# Don't know where to put this, regarding the Roman Catholic Church



## stevestutz (Nov 10, 2008)

Greetings brothers and sisters in Christ. I wanted to consult my fellow reformed brethren on an interesting subject that has recently come close to me. A friend of mine is attending Oral Roberts University and is majoring in Church History. He came out of a non-denominational, rather charismatic background and he has recently become very interested in the Roman Catholic Church. This shocked me. I was already very worrisome about his overly charismatic leanings as well as his opposition to Reformed Theology, but this seemed like a jump he would never take. 

Do any of you know anything about the teaching staff at ORU, or any similar cases where a Charismatic switched over to Roman Catholic? He was always very opposed to systematic theology, and tended to lean towards the 'free bible churches' but this has obviously changed since then. I am trying to figure out just what he found attractive about Catholicism, doctrinally as well as theologically. 

Thank You.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 10, 2008)

The pelagian/semipelagian leanings of their respective theologies are perfectly compatible.

Rome fills in a big, gaping HOLE in many modern's theological storeroom. Since your friend has been so hostile to historic Christianity in its Protestant form, he has lived with this giant lacunae in his Christian life. Church history is a huge boon to the mainstream of the Reformation, but to those who reject creedal Christianity it is a big headache. So, ignorant Christianity is the rule of the day in such churches.

It is a danger when they send their bright ones off to college to become leaders. They find out about church history. Not knowing what the strength of the Reformation is, they are good targets for the Roman revision of history.


----------



## stevestutz (Nov 11, 2008)

That is true, he has always been borderline Pelagian, and definitely Semi-Pelagian. I can see the attraction there, as well as the growing 'new pentecost' movement in Rome's Church. Maybe the emphasis on opposition to the Reformation with a strong 'ecumenical' emphasis is the base of what he finds attractive. Though it still shocks me, this further reveals how integral God's Sovereignty is to sound doctrine and spiritual growth. Everything truly does fall apart without it. Thank you brother.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 11, 2008)

The Post Vatican II vernacular Mass is compatable with charismatic beliefs.


----------



## Matthias (Nov 11, 2008)

I have read articles that link Jesuit activity to ORU..... nothing I would quote from but worth a thought non the less


----------



## jaybird0827 (Nov 11, 2008)

"Experiences" related by Roman Catholics are similar and comparable to "experiences" related by charismaniacs.


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 11, 2008)

I dabbled in the RCC and high Anglican Church for a few years trying to fill an artistic and emotional void that I didn't realize could be filled in Christ. As has been said, the theologies are very similar, and if you are not grounded in the Scriptural truth about the idolatry in the RCC, it's very easy to embrace it. 

I have a friend who was evangelical, but with charismatic leanings who is now a catholic priest. Not only did he embrace the RCC, he is one of their biggest promotors and has quite a following of former protestants.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't see so many commonalities between the Roman church and independent charismatic/pentecostal churches. 

The former are very formal and liturgical, the latter the opposite and based on opposition to formality (as that would be "quenching the spirit"). The former are very hierachical, the latter not; the former emphasize a very high view of the church, the latter the opposite; the former emphasize the sacraments and a lot of them, the latter the opposite.

It could be your friends is reacting to the "looseness" and "casualness" of what he is seeing and is attracted to its opposite. He might be attracted to the strictness, awe and majesty he sees in the Roman format.

The issue really is that neither firmly grounds faith or practice on Scripture. Particularly not the whole of Scripture, systematically. Your friend is not well-grounded in Scripture, and that is likely the reason for his vacillation between two very different formats.

Engage your friend on some biblical topics as you would in the ordinary course of life. You might ask him if he is aware that the Roman Church does not hold to the Gospel or the authority of Scripture and go into discussion from there. Trust God for the results.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 11, 2008)

Also, it's only fair to note there have been many in the Roman church who have migrated into charismatic/pentecostal churches.

As far as I'm aware, very few go the opposite way.

Oral Roberts, for all his shortcomings, does preach at least the basic Gospel. Granted he does not place the sovereignty of God in proper perspective but the Roman Church, officially at least, does not preach the Gospel.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 11, 2008)

jaybird0827 said:


> "Experiences" related by Roman Catholics are similar and comparable to "experiences" related by charismaniacs.



Right. And there are a lot of charismatic Catholics. I had to shake my head in disbelief a few years ago when I saw a FV leaning blog author say he was more Catholic than Baptist in part because the Catholics would be more opposed to pentecostalism/charismaticism than Baptists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Charismatics have long dabbled in ecumenism with Rome.


