How do you all feel about the Fatima?

By this, do you mean that as a Christian, you are able to pray and act in the name of Jesus Christ? Or something else? I am slightly confused on this point.

 

By “spirit-filled”, I assume, and indeed hope, you are not referring to Charismatic or Pentecostal churches?

I have grave concerns about some of the goings on therein.

 

That’s good, but if they knew more anout Medjugorje, I expect they would reject it. It’s just not a good foundation for faith.

 

Can you tell me about Our Lady of Akita? Is it considered sound from an Orthodox perspective or another deception?

 

I was indeed referring to those churches. As for the 'goings on therein,' there is no bogey man in them; they have a nonstandard, more exuberant form of worship but they do not do it to disrespect our Lord.

25 years ago one might have a 50:50 chance of hearing an excited utterance in an unknown tongue followed by an interpretation during a Pentecostal service, but nowadays the chance seems to be almost zero. Of course there's the contemporary worship music now (25 years ago the hymnals were still in use), and in a scant few buildings one might see someone get excited enough to take off running in the aisles, which I'm sure you'd find scandalous. The relative value of the sermons will vary depending on the pastor, although the sermons in the ones I'd attended in the past few years most recently have been mostly of the self-improvement variety (more man-centered than God-centered).

Despite all of the shortcomings, the Holy Spirit is present in the churches and He responds to the prayers of His people. When someone with a physical need is invited to the front and hands are laid on him in prayer (sometimes with anointing oil as well) and all the congregation is praying for healing at the same time, should we be shocked to learn that some of these people exhibit instantaneous recovery? And that others recover gradually? Of course not. But in an Anglican or Orthodox service, how often does this scenario even occur? In my parish there is a couple offering prayer off to one side during Eucharist, but (1) it is not quite the same as the power and benefit of corporate prayer in which all participate, and (2) the rest of the people never know what was prayed for, let alone whether the need was ever met by God. My point is that there is no room in the 'set in stone' style of liturgy for the Holy Spirit to respond to this sort of corporate prayer, so we shouldn't be surprised that we don't see as many healings or miracles as the Pentecostals and Charismatics do. As I have elsewhere observed, it seems that most of the widely-varying churches in the Christian world each have some valuable nuggets of truth, at the same time that each lacks some valuable truths to which some other church holds fast.

 

I believe I explain the scriptural basis for our authority in post #11. I can add to that by saying that, yes, as believers and members of Christ's body and temples of the Holy Spirit we have authority to act in Jesus' name, within the confines of His will. If we mistakenly pray or speak or act outside of His will (revealed by the written Word) and leading (revealed by the Holy Spirit), we lack authority in that instance and cannot expect a thing to take place. We do not have power residing within ourselves, of ourselves, but only have authority to act in Jesus' place (as He would do if He were present corporeally).

Does that answer your question?

 

I believe the occurences in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches are demonic. It is extremely dark what happens therein. Furthermore, such exuberance is proscribed by St. Paul, who commanded that worship be done decently and in order, and who also proscribed some of the exact practices of the Charismatic and Pentecostal sects. These are terrible heresies on the fringe of the church.

Actual “speaking in tongues” in the experience of the Eastern church, and I would imagine, among Anglican missionaries, is the situation wherein a Christian is miraculously able to communicate in ot acquire the use of a non-native tongue either instantly or at a supernatural speed. And actual miraculous healings do not occur in the Wagnerian, show-business style one might associate with the “Seven Hundred Club.”

These practices are alien to the Orthodox faith, alien to the Church of England, and repugnant to the ideals of John Wesley, whose doctrine of entire sanctification (a translation of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis) was perverted by the Pentecostals to provide a theological justification. And I consider that all Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are corrupt.

There have been attempted incursions into both Orthodoxy and Anglicanism by these movements, but the Orthodox managed to repel them, with difficulty, and in Anglicanism, Charismatics are to a large degree isolated outside both the mainstream and the traditional Anglican communities. But I would argue that one of the many failures of the liberal Anglican hierarchs of what we might call, in contrast to GAFCON and the Global South, the “Regional North”, to utterly root out and abolish these heresies.

 

Firstly, I cannot claim to speak for all Orthodox when I say I consider something to be a deception. That said, many Orthodox agree with me, but we could easily find some who disagreed. Indeed I debated with one on another forum earlier today about Fatima, specifically.

