What Is Pentecostal Worship Like?

[ltwin]

Realized just now I never responded to these posts. Don’t want to seem rude.

And there are biblical reasons why Catholics do what we do my friend.

I’m sure there are.

Well my friend, that is the way early Christians worshiped because of their belief in transubstantiation.

I doubt the earliest Christians conceived of Holy Communion in terms of full blown transubstantiation even if we were to assume they believed in a corporeal presence.

It’s much more than just a communion service. It is at the heart of the Christian life. Without it, Christians can’t truly be fulfilled.

Not really sure what you’re trying to suggest here, but I will tell you what I believe as a Pentecostal.

True fulfillment comes from union with Christ. That is the essence of the Christian life. We are joined to Christ–participating in his life, death, and resurrection–by faith. All the spiritual blessings and graces of the Christian life are communicated to us by faith.

The spiritual nourishment and power for practical Christian life found in the sacrament we receive from Christ by faith. We share in the communion of the blood and body by faith . The healing of our minds and bodies received at the Lord’s Table we apprehend by faith. The forgiveness received is laid hold of by faith.

As a spiritual discipline (or a means of grace), the Lord’s Supper is an important part of the Christian life. I would not place its outward observance at the heart of the Christian life because there are other means of grace available to form and strengthen the Christian as he or she strives to follow Christ and deny self. I would say that faith, repentance, and obedience are at the heart of the Christian life. That is where fulfillment lies.

Pentecostal worship is nothing more than 19th and 20th century Protestant inventions.

Yes, Pentecostalism began as an organized movement in the 20th century, but there is continuity with earlier movements. And we would say we invented nothing but are simply trying to follow the teachings of Christ revealed in Holy Scripture as we understand them.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Debbie,

You have articulated quite clearly, the concerns I’ve seen about the charismatic movement from within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I share the same concerns and notice that even some of those at the highest levels allow these practices, while at the same time restricting the tried, true, authentic Patristic practices handed down through the ages. I really question why laymen and leaders so vocally opposed to renewing the Church’s authentic patrimony so openly allow for and even actively support a movement that has less than 60 year footing founded on a heterodox communities utterances and acts.

Thank you Syro. I agree with all you say here. I should have asked Father above: if this movement is genuine, regardless of its origin, why have those who experienced this not come home? If you are reading this Father, could you venture a guess?

 

[thephilosopher6]

I’m sure there are.

Indeed, there are. (Acts 20:7, Matthew 26:26-28, Luke 22:19-20, Mark 14:22-25, Acts 2:42-46, John 6:48-58, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

I doubt the earliest Christians conceived of Holy Communion in terms of full blown transubstantiation even if we were to assume they believed in a corporeal presence.

It is completely and 100% clear the earliest Christians believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the sense of transubstantiation. The Church Fathers are a great testimony to this.

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" - Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 105]).

*“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” - Justin Martyr (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" - Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" - Tertullian (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" -
Origen (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Also, we have the four great apostolic Churches, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Church of the East. All trace their lines to the ancient Church,all hold a view of the Eucharist in terms of transubstantiation. It is only among Protestants where we find divergent views, and although there are many Protestants that hold to the real presence such as Lutherans, Methodist, Anglicans, and Reformed Christians, many believe in the real presence in a different way than the apostolic Churches do.**

 

[thephilosopher6]

Not really sure what you’re trying to suggest here, but I will tell you what I believe as a Pentecostal.

True fulfillment comes from union with Christ. That is the essence of the Christian life. We are joined to Christ–participating in his life, death, and resurrection–by faith. All the spiritual blessings and graces of the Christian life are communicated to us by faith.

The spiritual nourishment and power for practical Christian life found in the sacrament we receive from Christ by faith. We share in the communion of the blood and body by faith . The healing of our minds and bodies received at the Lord’s Table we apprehend by faith. The forgiveness received is laid hold of by faith.

As a spiritual discipline (or a means of grace), the Lord’s Supper is an important part of the Christian life. I would not place its outward observance at the heart of the Christian life because there are other means of grace available to form and strengthen the Christian as he or she strives to follow Christ and deny self. I would say that faith, repentance, and obedience are at the heart of the Christian life. That is where fulfillment lies.

"True fulfillment comes from union with Christ." Exactly! You said it yourself! In the Eucharist, we find full union with Christ. In the Eucharist, we are united to him, his body, blood, soul, and divinity. Christian life is carried and nourished by faith, repentance, and works, and it finds its very center in the Eucharist where a Christian finds full union with Christ. This is why the Mass is the central act in the Catholic Church, as well as in the Orthodox Churches and various Protestant denominations, even those Protestant denominations without full belief in the real presence of Christ.

