.

Or Her. Or It.

 

[tweetymom]

I spent almost 6 years trying otherwise. Finally had to give it up. I could only conclude that either a) the Christian God as I was taught doesn’t exist or b) It was so mean and spiteful that I wasn’t really interested in pursing him (or she, or it).

So you say. I say different.

[quoteYou’re here reading at CAF. Perhaps a portion of your soul knows God better than your conscious mind does. God is none of those things you mentioned.

I come back to remind myself why I left and rejoice that I’m gone.

Or Her. Or It.
[/quote]

I will pray for you dear friend. God Bless.

 

[Lapey]

I am not doubting what you saw, I am only clarifying some points.

No! It’s the reverse.
They tried to have me speak in tongues. I can’t speak in tongues. The first time they thought they were successful because they heard me praying in another language. I felt bad telling them that it was just Italian (as they know I am a native Italian speaker and generally feel more comfortable praying in Italian).

I gotcha…thanks for the clarification. that’s kind of how I was that night I spoke of. I prayed a little in “broken” Cajun French which is the local dialect in South Louisiana where I live and they thought they were succesful. but , no sorry it was just me being me.

Was kind of funny though.

I’m glad you explained your comments, I took them in a different context, sorry.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I gotcha…thanks for the clarification. that’s kind of how I was that night I spoke of. I prayed a little in “broken” Cajun French which is the local dialect in South Louisiana where I live and they thought they were succesful. but , no sorry it was just me being me.

Was kind of funny though.

I’m glad you explained your comments, I took them in a different context, sorry.

Worry not, it’s not a big deal.

 

[Reuben_J]

FabiusMaximus:

‘Disgusted’ would be a bit harsh, don’t you think? I don’t see what the big fury is against this teaching.

Perhaps it is a want for better word. I have engaged in Catholics who are truly disgusted with the Charismatics and that include Catholic Charismatics. I will not list it all for you the reasons why they are disgusted but some of the major objections include – Catholic Charismatics are influenced by Protestants; tongue and prophecy are mostly being faked; too much emphasis on tongue, external signs and gifts; and emotionalism. Thus for this matter, the objection includes the accusation that Catholic Charismatics are very non-Catholics in spirituality and thus diverting away from the true form of the Catholic Church.

Anyway, you can browse those Charismatic threads here and you may meet some of them. I am not blaming you but the genuine Catholic Charismatics who get this flak from their fellow Catholics can you have guys to thank for. And you just mentioned one of them – that tongue being the physical evidence of infilling of the Holy Spirit (which is not true and not in our teaching).

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Prodigal Son1:

Did some reading last night, will re-read again today and hopefully respond sometimes today. Right now, preparing for a 24 hour shift and responding depends on how busy we are and how much I have to do at the station.

It certainly appears edification of the Church is spelled out, but last night I did read where it said let it be one or two and then with an interpreter. If there was no interpreter, it seems it was recommended to be a ‘quiet’ prayer between the man and God.

Hi. Take your time or maybe if this subject is not for this thread, then you can set it aside for other thread…

There are a few verses that I know that speak about the types of tongue and what each is used for. Some of these verses have been mentioned but maybe I just note them here again.

(a) Acts 2:4-6

(b) Rom 8:26; 1 Cor 14:2; 1 Cor 14:4

(c) 1 Cor 12:10; 1 Cor 14:27

God bless.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Perhaps it is a want for better word. I have engaged in Catholics who are truly disgusted with the Charismatics and that include Catholic Charismatics. I will not list it all for you the reasons why they are disgusted but some of the major objections include – Catholic Charismatics are influenced by Protestants; tongue and prophecy are mostly being faked; too much emphasis on tongue, external signs and gifts; and emotionalism. Thus for this matter, the objection includes the accusation that Catholic Charismatics are very non-Catholics in spirituality and thus diverting away from the true form of the Catholic Church.

Anyway, you can browse those Charismatic threads here and you may meet some of them. I am not blaming you but the genuine Catholic Charismatics who get this flak from their fellow Catholics can you have guys to thank for. And you just mentioned one of them – that tongue being the physical evidence of infilling of the Holy Spirit (which is not true and not in our teaching).

God bless.

If people choose to be mean and nasty, the responsibility falls only on them.

Anyway, though, I always understood that Catholic Charismatics also believed that tongues are the physical evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Do they just believe that the sacrament of confirmation is it and that’s all?

