The modern Charismatic movement exists mostly among Protestant groups, with a smaller part in the Roman Catholic Church. In the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, it is rare.
One of the few Byzantine Catholic parishes that is Charismatic is St. Athanasius in Indianapolis (www.saindy.com [saindy.com])There is also a "Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church" in Ukraine founded by the "Byzantine Catholic Patriarch" Anthony Dongal, who was involved in the Charismatic Catholic Renewal movement. But the UOGCC and this "Patriarchate" broke from the Catholic Church several years ago and is not part of the Ukrainain Greek Catholic Church. (SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Orthodox_Greek_Catholic_Church)
I researched four key similarities between the early Church and the Charismatic movement that differentiate it from the Orthodox Church. These differences from the Orthodox Church generally apply to the Byzantine Catholic Church as well, as you will notice:
1. Expectations of the End Times within a generational cycle (120 years) 2. Speaking in Tongues 3. Inclusion of Informal Worship 4. Widespread Gifts of the Spirit
To give an example of the similarity between the Early Church and the Renewal movement, a Catholic Charismatic writes:
Quote
In the Spiritual writings of the Christian East, specifically the Philokalia [written in the 4th to 15th centuries AD], many types of prayer are described. One type of prayer that is often mentioned but not explained is "formless prayer" that, according to St. Peter of Damaskos, exchanges human words for "the divine words of the Spirit". Ilias the Presbyter calls this free-form prayer, "sweet smelling wine," and "those who drink deep of this wine are rapt out of themselves." (Gnomic Anthology, 72)… When I read words like this through a Charismatic lens I can't help but connect it to the spontaneous prayer in the Spirit associated with the Renewal. (SOURCE: http://mistercorduroy.blogspot.com/2009/07/did-eastern-fathers-prayer-in-spirit.html)
In the essay, which you can find the link for below, I explained these issues in light of the Orthodox Church's teaching on them. On the other hand, when I try to think about the issue completely objectively and critically, then it seems to me that the modern "Rationalist" position on those questions would tend to be correct. I like to be open-minded.
One issue I did not get into is that of extreme visions. In the early Church, John (apparently the apostle) claimed to have had extreme visions, in which Jesus appeared and dictated letters to the Seven Churches in Asia Minor, etc. set out in the Book of Revelation. I am not sure whether the Orthodox Church considers such extreme visions to be ongoing, as opposed to much simpler, well-known visions of the Theotokos, angels, etc. in Orthodoxy over the last century.
I researched four key similarities between the early Church and the Charismatic movement
Did you read the examination of the Charismatic Movement by St Seraphim Rose? He says there is no connection between the modern movement and the early Church. He makes a distinction between the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of order, at work at Pentecost and the spirit of chaos that animates the modern movement. He also, rightly, points out that the Holy Spirit does not work in error and that the modern movement works across so many competing theologies that one must question its authenticity. I think he's on to something.
I think the answer lies in the monastic experience of our time. There are people who have wrestled with the Enemy for years who warn against the is movement as being all his, despite its apparent authenticity. The Enemy is able to fake religion--he does it all the time--and he is able to do the "healings" and other things that appear to happen at charismatic events.
I researched four key similarities between the early Church and the Charismatic movement
Did you read the examination of the Charismatic Movement by St Seraphim Rose? He says there is no connection between the modern movement and the early Church. He makes a distinction between the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of order, at work at Pentecost and the spirit of chaos that animates the modern movement. He also, rightly, points out that the Holy Spirit does not work in error and that the modern movement works across so many competing theologies that one must question its authenticity. I think he's on to something.
I think the answer lies in the monastic experience of our time. There are people who have wrestled with the Enemy for years who warn against the is movement as being all his, despite its apparent authenticity. The Enemy is able to fake religion--he does it all the time--and he is able to do the "healings" and other things that appear to happen at charismatic events.
Bob
Seraphim Rose has not been canonized by any Orthodox Synod, and he had his own troublesome teachings. Also there is a Church approved Catholic Charismatic Renewal with episcopal oversight. We must be careful not to condemn everything with the label Charismatic as if they were all one and the same.
Did you read the examination of the Charismatic Movement by St Seraphim Rose? He says there is no connection between the modern movement and the early Church.
Hello Theophan! Were you interested at looking at my essay? Fr. Seraphim and his work on Charismaticism were one of my sources, whom I cited several times.
Quote
He makes a distinction between the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of order, at work at Pentecost and the spirit of chaos that animates the modern movement. He also, rightly, points out that the Holy Spirit does not work in error and that the modern movement works across so many competing theologies that one must question its authenticity. I think he's on to something.
He is right about the bold part. On one hand I see that on Pentecost there was order because the Spirit was speaking real languages, not babbling nonsense, while "Pentecostalism" today performs nonsensical glossolalia that is disorderly.
Still, in Pentecost, it seems there was some disorder because the apostles were perceived as being drunken. But I suppose that could be considered a one-time event in which they received the spirit.