Secondly, I am not familiar with Our Lady of Akita, so I cannot comment. In general, this sort of thing is of reduced interest to me. My focus when it comes to the Christian faith is threefold: liturgy and liturgical arts (including everything from the structure of the services, to the architecture of churches, to the design of vestments and the music and incense and iconography used in worship), in heresiology, the study of heresy, which allows us to define the Catholic faith apophatically, which is the preferred approach of Eastern divines when it comes to analyzing a theological question, and finally, the area of mystagogy, about which I prefer not to comment because of the dangers of misinterpretation and my lay status. I have no authority to speak for the church and my inquiry into the latter field is an area where only the church can legitimately speak; I have nothing to say about it, but much of interest to study.

 

I would counsel extreme caution with this. The Pharisees accused Jesus Christ of working miracles by the power of Beelzebub, and in His response He warned them that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. One does not lightly accuse the working of God's power to be demonic; one had better be extremely certain.

 

On this point, firstly, your opinion of what constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit contradicts every doctrinal explanation I have ever read on the subject, including those given in the 39 Articles, in the Orthodox Study Bible, in the premillenial-dispensationalist King James Study Bible, in the writings of the Fathers, et cetera. St. Paul told us to try every spirit; we have to authenticate the presence of the Holy Spirit, and it is not blasphemy of the Spirit to seek to establish whether something is of the Holy Spirit, and the Apostles and our Lord furthermore provide us the means of doing this. I do not see healthy fruit from the tree of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, but rather poisonous fruit, because these congregations are behaving in a manner which is indecent and disorderly, and this indicates the absence of the Holy Spirit.

And on that point, if we were to use your definition of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, I would consider the possibility that leaders of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements would potentially be at risk of committing such an unforgivable sin by attributing actions which are scripturally defined as sinful (specifically, irreverent and disorderly worship) to the Holy Spirit. But, fortunately for them, this is not a mainstream interpretation of what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is; rather, the most common interpretation is a final rejection of the grace of the Holy Spirit thus causing one to cease to have any compunction or repentance and thus to be damned of one’s own volition. Kyrie eleison. There is a need to pray for people that they are spared this.

Furthermore, my opinion concerning Pentecostal and Charismatic cults is not of my own making; indeed, I was unaware that such bizarre churches existed until I found out about them while seeking to broaden my knowledge of the faith. Rather, this is a mainstream sentiment among pious and creedal Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and other churches who have had problems with the “Charismatic” movement.

It is furthermore the opinion of the venerable Fr. Seraphim Rose, who will likely be glorified as a saint, in whom we see a spectacular action of the uncreated grace of the Holy Spirit, for Fr. Seraphim Rose was a sick man, spiritually and in other respects, a homosexual on the North Beach of San Francisco who was made aware of the sinful nature of his life, converted to the Orthodox church, renounced homosexuality and embraced holy celibacy, and who then proceeded to found a monastery and to translate several important volumes, such as Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, and to write several more, including Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, which specifically addresses the dangers of the charismatic movement, religious syncretism, the deadly mysticism of the Indian religions, the UFO cults, otjer contemporary cults, and so on, and of even greater importance, a monumental refutation of Nihilism, which exposes this deadly philosophy which lurked in the shadows of Naziism and Bolshevism, and most of the other cruel totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, not to mention the moral bankruptcy of the original.

My friend Fr. Bryan Owens on his former blog also criticized, from an Anglican perspective, the charismatic movement.

The most compelling argument against charismatic and pentecostal churches is of course the fact that their bizarre practices originated in the early 20th century. So those Pentecostals who claim that speaking in tongues is a neccessary proof of true salvation in Christ are in my opinion pronouncing a spectacular lie, for they are asserting that, contrary to the promise of our Lord in Matthew 16:18, the gates of Hell did prevail against the early church and the Spirit simply abandoned the faithful for up to 1,900 years, depending on how one intetprets Montanism. And such a claim of a great apostasy , common to “restorationist” churches of which I would argue Anglicanism, with its stress on scripture, tradition and reason, and its apostolic succession, carefully maintained, is by no means an example thereof (rather, restorationists include Pentecostals, Charismatics, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and other people of strange and novel doctrines).