 

[Reuben_J]

If people choose to be mean and nasty, the responsibility falls only on them.

Anyway, though, I always understood that Catholic Charismatics also believed that tongues are the physical evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Do they just believe that the sacrament of confirmation is it and that’s all?

Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a Sacrament. As I said, the term is used to mean infilling or empowering of the Holy Spirit. That’s adding to part of the problem - using term that can easily be misunderstood.

In parishes where the CCRenewal is rather strong, candidates for Confirmation would be given a series of talk that would include or eventually end with the ‘Baptism of the Holy Spirit’.

Traditionally, yes, the Sacrament of Confirmation does it. But we also experience the reality among Catholics of ‘faith not lived’ despite being confirmed. The CCR is surely a grace of God and it has done it part in its own way to help people to be refreshed in their faith and living it out in their life. I always emphasize the latter, because if faith is not lived out, it is a dead faith.

Tongue is only one of the signs of being infilled with the Holy Spirit. Not everyone will get it and it does not mean they do not have the Holy Spirit. There are many in the CCR who do not have tongue at all (I suppose that means praying or singing in tongue) let alone the gift of speaking in tongue. The thrust of the CCR is renewal but charismatic gifts get prime time and members inadvertently seem to focus on them. But today things have been more focused and more reasonable.

FYI, most Charismatic Prayer Groups or Covenant Communities would appoint spiritual directors, usually in the person of clergies, either priests or Bishops, to oversee their spirituality and to prevent abuse and error in spirituality.

God bless.

 

[manualman]

I spent almost 6 years trying otherwise. Finally had to give it up. I could only conclude that either a) the Christian God as I was taught doesn’t exist or b) It was so mean and spiteful that I wasn’t really interested in pursing him (or she, or it).
…

Well since you seem to have placed the meaning of life in cheese can you at least explain why a good parmesan is so expensive?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a Sacrament. As I said, the term is used to mean infilling or empowering of the Holy Spirit. That’s adding to part of the problem - using term that can easily be misunderstood.

In parishes where the CCRenewal is rather strong, candidates for Confirmation would be given a series of talk that would include or eventually end with the ‘Baptism of the Holy Spirit’.

Traditionally, yes, the Sacrament of Confirmation does it. But we also experience the reality among Catholics of ‘faith not lived’ despite being confirmed. The CCR is surely a grace of God and it has done it part in its own way to help people to be refreshed in their faith and living it out in their life. I always emphasize the latter, because if faith is not lived out, it is a dead faith.

Tongue is only one of the signs of being infilled with the Holy Spirit. Not everyone will get it and it does not mean they do not have the Holy Spirit. There are many in the CCR who do not have tongue at all (I suppose that means praying or singing in tongue) let alone the gift of speaking in tongue. The thrust of the CCR is renewal but charismatic gifts get prime time and members inadvertently seem to focus on them. But today things have been more focused and more reasonable.

FYI, most Charismatic Prayer Groups or Covenant Communities would appoint spiritual directors, usually in the person of clergies, either priests or Bishops, to oversee their spirituality and to prevent abuse and error in spirituality.

God bless.

Well Baptism of the Holy Spirit is hardly an ordinance in the Assemblies of God, I rather doubt it would end up becoming a sacrament. It is an experience, not a rite or a ritual. It should never be considered either an ordinance nor a sacrament.

Do you think that Pentecostals abuse it? Pentecostal use of the gifts is also generally limited to worship services where a pastor is present and can also oversee to prevent abuse. It’s not like we just go all crazy and bring chaos. I still don’t understand why people believe this.

Additionally, neither in a Pentecostal service do most or even a majority of people use tongues or even manifest any of the gifts, and also, have experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Do people just think that we speak in tongues the whole service and do nothing else? Honestly, where is this obsessive emphasis people seem to assume Pentecostals have with tongues? Because we believe it is a physical sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi. Take your time or maybe if this subject is not for this thread, then you can set it aside for other thread…

There are a few verses that I know that speak about the types of tongue and what each is used for. Some of these verses have been mentioned but maybe I just note them here again.

(a) Acts 2:4-6

(b) Rom 8:26; 1 Cor 14:2; 1 Cor 14:4

(c) 1 Cor 12:10; 1 Cor 14:27

God bless.