I think the spirit, as in cases of ecumenical charities like the Red Cross, can work across denominational lines. But the Renewal Movement proposes a much more intense experience of the spirit than merely motivation to do good works. It seems more like the people enter trances, which is the kind of thing we hear in mysticism, except that unlike the mystics they aren't ascetic or especially virtuous when they get the trances. So yes, that can raise a question of what is really happening is actually part of communion as the church conceives of it.
Quote
I think the answer lies in the monastic experience of our time. There are people who have wrestled with the Enemy for years who warn against the is movement as being all his, despite its apparent authenticity. The Enemy is able to fake religion--he does it all the time--and he is able to do the "healings" and other things that appear to happen at charismatic events.
Yes, Christianity teaches that the Enemy can fake religions, trances, visions, etc. So just because they get visions doesn't mean what they are seeing is really godly.
But it is hard to say if it is the Enemy is the one who does the healings/exorcisms, because when the pharisees accused Jesus of healing/casting out demons with the power of Beelzebub, Jesus rejected this possibility by saying that a house divided can't stand, and asked them rhetorically if the devil could cast out demons.
Seraphim Rose has not been canonized by any Orthodox Synod, and he had his own troublesome teachings.
Deacon Lance!
There is dispute over Fr Rose's teachings on some things like against Evolution and about Tollhouses. However, as one Orthodox priest who researched Charismaticism noted, Fr. Rose's book on the Charismatic movement played a major role in causing the Orthodox Church's general opinion in disagreeing with the Charismatic movement.
It's important to ask here what the problem is with nonsensical glossolalia that has practically prevented it from appearing in the Orthodox Church with acceptance in the last 1500 years or so. Fr. Rose's criticism that I find reasonable is that the Charismatics' glossolalia is psychological in nature and he points out how Charismatics openly admit to mental tools to induce it.
Fr. Seraphim makes an insightful observation in his book on Charismaticism:
Quote
A Jesuit "theologian" tells how he put such advice into practice: "After breakfast I felt almost physically drawn to the chapel where I sat down to pray. Following Jim's description of his own reception of the gift of tongues, I began to say quietly to myself ‘la, la, la, la.’ To my immense consternation there ensued a rapid movement of tongue and lips accompanied by a tremendous feeling of inner devotion" (Gelpi, p. 1). Can any sober Orthodox Christian possibly confuse these dangerous psychic games with the gifts of the Holy Spirit?! This is the realm, rather, of psychic mechanisms which can be set in operation by means of definite psychological or physical techniques.
You raise an interesting point:
Quote
Also there is a Church approved Catholic Charismatic Renewal with episcopal oversight. We must be careful not to condemn everything with the label Charismatic as if they were all one and the same. ~Deacon Lance
Firstly, I agree with you in that there is talk of "charisma" among Orthodox, eg. when we say that a clergy on a mission may have "charisma" spiritually. We also talk about the work of the Spirit among Orthodox. So there is overlap with Charismaticism, but none of that is precisely the same as the "Charismatic Movement".
Secondly, Charismatics/Neo-Pentecostals are not quite banned by our Church per se, and Bp. Timothy Ware was a speaker, or maybe even an advisor, to a nondenominational Charismatic conference or group. Yet the hierarchs have sometimes put down major restrictions or pressure against it.
To better understand the issue as eastern Catholics, you might ask yourselves why Byzantine Catholic parishes are rarely involved in the Charismatic movement. The Catholic Church approves a Renewal movement, and I am not especially advocating they close it. But I don't think this approval demands you to accept it personally, since this was not an "ex cathedra" decision, and the NeoPentecostal Renewal movement seems generally different from the Magisterium from before the 20th century.
1. Orthodox saints do not have the same process as the Catholics. Glorification sometimes begins organically on a local level. Many people already recognize Fr. Seraphim Rose as a saint.
2. I believe that the charismatic movement is demonic.
1. Orthodox saints do not have the same process as the Catholics. Glorification sometimes begins organically on a local level. Many people already recognize Fr. Seraphim Rose as a saint.
I don't have a strong opinion. There are spiritual aspects of him that are worth admiration as a saint, but some of his ideas like tollhouses are still debated, as Deacon Lance noted. While Orthodoxy practically rejects Charismaticism, and I agree with Fr. Seraphim's insightful explanation that the Charismatics' glossolalia is basically psychological in nature, his proposition that it is demonic is not nearly a consensus. For us it is like "strange fire", is spoken incomprehensibly, and is not considered a phenomenon the Church is comfortable with today or considers to be a gift now in the church. However, since it could sufficiently explained as delusional, uncontrolled, self-hypnotic mental phenomena brought on intentionally under the desires of the Charismatics themselves, it is hard to state fully confidentally that it is any kind of miracle at all, including therefore a "demonic miracle" with all that implies.