Yes, Pentecostalism began as an organized movement in the 20th century, but there is continuity with earlier movements. And we would say we invented nothing but are simply trying to follow the teachings of Christ revealed in Holy Scripture as we understand them.

Pentecostal worship is a Protestant invention and focuses away from the true gift God gives us in the Eucharist to something completely different, something that relies more on emotions rather than the actual grace of God.

 

[buc_fan33]

Debbie,

You have articulated quite clearly, the concerns I’ve seen about the charismatic movement from within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I share the same concerns and notice that even some of those at the highest levels allow these practices, while at the same time restricting the tried, true, authentic Patristic practices handed down through the ages. I really question why laymen and leaders so vocally opposed to renewing the Church’s authentic patrimony so openly allow for and even actively support a movement that has less than 60 year footing founded on a heterodox communities utterances and acts.

Admittedly, I thought the same things and shared the same concerns, prior to my exposure to the charismatic movement. (I hesitate to say Charismatic Renewal, as that is a specific movement within the Church like Cursillo or the Emmanuel Communities. There are Catholics who would consider themselves charismatic who are not part of the Charismatic Renewal.) To be sure, there are some people in the charismatic movement who validate these concerns. But, we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. God gives these gifts. We see it recounted in Acts, Paul affirms them in 1 Corinthians and Romans. The gifts are real. God routinely grants healings, prophetic words of wisdom or knowledge, miracle, etcetera. These are not merely things of a by-gone apostolic age.

And, again, I reiterate, this is not a fad with a few people on the edge of the Catholic world. This is something that has been affirmed by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. Christ the King Parish in Ann Arbor, MI is a personal parish, erected specifically to minister to charismatic Catholics. This parish pumps out vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life. As Jesus said, you will know them by their fruits. I have nothing to do with this parish, but was in seminary with a number of men from there.

Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH (widely regarded as the most faithfully Catholic university in the United States if not the world) is entrenched in the charismatic movement. I know of at least two very faithful bishops who are not shy about speaking of how they regularly pray in tongues.

I think the charismatic movement gets a bad name because, frankly, there are people in it who scream, who convulse, who fall down, who frankly put on a show. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about being open to the movements and workings of the Holy Spirit, who still manifests Himself in the manner in which Paul describes. It’s about being silent and still before the Lord so as to discern His voice, which He speaks to us more often than we care to admit.

Again, check out the documentary Fearless. It chronicles some people in the charismatic movement and how God is using them in a ministry of healing. Blind people are seeing. Crippled people are getting out of wheelchairs and walking around. Deaf people are hearing. God uses these supernatural phenomena to reveal Himself to people. It’s all part of the New Evangelization.

 

[buc_fan33]

Thank you Syro. I agree with all you say here. I should have asked Father above: if this movement is genuine, regardless of its origin, why have those who experienced this not come home? If you are reading this Father, could you venture a guess?

I don’t really know, to be honest. I’d say this…we can make mistakes in discerning what the Lord is saying. Pride may get in the way, but God can still work through our pride to touch people. I’ve asked the same question in my mind a million times about my Protestant family members, whom I love dearly. They read their Bibles daily, pray daily, are very faithful. And I ask myself…how can you not see the clear truth in John 6 about the Eucharist, John 20 about confession, James about the anointing of the sick, the necessity of baptism, that Jesus founded a Church on the rock of Peter in Matthew 16 and on the Apostles in Matthew 18? I don’t get how they can’t see this (and I say that in all love and charity, not in any way thinking I’m better than them). But, the fact that they aren’t fully in the Church Christ founded doesn’t imply that their reading of Scripture is invalid, or that God doesn’t speak to them in some way. He does. And I see Him working in various ministries which they are engaged in. I see these ministries bearing fruit. I still wish they’d come home.

As it relates to charismatic prayer, like I said above, be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Be careful not to limit what God is doing and to and with whom. Again, don’t judge the movement by it’s worst examples…convulsions and screaming and the like. Judge it by it’s best…healings happening, young people hearing the call to the religious life, consolations happening, people being brought into a deeper relationship with God.

 

[ltwin]

It is completely and 100% clear the earliest Christians believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the sense of transubstantiation. The Church Fathers are a great testimony to this.

Also, we have the four great apostolic Churches, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Church of the East. All trace their lines to the ancient Church,all hold a view of the Eucharist in terms of transubstantiation. It is only among Protestants where we find divergent views, and although there are many Protestants that hold to the real presence such as Lutherans, Methodist, Anglicans, and Reformed Christians, many believe in the real presence in a different way than the apostolic Churches do.

