On Catholics and Pentecostals - A Historical Overview

VATICAN CITY, JULY 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is the report "Catholics and Pentecostals: A Historical Overview," by Father Juan Usma Gómez, official of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

***

An April 2005 meeting in Los Angeles, U.S.A., commemorated the first centenary of the Pentecostal Movement.

The chronicles recount that at the beginning of the 20th century, a group of believers was expelled from the Second Baptist Church of Los Angeles because of its constant insistence on the need for a spiritual revival. The search for these revivals, a practice that has been more or less widespread in Protestant milieus since the advent of Methodism in the 19th century, involved a special kind of prayer and worship which, stimulated by intense preaching and prayer meetings, often resulted in an upsurge of religious zeal.

In 1905, instead of breaking up and joining other Christian communities, this little group of the faithful began to meet in a house on Bonnie Brae Street, under the direction of William J. Seymour. There a new Pentecost was preached and they prayed for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, just like the one described in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 2:1-21) (1).

Historians tell us that news of this initiative spread rapidly across the city and that many other people joined the group. It soon became necessary for it to relocate to larger premises on Azusa Street, where the Apostolic Faith Mission was set up.

The first religious service took place on April 14, 1906. The story says that it was actually in Azusa Street that a large number of the faithful experienced the "personal Pentecost," in other words, that spiritual experience generally recognized as the beginning of Pentecostalism, which was later to be called "Baptism in the Holy Spirit."

Reactions to this event were varied and conflicting. Those who received the "anointing" spoke of it as the sovereign touch of God, whereas leaders of the Protestant and Evangelical Communities kept their distance, fearing that such an experience could not have solid spiritual and doctrinal foundations.

Especially in light of the manifestations that accompanied it, they began to doubt the "mental health" of the protagonists (2). Today, 100 years after the events on Azusa Street, there are numerous Pentecostal groups, either local or part of a real international network (3).

No organic institutional unity

Although they all describe themselves as Pentecostal, there are slight structural differences between them; while three important trends can be identified, there is no organic institutional unity among them nor a totally representative world structure.

Many claim, on the other hand, that the spiritual unity which derives from "Baptism in the Spirit" is a fundamental and sufficient bond.

In addition to the properly Pentecostal denominations (classical Pentecostals), Pentecostal groups exist within the various Churches and ecclesial communities: (denominational Pentecostals, such as the Catholic Charismatic Renewal); many others define themselves as non--denominational, neo-charismatic and independent.

To these can be added a long list of groups of a dubious ecclesial and Christian character that can hardly be called religious but that carry out activities using Pentecostal forms.

In 2005, it was calculated that there were 500 million Pentecostals.

Certain studies forecast a growth of 2.25% in comparison with the 1.23% (4) increase in the world population. It should be noted that these figures also include Christians who live Pentecostal spirituality in their own Churches and those who occasionally come into contact with the Pentecostal reality. Also, there are no statistics for those who have abandoned Pentecostalism.

During the 100 years of its existence, Pentecostalism has come into contact with almost all Christian communities, but in different ways, as we will see later.

In fact, the openness of the first groups who offered the grace of "Baptism in the Spirit" as a source of spiritual renewal was followed by a clash in the area of mission due to the rejection by the other Christian Communities: the Pentecostal certainty of salvation obtained through "Baptism in the Spirit" and the fear of being found guilty by God for failing to convert those who say they are Christians (but not Pentecostals) obviously imbues Pentecostals with missionary zeal.

Pentecostals and Catholics

With regard to Catholics, this movement, born as a reaction to a "dead orthodoxy" and a "Christian nominalism," has retained its negative attitude: the identification of Rome with Babylon, inherited from the Reformation, has not entirely disappeared.

The situation changed with the recognition of the Pentecostal experience within the Christian communities and consequently does not make a change of ecclesial affiliation necessary. Pentecostals recognize bonds of communion with charismatics: they claim, in fact, that the Holy Spirit works excellently in those believers who have received "Baptism in the Spirit" independently of the Church to which they belong. But this spiritual unity, which has given rise to certain missionary associations and alliances, does not legitimize Christian Communities as such.