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 11, 2008)

It is not the doctrine so much, but the artistic and emotional personalities that lean toward charismatic/pentecostal churches and to the RCC. Face it, the whole worship thing in the RCC is mystical, beautiful (in the eyes of its beholders) and "other worldly". That is the attraction. If you are an artistic sort, or love emotional worship, then the RCC or the charistmatic church is the "place to be", regardless of the theology. For them, it is all about the experience.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 11, 2008)

I believe Rome's Jesuits started the charasmatic movement to do more harm to the reformation, and they believe in the mystical signs and wonders stuff, and when people start to read, hear, and see in various places how Mary pops up and visions of Jesus and other sightings happen, along with transubstantion etc...well, you can see how Rome could become alluring to them.

A friend once said to me concerning Penecostals, "They are simply Romans Catholics". I had to give it a little thought, but once I saw the similarities, it was quite appherent to me they were too. Many Pentecostals now-a-days, don't give much merit to Scripture...it's all emoting and how one sees God for themselves. Rome for the most place has the same ideal.

Anyway, I think most churches believe in ESSENTIALLY the same doctrine as set forth at Trent, so I don't see why they just don't go back to their Mother. They wouldn't be the worse off for it...and until God draws out the elect from among them, they will just be Roman Catholics. We don't hear much about the reverse...I hear more about those going Romish, than the Romish being saved...


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 11, 2008)

> TheFleshProfitethNothing
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> I believe Rome's Jesuits started the charasmatic movement to do more harm to the reformation, and they believe in the mystical signs and wonders stuff,



The modern charismatic movement started around the Azusa Street (California) revivals early 1900's and were not linked to the Roman church.

The attraction is to people who, for various reasons, are not prioritizing the Word of God as authority for Christian faith and practice. To the extent that reflects Arminian tendencies rather than biblical ones, it is like the Roman church (and many broadly evangelical churches) but not at all dependent on it.

Don't forget the Roman church has lost a lot of members to charismatic/pentecostal groups. Those groups do not embrace the command structure of the Roman church at all- and have a "broadly evangelical" mode of operation, not a Roman one.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 11, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > TheFleshProfitethNothing
> > Puritanboard Freshman
> >
> > I believe Rome's Jesuits started the charasmatic movement to do more harm to the reformation, and they believe in the mystical signs and wonders stuff,
> ...




Scott, it might be a regional thing, I don't know. But I can assure you that the majority of Catholics I knew in the West did not embrace the command structure either. And they were very emotional in their worship. It was all about feeling good, swaying with the Spirit through chants, being lost in the moment.

On a more mundane note, please check the signature requirements by clicking on the link below mine.


----------



## SueS (Nov 11, 2008)

The Roman Catholic charismatic movement had its beginnings during the '70's at Franciscan College, now known as the University of Steubenville, in Steubenville, Ohio. My former non-denom church had a brief flirtation with them in the form of ecumenical services but, thankfully, the pastor saw the error of that. Steubie U has since gone from charismatic to being ultra-catholic (is tridentine the term?) and vigorous proponents of Mary as co-redemptrix. While we were homeschooling we received some of their support group's news letters and they were constantly hammering the theme that there is no salvation without Mary and that even God the Father can do nothing without her approval. 

Very strange people!


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 11, 2008)

The topic here is how the Oral Roberts University student suddenly went Roman Catholic.

I don't think representing that the two groups are so like each other that it is the logical, expected next step fairly represents either grouping, nor reflects what commonly happens.

Because this is so unusual (a charismatic/pentecostal suddenly going Roman), that's what the original post is trying to figure out.

Being overly emotional could be said of many contemporary style worship services in broadly evangelical churches so we could just as easily say Arminian influence was leading them there (to a broadly evangelical church).

I really don't think the linkage of charismatic/pentecostal churches to the Roman church is credible nor does it sound credible to those who are or have been in either one. The latter has diluted, even confused by the former, not been part of a secret plan by the Roman church to increase itself because the effect is the exact opposite.

Rather, this gets back to the basic effects of sin, we do not want to follow God (as He has revealed Himself through Scripture) so we do not prioritize careful handling of His Word in our lives.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 11, 2008)

Well, a final statement about the charismata stuff...it started in Scotland in the late 1800's, and a woman was used to instigate it...Azusa was the beginnings in America, and off-shoot of the former.

Anyway, I was just putting together emoting, and non-Scriptural doctrine, as being the thing many desire...lot's of "experience" and endorphine, seretonine and dopamine highs, but no reality of God in them.

If you don't "feel" something, it isn't a real religious experience. I've done that...been there...I've also researched the beginnings of this movement, and it goes a bit farther back than you think. Oh! and the Jesuits haven't stopped their quest. They are just GREAT at being SECRET (Society of Jesus).

But, anyone not saved by the Grace of God will be easily swayed by many and any winds of doctrine.


----------



## stevestutz (Nov 11, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Being overly emotional could be said of many contemporary style worship services in broadly evangelical churches so we could just as easily say Arminian influence was leading them there (to a broadly evangelical church).
> 
> I really don't think the linkage of charismatic/pentecostal churches to the Roman church is credible nor does it sound credible to those who are or have been in either one. The latter has diluted, even confused by the former, not been part of a secret plan by the Roman church to increase itself because the effect is the exact opposite.
> 
> Rather, this gets back to the basic effects of sin, we do not want to follow God (as He has revealed Himself through Scripture) so we do not prioritize careful handling of His Word in our lives.