Transubstantiation is more than just saying “look it changes.” It’s a way of explaining and defining that change that goes beyond the simple statement "This is my body . . . " The statements you used from the Church Fathers could be agreed by anyone who believes in the Real Presence (no matter how they try to explain the mystery).

 

[Whalljim]

I know next to nothing about the Pentecostals, except a friend who is a former Pentecostal says her Church was very anti-Catholic. Not sure if that was just her church or if its across the range.

I do have one question though, from itwin’s post:

"If its a message in tongues, someone will need to interpret that message. "

I’ve heard of this before. Even in Catholic settings. I guess I’m always a bit skeptical because one of the major points of the miracle of tongues in Pentecost was that the Apostles were completely intelligible to everyone, even though everyone was from different nations.

Why would modern day tongues be unintelligible except to one person who can interpret? Or am I misunderstanding this?

 

[Whalljim]

Perhaps. I think some repetition is fine. I’m really enjoying listening to United Pursuit and Will Reagan right now, and they have a lot of repetition.I mean we want to enjoy spending time worshiping God and standing in his presence. I think he deserves more than just 15 minutes of singing. Yet, I myself have been in services where it was clear that the song should have been changed a while ago. I won’t deny that.

Sometimes though the service takes unexpected turns and people may be praying at the altars and the pastor may even be ministering to people in the altars and it just makes sense to “drag out” the songs sometimes.

Interestingly, at Azusa Street they sang a capella with no worship leaders at all.

a capella sounds like its nice.

I personally love gregorian chant.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

I don’t really know, to be honest. I’d say this…we can make mistakes in discerning what the Lord is saying. Pride may get in the way, but God can still work through our pride to touch people. I’ve asked the same question in my mind a million times about my Protestant family members, whom I love dearly. They read their Bibles daily, pray daily, are very faithful. And I ask myself…how can you not see the clear truth in John 6 about the Eucharist, John 20 about confession, James about the anointing of the sick, the necessity of baptism, that Jesus founded a Church on the rock of Peter in Matthew 16 and on the Apostles in Matthew 18? I don’t get how they can’t see this (and I say that in all love and charity, not in any way thinking I’m better than them). But, the fact that they aren’t fully in the Church Christ founded doesn’t imply that their reading of Scripture is invalid, or that God doesn’t speak to them in some way. He does. And I see Him working in various ministries which they are engaged in. I see these ministries bearing fruit. I still wish they’d come home.

As it relates to charismatic prayer, like I said above, be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Be careful not to limit what God is doing and to and with whom. Again, don’t judge the movement by it’s worst examples…convulsions and screaming and the like. Judge it by it’s best…healings happening, young people hearing the call to the religious life, consolations happening, people being brought into a deeper relationship with God.

Thank you again Father for your responses. I think because we don’t know yet why our fellow baptized brethren who have experienced this phenomenon haven’t come home, it would be better to remain skeptical. Err on the side of caution. If St. John of the Cross is correct, seems to me these encounters are very, very likely not of the Holy Spirit. For now I will take a pass on exploring this movement based on my experiences in the Protestant church and the warnings spoken of in the video. As a fairly new convert, I will heed the warnings you even admitted were possible (post #38) as I know I too often do suffer from spiritual pride as it relates to my Protestant friends…and now even a holy priest I don’t posses enough humility to combat possibly even more pride. LOL. Thanks again Father.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Transubstantiation is more than just saying “look it changes.” It’s a way of explaining and defining that change that goes beyond the simple statement "This is my body . . . " The statements you used from the Church Fathers could be agreed by anyone who believes in the Real Presence (no matter how they try to explain the mystery).

It simply makes no sense that the doctrine of transubstantiation could have arisen out of nowhere. It has its roots in the early Church and we clearly see that in all the apostolic Churches. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, we all believe in the real presence in the way of transubstantiation. This is the ancient teaching of the Church, and since the Catholic Church IS the ancient Church, we hold to what the ancient Church teaches. We don’t need 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century movements telling us what the earliest Christians believed because we are those Christians and the latter movements simply are not! We know exactly what the apostles taught. We know what our ancestors in faith taught. Irenaeus demonstrates this through the fact that we have apostolic succession in his “Against Heresies.”

 

[Debbie_Kono]

a capella sounds like its nice.

I personally love gregorian chant.

Ditto and amen! I envision the worship in heaven is very similar to chant!

:clapping:

 

[ltwin]

I know next to nothing about the Pentecostals, except a friend who is a former Pentecostal says her Church was very anti-Catholic. Not sure if that was just her church or if its across the range.

Not all of us.