Catholics and Pentecostals meet all over the world and confront each other everywhere. Aggression and diffidence have frequently been at the root of their relations: the desire to convert clouds minds and hearts. Pentecostals have difficulty in recognizing the saving value of the Catholic Church and of the sacraments, whereas many Catholics view with suspicion the proliferation of divine interventions and consider the promises of healing, prophecies and spiritual gifts as forms of proselytism.

The Catholic-Pentecostal international dialogue began in 1972. It should be remembered that 40 years ago, Catholics were in the dark about Pentecostal spirituality and missiology. Nor did the majority of Pentecostals know of the rich spirituality and missionary vitality of Catholics. Catholics and Pentecostals were diffident and wary of each other.

The contact established between them, thanks to the appearance of Catholic Charismatic Renewal together with the participation of a Pentecostal leader in the Second Vatican Council (5), made it possible to initiate a dialogue with several leaders and groups of the classical Pentecostals. This dialogue aimed at deepening their knowledge of each other and at overcoming reciprocal misunderstandings.

Today, through documents published for the International Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue, Catholics and Pentecostals (6) can recognize certain confessional traits proper to their dialogue partner and can understand the basic reasons for some of their attitudes. The process is far from easy. Indeed, their missiology and expression of spirituality are not the same, while their approach to theology is radically different.

How does one become Christian?

These differences have emerged even more clearly in the current phase of dialogue (the fifth, since the beginning of the conversations), which addressed, in the context of biblical and patristic testimony, the theme of how one becomes a Christian. Common and complementary points in faith, conversion, the following of Christ, experience and formation were identified.

On the other hand, regarding "Baptism in the Spirit," a basic experience for Pentecostals, doctrinal differences emerged within Pentecostalism itself, together with the need for a pastoral rethinking, given that not everyone has had this experience.

Many people consider Pentecostalism as the last fruit of the Reformation. Its minimal ecclesial structure, missionary zeal, doctrinal simplicity and openness to the "supernatural," as well as its cultural flexibility, strong emotional connotation and ability to give rise to religious experiences, give it a special character of its own.

The urgent need to have and to inspire the vital experience of the Holy Spirit and the certainty of salvation explain part of its fascination and success. In this regard, during the September 2005 (7) Study Seminar organized jointly in São Paulo by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the bishops' conference of Brazil, Cardinal Walter Kasper presented the bishops' work, saying: "A critical examination of our pastoral conscience is urgently necessary. We must ask ourselves: why are Catholics leaving our Church and moving to these groups? What is lacking in our parishes? What can we learn from the pastoral closeness of Pentecostals? What must we avoid?"

Whenever addressing Pentecostalism, it must be remembered that to Pentecostals, having an awakening religious experiences is essential. The very fact that the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement is perceived as a new and definitive movement of divine origin, a sign of the last times, and that it presents "Baptism in the Spirit" as "an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that precedes the coming of Jesus Christ" and is obligatory as such if one desires to be a Christian, poses serious theological problems for Catholics.

It is clear to Catholics that the experience known as "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" (totally distinct from the sacrament of baptism) is neither the loftiest nor fullest form of experience of the Holy Spirit. It is one experience among others that is a feature of a certain spirituality within Christianity and demands serious and continuous spiritual and pastoral discernment on the part of the Church.

***

Notes

(1) Cf. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Grand Rapids, 2001.

(2) A description from the press of the time is included in J. Usma, Catholics and Pentecostals: the breath of the Spirit, in L'Osservatore Romano Italian edition, n. 20, January 26, 2005.

(3) In which, among others, the Assemblies of God, the Quadrangular Church, the Church of God, the Apostolic Faith Mission and the Open Standard Bible can be mentioned.