But speaking of Montanism, herein the heresiological method provides us with the most relevant evidence as to the falsity of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. For this cult was led by Montanus, who claimed to be the Paraclete, and three female prophetesses, who would enter into ecstatic trances, something which would continue after their death if memory serves. Like the Charismatic movement, this was initially a very popular heresy, and indeed it managed to ensnare Tertullian, which is a great tragedy given the important contributions Tertullian made as a church father before falling into this heresy (Tatian likewise fell, in his case, into Gnosticism; the sad cases of Tatian and Tertullian are examples of church fathers who essentially committed apostasy, and that is as much as anything might be, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).

 

By historical account we know that there was no practice of this, anywhere in the worldwide Church, after the Apostolic era, until it suddenly started to be practiced in the early 20th century (the Azuza Street "revival"). So what evidence do we have that today's Pentecostalism and glossolalia has anything to do with the miracles and the speaking of tongues in the Scriptures? The burden of proof is on them to prove that it is.

(I would distinguish this from the Charismatic movement, which a different thing which we don't need to cover here.)

 

Oh, no, no, no. You have misinterpreted. I wrote about healings and miracles taking place in Pentecostal churches. Liturgyworks replied, "I believe the occurences in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches are demonic..." I responded that he is calling God's power a demonic power. This discussion was not about tongues, it was about healings and miracles.

I posted in this thread: https://forums.anglican.net/threads/what-do-you-think-of-the-signs-wonders.1639/#post-32293 about one of those healings. I am outraged that Liturgyworks has the gall and temerity to imply that I was channeling demon power just because this took place within the walls of a Pentecostal church!

 

You, sir, are exhibiting extreme narrow-mindedness toward good Christian folk just because they are different and you don't understand them. I am through talking to you.

 

Indeed so. The only thing in the history of the Church that remotely resembles it is the Montanist sect, and if one wants to consider what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could look like, aside from the usual definitions, the claim of Montanus to be the Paraclete would seem to be a compelling case.

There are also the Oneness Pentecostals, who managed to additionally revive the long-dormant Modalist heresy of the Sabellians. So indeed, the Pentecostal churches are veritable hotbeds of heresiogenesis.

Indeed, but the chief difference is that whereas the Pentecostals represent discrete denominations, the Charismatic movement is all about integrating Pentecostal “worship” into the rest of Christendom, and indeed, in seeking to unify the Church around this “outpouring of the Holy Spirit.”

It is my opinion it is relevant, because there is a direct connection between these behaviors, such as glossolalia, “dying to the spirit”, the tremors we see, and other ecstatic actions of the deluded practitioners of this psuedo-Montanism, and the delusion of the Portuguese Catholics who were duped by either atmospheric phenomena, an act of the devil, or a combination thereof, into believing the stories told by three children who themselves were the victims of a diabolical delusion.

In both cases, you have people who believe something is profoundly holy, but in fact it is counterfeit, and the proof of this is from the basis of lex orandi, lex credendi, in that just as the Pentecostal-Charismatic worship practices are novel (or, if not novel, a revival of some aspects of the Montanist heresy), the devotion to the Immaculate Heart is also an innovation and a heresy which can either be interpreted as being novel, or as being a form of neo-Collyridianism.

I would lastly observe to you @Stalwart, my most excellent and pious friend, that it is interesting to consider how neo-anti-dicomarianism and crypto-Nestorianism are the major heresies of the heterodox evangelical and reformed churches, and conversely, neo-Collyridianism is the major heresy of the heterodox Roman church.

Herein, traditional Anglicanism and the Eastern churches, even, ironically, the Assyrians, manage to plot a course between these two extremes, which are both in error; they are joined in this respect by substantial numbers of Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians and the more sensible Reformed Christians, but the attacks from liberal theologians on the mainline Protestant churches are ferocious. Only Anglicanism and Lutheranism seem to have developed an integral traditionalist element which is both resisting these attacks while also avoiding falling into theological pitfalls (it saddens me to consider the relative doctrinal Orthodoxy of Dr. James Kennedy is now less common in the conservative Presbyterian Church of America, and the PCA also seems to not hold to Mercersburg theology or have any interest in the liturgical worship advocated by the Scottish Church Society, the Church Service Society, and so on, or even preserving the beautiful, traditional order of worship Dr. Kennedy maintained at Coral Ridge). Naturally one will, in such a climate, run a risk of encountering increased iconoclasm, anti-dicomarianism and crpyto-Nestorianism.