Yes, I think these are the basic effects of sin, emotionalism and the incorrect incursion of the self into worship. It is also very strange though, that he has a sudden interest in systematic theology. I think the arguments of Rome's 'one true original church' are persuasive to him. After all he is very open to God speaking directly to him, which I tend to categorize as frankly demonic (God told me "insert literal statement"). And this has always been a staple of the Pope's authority, direct face-to-face contact with God, the 'prophet' if you will. 

Thanks to all for your posts.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 11, 2008)

> I think the arguments of Rome's 'one true original church' are persuasive to him. After all he is very open to God speaking directly to him, which I tend to categorize as frankly demonic



This is another thing that makes Roman Catholicism improbable to one who might, as a charismatic/pentecostal believe in new revelation beyond scripture. 

Roman Catholics fundamentally do not believe in the priesthood of all believers, no direct way to go to God, only through the mediatorial control of the visible church. 

This is not the substance of ORU practice or philosophy as best I know it. Rather, Mr Roberts seems to encourage not only going directly to and from God, but sometimes even outside of Scripture, church teaching, sacraments, or the many constraints of the Roman Church.




> Ephesians 4:14
> 
> 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;



I suspect your friend is, as you acknowledge, not grounded in the doctrines of Scripture, taken as a whole- something the Reformed theology could greatly help him with. Your friend may be a believer. 

Maybe, by God's grace, you can help your friend see this.


----------



## Matthias (Nov 11, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> The topic here is how the Oral Roberts University student suddenly went Roman Catholic.
> 
> I don't think representing that the two groups are so like each other that it is the logical, expected next step fairly represents either grouping, nor reflects what commonly happens.
> 
> ...



There are in fact many many many works out there on this subject of the Jesuit/RCC connection to the Charismatic movement. To many to just discount due to opinion rather than looking into the facts.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Nov 11, 2008)

Matthias said, "There are in fact many many many works out there on this subject of the Jesuit/RCC connection to the Charismatic movement. To many to just discount due to opinion rather than looking into the facts."

I did a Google search and did not find any that really jumped out me, could you recommend some of the better works establishing the Jusuit/RCC connection to the Charismatic movement. I had always thought it was linked the the Plymouth Brethren.


----------



## historyb (Nov 11, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> It is not the doctrine so much, but the artistic and emotional personalities that lean toward charismatic/pentecostal churches and to the RCC. Face it, the whole worship thing in the RCC is mystical, beautiful (in the eyes of its beholders) and "other worldly". That is the attraction. If you are an artistic sort, or love emotional worship, then the RCC or the charistmatic church is the "place to be", regardless of the theology. For them, it is all about the experience.




I can say reflectively that my emotional side pulled my right into to the RCC and a lack of grounding in Scripture


----------



## Matthias (Nov 11, 2008)

Spinningplates2 said:


> Matthias said, "There are in fact many many many works out there on this subject of the Jesuit/RCC connection to the Charismatic movement. To many to just discount due to opinion rather than looking into the facts."
> 
> I did a Google search and did not find any that really jumped out me, could you recommend some of the better works establishing the Jusuit/RCC connection to the Charismatic movement. I had always thought it was linked the the Plymouth Brethren.




Two books that I have personally read come to mind. In my opinion they should be required reading for all Protestants.
"Swarms of Locusts - The Jesuit attack on the faith" by Michael Bunker makes quite a few compelling connections, as well as "Rulers of Evil" by F. Tupper Saussy. 

The bibliographys of these 2 books will lead you to more interesting references as well. It will take a little research, but it is a fascinating study. Remember, the Jesuits operate in secrecy so google will not necessarily be the best place to gather info  

I list these two works because I personally have found them to be credible... but as always I recommend due dilligence on everyones part.

Hope this helps


----------



## Glosi (Nov 21, 2008)

stevestutz said:


> I am trying to figure out just what he found attractive about Catholicism, doctrinally as well as theologically.


What is attractive about Catholicism? - The feeling that you can abstain from commiting a grave sin, that is, you are good enough to enter the Heaven.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 21, 2008)

Glosi said:


> stevestutz said:
> 
> 
> > I am trying to figure out just what he found attractive about Catholicism, doctrinally as well as theologically.
> ...




Yes.

And keep in perspective here the original question- why someone from a nondenominational, charismatic expressive worship church that emphasizes prosperity and is centered heavily around the revelation and miracles of one person might be attracted to

a formal, staid worship format which emphasizes and is highly centered around liturgy and the structure of the visible church entity.

It's hard to know where this person might end up when he gets some good doctrinal input- hopefully, Reformed.


----------