(4) D. Barrett, T. Johnson and P. Crossing, Missiometrics 2005: A Global Survey of World Mission, in "International Bulletin of Mission I", vol. 29, January 2005, p. 29.

(5) The leader, David du Plessis, took part as a guest of the Secretariat for Christian Unity in the third session of the Second Vatican Council.

(6) The two documents most recently published for this dialogue are Perspectives on Koinonia (1990) and Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness (1997).

(7) Further information on this meeting can be found in: "Study Seminar organized in Brazil," L'Osservatore Romano Italian edition, November 4, 2005, p. 4.

[Translation transmitted by the electronic archives of the Holy See]

Assemblies of God hunt for people who have a faith, but are weak in it, as opposed to non-believers.

You are seeing dark motives where there are none. They just want folks to get saved. And, for whatever reason, the great majority of persons who claim the name "Catholic" do NOT in fact have ANY faith at all; "Catholic" is little more than a quasi-ethnic identification. Regardles of what sacraments they may have received as children, they are defacto unbelievers, headed for hell... until...

Many "catch religion" with such churches and return home

Indeed, Evangelicals and Pentecostals are setting many these people on fire for Christ. And some of those eventually return to Catholicism and are among the Catholic church's most dedicated disciples. My question: why can't the Catholic Church produce this effect on her own? Mainline Protestantism is self immolating on the pyres of Sodom; soon Western Christianity will just be Catholics and Evangelicals. Wouldn't it be better if we were one?

The strength of the Evangelicals is what you perceive as weakness... lacking the Apostolic Succesion/sacramentalism, they have nothing but the Bible... so they learn it very, very well. In fact, I think this is the answer to my own question: Why can't the Catholic church produce revival on her own? -- Because she hasn't been teaching the Bible as she should. Consider what happened in Iraq recently: Baptists from the USA set up shop to try to evangelize the Muslims, but unexpectedly got a wave of Catholic Iraqis flocking to their doors, desperate to learn the Bible and live by it. Of course at FreeRepublic these Baptists were excoriated for "stealing" Catholics...*sigh*.

99% of the theological content of such churches is simply denial of Catholic teachings or strawmen misrepresentations of Catholic teachings.

That, oh separated brother, is a strawman argument against Evangelicalism.

For instance, what's the fixation on idolatry about?

When I was about 7, in Catholic school -- LONG BEFORE I ever heard the world "Protestant" -- we read the commandment about idolatry, then were asked to bow down in front of statues. The question formed in my juvenile mind, "But... aren't these idols?" Of course I was afraid ask it out loud for fear of the wrath of the spiteful nuns (not a stereotype: I really experienced it).

Ya know why Catholics with weak faith go to evangelical faiths?

BECAUSE IT'S EASY.
Believe what you want; find the church that condemns the sins you're starting to feel uncomfortable with; get all jazzed up about rock concerts in place of mass.

Why do they come back to the Catholic Church?
Because they start reading the bible on their own, maybe get interested in the saints, or (this really gets them) read the writings of the Early Christians.
99% of them aren't so foolish as to think that they used to worship statues, or smart enough to ask when they get such a bizarre thought so their nuns can explain to them that they're not supposed to worship the statue!

As for the volumes of fallen away Catholics, THE MAJORITY OF ALL CHURCH-AFFILIATED AMERICANS ARE CATHOLIC. So one would expect that the majority of attendees at sarcophagic churches are Catholic. That's not likely the case, however:

Now, if you wanna argue that all your churches are filled with Catholics, that's fine, but where, then, are all the Protestants? The more of your church you boast is Catholic, the more you have to admit that Protestantism cannot reach its own. Because this USED to be a Protestant nation. You ask: Why can't the Catholic church turn on it's own? How about: What is it about Protestant churches that the only people they can reach are those who haven't been innoculated from birth against Protestantism? What is it about Protestantism that its apostates are so unreachable that the most vibrant of parishes can only reach ex-Catholics? (partial answer: I think your assertion that the pews of your denomination is a load of hooey, but if it ain't your church has HUGE problems.)