But Anglicanism has avoided that, thanks be to God, and the traditional portions of the Anglican community are remarkably spiritually healthy.

 

I think with regards to Christianity, narrowmindedness, if it is an insistence on Catholic doctrine and Orthodox worship, by which I mean the doctrines of the Holy Apostles which have, as St. Vincent of Lerins put it, been always believed by everyone, everywhere, and by Orthodox, I mean Right-worshipping.

I reject their worship as false worship, as bad worship, as being cacodox. Orthodoxy literally translates as “correct glory.” Meaning, right-worshipping. Traditional Anglicanism, the Eastern churches, and a few other bright spots in Western Christianity are Orthodox, worshipping God in spirit and truth (this would include traditional Moravians, Lutherans, liturgical Reformed Christians, and even includes some Roman Catholics who reject the Novus Ordo Missae and maintain a balanced attitude towards other things, for example, the small community in Toledo that still worships according to the ancient Gallican Rite of Spain, the Mozarabic Rite.

Worship is what this is all about. Worship must be correct. When worship is not decent or in order, the directives of St. Paul are being violated.

So my mind is narrow, in that I reject as dangerous and heretical those churches which are not Orthodox and Catholic. On the other hand, I am extremely supportive of all Orthodox and Catholic churches whether they are Eastern or Protestant, or in some cases, Roman.

The Church of England and Anglicanism represent Orthodox Catholicism par excellence in the Western church; Anglicanism is the crowning accomplishment of the Protestant Reformation. Traditional Anglicanism revived the Divine Office, cultivated traditional moral values, restored communion in both kinds, resumed following the ancient practice of the Roman church which was to use vernacular languages (the last vernacular liturgies in the Roman church before the period of unwarranted Latin exclusivity, not counting the Uniate churches, were those of the Dalmatians and the Galgolithic Mass celebrated among Slavic Catholics in the Adriatic). The Roman church later improved in some respects, but now we have Pope Francis and the Amazonian synod, which is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but rather something that evokes a sense of danger.

In like manner, the obviously heretical worship of Pentecostals, Charismatics, and the Salvation Army, not to mention a large number of Quakers (specifically those who do not have baptism or the Lord’s Supper) is to be rejected as something dangerous, in that it is not merely Heterodoxy (different worship), but rather, Cacodoxy (bad worship). And these groups should be regarded as cults, and the Catholic Orthodox churches, whether Protestant or Eastern, should focus on seeking to convert people from these cults into proper liturgical Christianity.

 

I did not imply that, nor intend to imply that. Rather, it should be fairly obvious the practices in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches which I regard as being of a demonic nature, that being the glossolalia, the violent shaking, ecstatic fits, and so on.

If someone does manage to heal someone else by invoking the name of our Lord, and that healing is genuine, then that is obviously a meritorious act, even if it occurs in a heterodox church..

Furthermore, regarding the thread you linked to, I had not seen that thread and was not aware of your specific experience. Had I been familiar with your background I would have obviously taken steps to clarify my position further to avoid causing offense.

Finally, to the extent I have personally offended you, I wish to apologize profusely, as that was not my intent. My sole objective in this thread has been to discuss demonic delusion and how it applies to worship and devotional contexts, specifically with regards to Fatima, and why I believe Fatima to have been of diabolical origin due to the heterodox nature of the Immaculate Heart devotion.

 

By the way @Rexlion I just want to reiterate it was not my intent to offend you, and I deeply regret any offense caused.

 

You're right, and that's why I would distinguish Pentecostalism from the Charismatic movement. The latter has a lot more humility about what it presents as the visible works of the Holy Ghost; mainly it refers to healing, it doesn't have glossolalia or any of the overtly repulsive aspects of Pentecostal worship. While it's still far more emotive than traditional worship and incorporates expectation of visible healing into its life of the church (which none of the Reformers did), still, generally it stops there.

That's why I don't see it doing as much disservice to the witness of the Church as the Pentecostal movement, which takes everything from Charismaticism and then amps it up 100x fold; people manipulated to fall, scream, shake; miraculous healings which turn out to be frauds; It is literally the modern version of Quakerism (see the title), which was condemned as a heresy by the Anglican Divines. You have people 'speaking in tongues' which in reality turns out to be just a demonic-sounding guttural empty jabber.