Fr. John Morris, another very influential figure on the topic within our Church, wrote me:
Quote
Charismatics also tend to confuse their personal thoughts with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I also believe that speaking in tongues is learned behavior. Charismatics seek the "gift" and mimic others who display it. The Charismatics that I knew could turn on and off their tongues, just like I can speak German when I want to. It seems to me that if I were a true gift of the Holy Spirit, it would be spontaneous. The first person to speak in tongues, Agnes Ozman, in ca. 1900 at Bethel Bible College in Kansas, actively sought what she and her friends considered the gift of tongues with a preconceived idea of what it would be.
This does not rule out that there could be other forces at work besides mental delusion alone. However, simple mental delusion and mass auto-hypnosis, as opposed to paranormal forces, is my basic opinion. Note that Charismatics often use tongues with more than two persons at a time without a translator (As in this video? ), and Paul banned this on the following grounds:
So if the whole church meets in one place and everyone speaks in tongues, and then uninstructed people or unbelievers should come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds [μαίνεσθε]? (1 Cor. 14:23 Catholic "New American Bible")
<<maínomai - the root of the English terms, "maniac" and "mania">> Strong's Greek Dictionary
This is my instinctual reaction when I witness Charismatic speaking in tongues.
“This whole phenomenon [of speaking in tongues] is very obscure, but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such then as used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?" (St John Chrysostom)
“This whole phenomenon [of speaking in tongues] is very obscure, but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such then as used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?" (St John Chrysostom)
Even though I plan to criticize Orthodox Bridge (hereafter OB) in this post on charismatics, let me begin with a few words of appreciation:
Despite their best efforts, this post actually was a “bridge” of sorts. One sees several areas of overlap and potential for dialogue. Their take on charismatics is infinitely superior to Macarthur’s shrill hatchet-job.
My main issue with their post is they water down their strongest arguments for the continuation of Jesus’s Kingdom Power.
You considered it self-praise when I wrote: "The Orthodox Church’s teachings are those of the Ecumenical Councils, Scripture as understood by its Tradition, the Church Fathers, and its saints." This is not really an issue with Orthodox Bridge in particular; it is how the Orthodox Church sees itself.
I mentioned Hal Lindsey as an example of a figure who makes prophecies that have some traction among Charismatics. Biblical DIscernment Ministries claims: "Lindsey has become quite comfortable ministering with hyper-charismatics"... (http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lindsey/lindsey.htm)
You asked: "Are charismatic Anglicans or even Roman Catholics engaged in “informal styles of worship?”" Anglican theologian John Drane who is Charismatic proposed including informal worship.
<b>Issue #4, whether the gifts should be and are widespread among Christians today as Charismatics claim for themselves, is a major issue in discussions with Charismatics and Orthodox.</b> I sympathize with the Charismatic claim that based on the events of the NT, we should expect the gifts to be widespread today. However, as a matter of recognizing reality for what it is, it looks like supernatural extreme visions, prophecies, speaking in tongues, and extreme healings are not commonplace, unusual miracles with Thaumaturges notwithstanding. I have not been able to find many Thaumaturges in the Byzantine period or later with the same level of intensity and length of miraculous vision as that of St. John's Revelation. This conundrum in issue #4 is a major motivation for my writing of the essay.
<b>You asked</b> how could non-Orthodox Christians' gifts of healings be explained if those healings were real. An explanation by Fr. Paisius I mentioned in the essay is that God could have energy available for miracle-working, but that it is also used sometimes by those without the right theology, just as residents near electric wires occasionally have taken energy illegally from them.
You said that this explanation (4D) was just an assertion. I understand. However, the same conundrum exists for Christianity in general when it turns out that there are common claims of miracles in other religions like Hinduism. Either we say that those with the wrong theology (eg. followers of certain Asian gurus) do not have real miracles, or we say that they are manipulating or taking advantage of God's power in the world.
The reason that I didn't include the writers whom you mentioned at the end of your review like NT Wright was that my goal was to explain what the Orthodox position on the topic is. I could have researched what scientists say about Glossolalia to back up the rationalistic view, or cited Charismatic preachers who say that the tongues are real miracles, but my goal was to understand the Orthodox POV. I understand that a full, longer, broader and independent study of Charismaticism would include discussion of writings and citations from both the Charismatic and rationalistic camps as well. I consider such studies as you proposed to be worthwhile for understanding it.
None other than Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen surmised the Charismatic movement to be demonic...I heard that via a Ukrainian Catholic priest. The Archbish., as well as Fr. Seraphim Rose, had some of his own difficulties -- but it is often a good sign to be orthodox to a fault.
When I was younger my family was involved with the Charismatic movement at a Catholic parish. My immediate family did not experience any gifts although an uncle had the gift of tongues and supposedly spoke in ancient Hebrew as attested by a deacon who was a Jewish convert. The atmosphere did not sit well with me, even though a lot of people were nice -- which is what one can usual say about Protestants too. Looking back, it was a failed attempt by the Catholic Church to do something after Vatican II left a vacuum and I would agree largely with Archbishop Sheen and Father Seraphim.
The only parallel I see from the early Church gifts is the real charism of starchestvo or eldership...rare, but real nonetheless.
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.