You're right when you say that to many Catholics, Catholicism is just an ethnic thing. Your term, "the great majority" is either ignorance, shameful hyperbole, or the "No-one-I-know-voted-for-Nixon" effect. (meaning, somehow you have self-selected an apostate Catholic social circle.)

Look at it this way: 28% of America is culturally Catholic. 24% belong to a Catholic Church. About 11% attend Catholic mass.

70%+ of Americans are culutrally Protestant. 24% belong to a Protestant, nondenominational, or Anglican church. Yet even among that small fraction who belong to a Protestant church, still only 40% (that's about 10% of the total population) attend services.

You really want to assert that of that tiny 10% who actually attend Protestant mass/services, the bulk of them are apostate Catholics? You really think that's gonna help your argument? If what you're asserting is true, then there are essentially two categories of Protestants left in America: those who are about ready to bubble back up to the Big Leagues (Catholicism), and those who are a generation away, at most, from apostasy.

Thank goodness you are wrong and the truth is that the vast majority of Protestant worshippers come from long lines of Protestant worshippers. Besides, there aren't that many "missing Catholics."

(Catholic statistics used apparently do not include illegal aliens, who by every measure are highly irreligious.)

The most common response from people who have said stuff like you have: Not MY church!!! MY church is growing. That's the egocentric principle: Of COURSE! If 99% of churches are dying, and 1% of churches are growing, OF COURSE the converts will belong to that 1% which is growing. But just remember that a generation ago, many of those 99% of the churches which are dying were the churches full of converts.

Dude, what planet do you inhabit? Everything you say is exactly the opposite of what I've seen firsthand, all my life.

Ya know why Catholics with weak faith go to evangelical faiths? BECAUSE IT'S EASY.

That's an egregious falsehood. Evangelicals in general live far cleaner, more dedicated Christian lives than the self-identified Catholics I know. There are exceptions but in general Evangelicals work a lot harder at their walk and witness than Catholics do. NO CATHOLIC EVER CONFRONTED ME AND CHALLENGED ME TO LIVE A CHRISTIAN LIFE -- not on TV, not on the radio, not on college campus, not on the street, nor anywhere else. News flash: if you don't sow, you don't reap.

Why do they come back to the Catholic Church? Because they start reading the bible on their own,

You're joking, right? The #1 reason why people LEAVE the Catholic church is because they read the Bible on their own. The words come alive and leap off the page at them, answering their deepest questions and convicting them of sin, and as they start obeying what they read, their lives start radically changing. Then the question comes up, "Why didn't the Catholic Church teach me this stuff?"

Then there's that stuff about bowing to images, call no man on earth your Father, do not pray with vain repetitions (doesn't that verse scrrrrrrream "rosary" to every Catholic school survivor?). Admittedly, there are Catholic answers to these things, but you are not honest if you can't admit that there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that appears (at least at first glance) to contradict the Catholic church.

(this really gets them) read the writings of the Early Christians.

Point well taken. Given the absolutely horrible witness I've seen from the Catholic church, and the excellent Christian example set by Evangelicals, I would never have given the Catholic Church another millisecond's thought -- except that I finally discovered the writings of the Early Church, which caused me to start reexamining the issue. They're indeed a paradox: they seem to have worshipped like Catholics yet they lived like Evangelicals, embracing the best of both worlds.

However, in stark contrast to the early church 'fathers', are the spiteful people on the internet who would rather throw out insults than discuss issues; these folks make me suspect that the Reformation must have been onto something after all.

99% of them aren't so foolish as to think that they used to worship statues

Oh, get real. A lot of good people have been made uncomfortable down through the centuries over the issue of images. The Catholic church even held councils on the subject to try to assuage them. They at least credited the discomfort as deserving a theological answer -- unlike you, who revel in throwing insults.