Hey Reuben,

I just got off a 24 hour shift this morning and start a 48 hour shift tomorrow. I have been reading on it and will get back, I promise. Thanks for providing the chapter and verses for me to make sure I don’t miss any.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well Baptism of the Holy Spirit is hardly an ordinance in the Assemblies of God, I rather doubt it would end up becoming a sacrament. It is an experience, not a rite or a ritual. It should never be considered either an ordinance nor a sacrament.

Do you think that Pentecostals abuse it? Pentecostal use of the gifts is also generally limited to worship services where a pastor is present and can also oversee to prevent abuse. It’s not like we just go all crazy and bring chaos. I still don’t understand why people believe this.

Additionally, neither in a Pentecostal service do most or even a majority of people use tongues or even manifest any of the gifts, and also, have experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t know much about Protestantism. I haven’t been to any of their services and so cannot say first hand what they are actually like. Even if I did, I would not know for sure whether it is a representative of them all. However, there are many ex-Protestants here who have posted their experiences as Protestants.

I am a professional working in a secular job for livelihood. I do not take the career seriously, I mean, as long as I am satisfied enough and can provide for the family. I do quite a lot of church’s work, locally and sometimes abroad, like attending meetings and conferences. So my secular work is mainly to keep me surviving.

I have many Protestant friends in real life who are mainly colleagues. We meet about twice a month ecumenically mainly for prayers, testimonies and Bible sharing. With my busy schedule I would find time to go for this, if anything else it is just to maintain the friendship. This group is multi-denoms and we have an unwritten understanding not to promote anyone’s religion. So even from this I also hardly know much about Protestantism.

But from the feedback that I heard which is mainly from my fellow Catholics is that Protestant Charismatics are far from what you say here. There are of course some questionable phenomena like the holy laughter, rupture, etc, which you said were rejected.

Then we have Benny Hinn. I saw his tape many years back which was shown to me by a brother. I was very impressed at first but before long I know that there was something wrong with him and what happened during his session. I was proven true when the real Benny Hinn was found out.

So, if most of your Charismatic leaders fall and made mistake, it is really very hard to be convinced that they were continuously led by the Spirit. No, I am not saying that leaders don’t fall. I am saying that if you base your practice on what they are doing as true and then later in their lives they fall, it surely does not make good testimonies.

I can take it with a grain of salt with people who reject Charismatic gifts outright because mainly the reason is out of ignorance. Charismatics who wrongly exercise these gifts don’t help in turning around their (the skeptics) opinion either.

I think the key to Charismatic gifts is to have at least a reasonable knowledge about it, about how they work and correct disposition towards them. I thought you made a generalized statement when you said that tongue is physical evidence of the Holy Spirit (paraphrase) and I shot you down on that. I meant to make it as example of the misconception and not to attack you personally.

Do people just think that we speak in tongues the whole service and do nothing else?

The way people talk about it, yes, as if that’s all that you do. Lol.

Most importantly, the idea is, one mistake is far too many in the realm of spirituality and therefore many people cannot and do not want to readily accept them.

Honestly, where is this obsessive emphasis people seem to assume Pentecostals have with tongues? Because we believe it is a physical sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Yes, I think it is because you believe that it is a physical sign of the Holy Spirit. When you believe this, you will offend a lot of people, as if those who do not have tongue do not have the Holy Spirit.

In Catholicism we are more conservative and which I think is the correct position regarding this gift. Tongue is not the only criteria of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. In fact it is not that important – more important is the changes within (that a person experiences).

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hey Reuben,

I just got off a 24 hour shift this morning and start a 48 hour shift tomorrow. I have been reading on it and will get back, I promise. Thanks for providing the chapter and verses for me to make sure I don’t miss any.

Hi. I know how it’s like - we all work for a living. Fortunately (or unfortunately?) I don’t do shift and my hours though pretty regular is not that strict - I mean, I can more or less plan them. It is easier to go for short leave anytime I want to.

take care and God bless you.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Well since you seem to have placed the meaning of life in cheese can you at least explain why a good parmesan is so expensive?

You hit very close to the mark, actually. I say “Cheesian” I am not Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Zen, Taoist, Pagan, Wiccan, Animist, or Muslem.

I am me. And trying to be more authentically me. In the end, that’s all I can be.

 

[Holly3278]

I am a charismatic Catholic. I love the movement. I am not very active within it though as the nearest charismatic Catholic prayer group is rather far from here.