I do have one question though, from itwin’s post:

"If its a message in tongues, someone will need to interpret that message. "

I’ve heard of this before. Even in Catholic settings. I guess I’m always a bit skeptical because one of the major points of the miracle of tongues in Pentecost was that the Apostles were completely intelligible to everyone, even though everyone was from different nations.

Why would modern day tongues be unintelligible except to one person who can interpret? Or am I misunderstanding this?

Tongues in Acts 2 and in 1 Corinthians 14 have slightly different characteristics. In the latter, Paul makes it clear that tongues are unintelligible and need to be interpreted for there to be order and edification.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

It simply makes no sense that the doctrine of transubstantiation could have arisen out of nowhere. It has its roots in the early Church and we clearly see that in all the apostolic Churches. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, we all believe in the real presence in the way of transubstantiation. This is the ancient teaching of the Church, and since the Catholic Church IS the ancient Church, we hold to what the ancient Church teaches. We don’t need 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century movements telling us what the earliest Christians believed because we are those Christians and the latter movements simply are not! We know exactly what the apostles taught. We know what our ancestors in faith taught. Irenaeus demonstrates this through the fact that we have apostolic succession in his “Against Heresies.”

Also, their doctrines of faith alone, Bible alone and eternal security are no where to be found prior to the 16th century. I’ve asked numerous people, even a popular radio apologist in my area…nadda, nothing. No answer. Are there any documents of antiquity to support these doctrines?

 

[ltwin]

Also, their doctrines of faith alone, Bible alone and eternal security are no where to be found prior to the 16th century. I’ve asked numerous people, even a popular radio apologist in my area…nadda, nothing. No answer. Are there any documents of antiquity to support these doctrines?

Pentecostals don’t believe in eternal security.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Also, their doctrines of faith alone, Bible alone and eternal security are no where to be found prior to the 16th century. I’ve asked numerous people, even a popular radio apologist in my area…nadda, nothing. No answer. Are there any documents of antiquity to support these doctrines?

Exactly! It was Catholics who wrote the Bible and Catholics who compiled the Biblical canon in the 5th century. Unfortunately for Protestants, the Bible didn’t just drop out of the sky and God told us everything we need is in it. No! The Bible was written by humans over many decades and centuries. This is why we also have Tradition to help guide us further through proper orthodoxy, which is something Protestants don’t have and have thus fallen into much heresy.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Pentecostals don’t believe in eternal security.

Ok, fair enough. But then can you give us proof or documentation that show faith alone and Bible alone were taught prior to the Reformation?

 

[ltwin]

Ok, fair enough. But then can you give us proof or documentation that show faith alone and Bible alone were taught prior to the Reformation?

I’m not an expert on the pre-Reformation writings, so someone else will have to weigh in. I know this much, the Reformers were knowledgeable about the Church Fathers and used them in their writings.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I’m not an expert on the pre-Reformation writings, so someone else will have to weigh in. I know this much, the Reformers were knowledgeable about the Church Fathers and used them in their writings.

They mostly relied on St. Augustine. Catholic theologians then (and now) were also very knowledgeable about the Church Fathers and often used them to counter the “reformers” doctrines.

 

[buc_fan33]

I know next to nothing about the Pentecostals, except a friend who is a former Pentecostal says her Church was very anti-Catholic. Not sure if that was just her church or if its across the range.

I do have one question though, from itwin’s post:

"If its a message in tongues, someone will need to interpret that message. "

I’ve heard of this before. Even in Catholic settings. I guess I’m always a bit skeptical because one of the major points of the miracle of tongues in Pentecost was that the Apostles were completely intelligible to everyone, even though everyone was from different nations.

Why would modern day tongues be unintelligible except to one person who can interpret? Or am I misunderstanding this?

I asked the same question to a much more experienced priest in the charismatic movement. He’s been the pastor of a charismatic parish for over 20 years, I believe, and wrote his STL thesis on charismatic prayer. He said that Scripture actually speaks of four different modes of the gift of tongues.

1. Xenoglossia-speaking a foreign language with the purpose of evangelizing someone else who does not speak your language. This is what we see in Acts 2, for example.
2. Tongues as a form of praise to God. (The Spirit speaks through us in inexpressible groanings for we do not know how to pray as we ought.). This is what we typically think of when we think of the “gift of tongues.” I do, anyway.
3. Tongues that are interpreted for another, which you mention above.
4. And, this one sort of goes with the first, but speaking something in your own native language (i.e. for me English), but your hearer (who doesn’t speak your language) understanding your words in his or her own native language.

Again, I’m NOT an expert. I’ve only recently been exposed to this. Neither am I a Scripture scholar. I’m just reiterating what my priest friend said.