Now, if you wanna argue that all your churches are filled with Catholics, that's fine, but where, then, are all the Protestants?...(partial answer: I think your assertion that the pews of your denomination is a load of hooey)

Oh, so you're calling me a liar now. Fine. Come to Los Angeles and see for yourself.

What is it about Protestantism that its apostates are so unreachable that the most vibrant of parishes can only reach ex-Catholics?

I didn't mean to imply that at all. There are plenty of multigenerational Protestants around here. However, there is indeed a vast sea of former Catholics in the Evangelical realm, in this part of the country. On the other hand, I have friends who hail from Oklahoma, North Carolina, etc, and from what I hear, the large vibrant churches there are filled with "hereditary" Protestants; many of those "redneck" towns don't even have any Catholics, yet the churches maintain their numbers and moral integrity generation after generation, even with no Catholics to "poach".

I can throw the question right back at you: Why did almost all of Northern Europe leave the Catholic church so easily in the 1500s? Why are the Southern Europeans (who "stayed Catholic") even more apostate (as evidenced by Spanish and Italian birthrates) than the North? Why did it take more than 400 years for the Pope (JP2) to apologize for the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (from whuch my direct male line ancestor narrowly escaped)? Why is the Catholic church doing such bad job at inculcating a Biblical worldview,with its accompanying behavioral consequences, into its members?

?=You're right when you say that to many Catholics, Catholicism is just an ethnic thing.

Which may partially explain the discrepancy. A kid growing up in a Catholic home is baptized, given first communion, confirmed, etc, on a schedule and is likely to self identify as "Catholic" for life despite the fact that their adult lifestyle and behavior bear no resemblance to Christianity. However, a kid from an Evangelical family is told that he has to personally decide, that he must choose to be "born again", and so those who DON'T make that decision will honestly say, if asked, "No, I'm not a Christian".

Your term, "the great majority" is either ignorance, shameful hyperbole...you have self-selected an apostate Catholic social circle.

Far from it. Over the past 20+ years I have self-selected, as friends, hardcore conservatives; very few apostate Catholics fall in that category as they are mostly pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, etc. However, at school, at work, and out in the world I meet all kinds of people, and among Catholics I notice certain trends. In fact, I did not know (or was not aware of knowing) even ONE seriously practicting Catholic til I was almost 40; all the others, even the ones who "went to mass", were (as far as I could tell) lukewarm nominals.

Look at it this way: 28% of America is culturally Catholic. 24% belong to a Catholic Church. About 11% attend Catholic mass.

Yet very few attend confession.... hence many of those taking the Eucharist are in a state of mortal sin, according to the Catholic Church.

If what you're asserting is true, then there are essentially two categories of Protestants left in America: those who are about ready to bubble back up to the Big Leagues (Catholicism), and those who are a generation away, at most, from apostasy.

That might just actually happen. Would you rather hasten the day, or chase potential Tiber-swimmers back to Geneva?

Thank goodness you are wrong and the truth is that the vast majority of Protestant worshippers come from long lines of Protestant worshippers.

Perhaps, as I noted, in Oklahoma or North Carolina.

(Catholic statistics used apparently do not include illegal aliens, who by every measure are highly irreligious.)

Then your statistics are dishonest. It so happens that I live on the planet Mahoney, surrounded by hostile aliens.

If 99% of churches are dying, and 1% of churches are growing, OF COURSE the converts will belong to that 1% which is growing.

I'm not blind or stupid, I can see what's going on in society around me. It's not just "my church".

just remember that a generation ago, many of those ...churches which are dying were the churches full of converts.

The ones that retain Biblical morality, prosper generation after generation. The ones that walk away from it (Faglicans, Lesbyterians, etc) dwindle into insignificance and will soon be dust in the wind. And good riddance.

>> . They at least credited the discomfort as deserving a theological answer -- unlike you, who revel in throwing insults. <<

"Catholic school survivor"
"what planet do you inhabit"
"spiteful"
"egregious falsehood"
"no Catholic has ever challenged me to live a cleaner life"
"absolutely horrible"
"vain repetitions"
"doesn't that verse scrrrrrrream "rosary""

Each of these, particularly the comment about "Catholic school survivor" can be offensive. (Do you realize the "survivor" term is a reference to Nazi death camps?)