Classic example: a video of a Pentecostal "pastor" who can't help checking his phone while speaking in tongues. If he actually knew what speaking in tongues was, a most amazing miracle in the history of humanity, he would not be there, dressed like that, doing things like this. If his behavior here isn't blasphemy and demonic, I don't know what is (people added some humor into this clip):

 

My rector asked me, some time back, what I thought about tongues. I told him that although I could see scriptural support for it, and although I do not oppose the practice of speaking in a heavenly prayer language during private prayer, I do look askance at 'excited utterances' of tongues in a church service because I've seen what I regard as too much fakery and abuse.

That said, let me point out yet again that teaching and public practice of tongues is being or has been largely abandoned in the trinitarian Pentecostal churches that I've been familiar with. (I have no desire for familiarity with Oneness churches.) So, why all the fuss and knee-jerk sensitivity? It's becoming a non-issue; they are moving toward the mainstream on their own.

Pasting a big, flashing "error" message on everything that comes out of Pentecostal churches is insensitive and just plain wrong. Assuming that healings and such that take place in answer to prayer in Jesus' name are valid in one church but demonic in another, simply because one does not approve of the other church's worship style and their acceptance of a controversial practice, is an invalid assumption. (But such an assumption is mighty convenient if one wishes to explain away the fact that far more people get healed in Pentecostal churches than in Orthodox churches!)

(Perhaps it would be instructive if I were to start a new thread this weekend, time permitting, to explain the Pentecostals' rationale from scripture. Not to try to persuade anyone to adopt the practice, but simply to show where they are coming from. I suspect that no one else here has actually made a study of the subject to see what the Bible actually states. It's not as if they were coming totally 'out of left field' when the practice of speaking in tongues took hold.)

Now, I appreciate Liturgyworks apologizing. However, it seems only half (or less) of an apology because he continues to rail against all Pentecostals and Charismatics as heretics and cult members. This is offensive to me, and I think it should be offensive to any sensible Christian. He paints with a very broad brush all who are outside the Orthodox and Catholic circles as heretics! He thinks that every non-liturgical church is a cult! Yet if one were to study the doctrinal beliefs of most such groups, one would find nearly all their core doctrinal beliefs to be identical to our own. They teach the trinity, the virgin birth, the hypostatic union, Jesus' physical death, burial, resurrection and ascension, salvation by grace through faith and not by works, and so on. Any church that teaches these basic orthodox truths is a true Christian church. They are brothers in the Lord. Not heretics. Not a cult!

JWs, Mormons and the like are cults, because they deviate in the core beliefs and teachings that can affect one's salvation. When a church has a different understanding on some issue that does not pertain to salvation, they should never be called a cult. That is a horrible accusation.

There can be legitimate differences of opinion on many issues that derive from differing viewpoints of scripture when there is an actual scriptural basis for differing interpretations. As for mode of worship, not every denomination holds the same '500 years of the early church' in as high a regard as Anglicanism, and that too is a matter of interpretation rather than of doctrinal orthodoxy; one can see from "Against Heresies" that errors began creeping in quite early on, so it is not unreasonable for some of these other denominations to have decided to disregard more of the early writings than Anglicans do. Again, when this does not affect the most vital doctrines of true Christianity as I mentioned above, it should be regarded as a legitimate difference of opinion. Heterodoxy at most. Even Anglicanism has a certain breadth and tolerance to it, for one can have doubts about one or two of the Articles and yet still be considered Anglican. If perfect theology were required for admission into God's Kingdom, none of us would get in! Therefore, it behooves us to regard those people who have some varying understandings on issues not essential to salvation as brothers in Christ and as full members of His body along with us. Not as cult members!

If I have been mistaken... if Anglicanism truly is as narrow-minded as Liturgyworks has been writing about his personal views.... please tell me now, so I don't waste my time thinking I belong in the Anglican church! But I suspect that the Orthodox church is the source of his narrow-minded, intolerant views.

 

Not to defend him, but I just want to correct a misstatement and exaggeration: he was not speaking in tongues when he checked his phone. He only started the tongues afterward. Just sayin'....