Please recognize that my post was a response to comments such as:

"[T]he great majority of persons who claim the name "Catholic" do NOT in fact have ANY faith at all; "Catholic" is little more than a quasi-ethnic identification. Regardles of what sacraments they may have received as children, they are defacto unbelievers, headed for hell... until..."

So, yes, I did turn the tables for the explicit purpose of demonstrating the unfairness of the attack:

"You really think that's gonna help your argument?"
"if you wanna argue that all your churches... that's fine, but then..."
"You ask:... but how about:"

I had hoped that you would recognize a parallel between your assertions and my counter-assertions. I do not mean to whine, "you started it!" nor did I mean to exchange tit for tat. I do not mean to blame you for failing to see it; I can recognize that in your shoes, I, too, may have gotten defensive enough I wouldn't catch the subtlety. I did a poor job of it, for which Defense Exhibit A will have to be the time stamp on my post. =^D

I did not call you a liar; I spoke to the nature of your assertions, not your character. I specifically suggested how your assertions could be inaccurate; and you did acknowledge my point, that your one church in Los Angeles is not representative of protestantism as a whole.

I do NOT retract my original comment about the Assemblies of God targeting Catholics. I would explain what I am referring to in private if you would like. What I would say publicly is that if you do acknowledge that your church is largely comprised of ex-Catholics, while other Protestant churches are not, you pretty much have confirmed what I said. And I will point back to the statistics I provided to state perhaps more clearly the point that there are far more apostate Protestants than Catholics, so it's hard to see how a given church of largely converts would be mostly ex-Catholic if it weren't targeting Catholics.

Lastly, I'm trying not to respond with point-by-point contradictions of various assertions. I don't think there's anything constructive to it, and, I am sure you will understand that by asserting that my previous acknowledgments ceded any claim to the high ground. But whereas I deleted most of my counterassertions, I did believe this one would be productive:

>> Why is the Catholic church doing such bad job at inculcating a Biblical worldview,with its accompanying behavioral consequences, into its members? <<

Latin America is only being missionized now, in the 20th century. Many lands have until recently never had more than one priest per 50,000 congregants. Such nations are called Catholic because the colonial powers that ruled them were led by nominally Catholic kings, and whatever native religion is dead. Mexico, for instance, has been Marxist for longer than even the Soviet Union, and its government has slaughtered tens of thousands of priests and nuns.

The non-Catholic nations of the USA, the UK Commonwealth, and the USSR all supported Marxist dictators to slay every priest and nun in Spain they could find. Yet, while tens of thousands died for their faith, you use this as the basis of slamming Catholics for being weak in their faith?

Or how the religious stalemate in France resulted in nominally Catholic despots who were beheaded by an atheist emporer, who killed literally millions of faithful Catholics? And I believe it was a necessary evil, but do you not realize that America's triumph over communism was fought among the poorest of the poor in Catholic third world nations?

And don't think America was always a good guy; Argentina, Chile and Brazil became so poor as to give socialists a foothold because the American administrations of Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower enacted an economic blockade against them for being related to Spaniards who had favored Franco over Stalin!!! (The USSR funded fewer communist revolutions that Eisenhower!) Before the US and UK governments purposely destroyed the nation's economy, "Argentine" was once synonymous with wealth.

And just how bad are the Italian "apostates"? Abortions are generally legal only in the first trimester, and only with parental consent if under 18. They have 80% fewer out-of-wedlock pregnancies. They produce more wealth per hour worked than Americans, but value family time and recreation; they have been de-socializing their society while we are making ours socialist. Their children are better educated in nearly every subject. The crime rate is far lower. Italy fought for recognition of Europe's Christian heritage in the E.U.; marry more often and divorce less often... I could go on and on.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.