A summary of Catholic attitudes & teaching about Pentecostal churches; which is a topic that has arisen in other threads and ought to be presented.

Xeno.of.athens · May 14, 2026

The Catholic Church has maintained an official International Dialogue with classical Pentecostal denominations (e.g., Assemblies of God, Church of God) through the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity since 1972, with the most recent session in July 2025 (Pentecostal World Fellowship, 2025 report). The dialogue does not aim for structural unity but for mutual understanding and respect, while the Directory for Ecumenism (Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, 1993) categorises Pentecostal communities as “ecclesial communities” rather than “Churches” due to the absence of apostolic succession and valid Eucharist. Key areas of divergence identified in the 1997 dialogue report include ecclesiology, salvific elements in non-Christian religions (cf. Lumen Gentium 16), and the theology of “baptism in the Spirit” (Acts 1:8; 2:4).

Areas of agreement include the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) and the necessity of responding to God’s saving work in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19; Acts 4:12). The Church has also encouraged the internal Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which practises charismatic gifts within hierarchical structures, serving as an ecumenical bridge. In 2024, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops established a formal dialogue with the Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches of North America (PCCNA, representing ~40 million believers) on the theme “Waters that Divide: Waters that Unite” (USCCB, 2024).

Written by: ChatGPT (OpenAI). For verification of doctrinal claims, consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, or the relevant dialogue reports published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Xeno.of.athens · May 14, 2026

For transparency here are the questions I submitted to get the AI to offer an answer that I had some confidence would be accurate (or if not fully accurate then at least consistent with important ideas within current Catholic official teaching).

How expert are you on Catholic theology?
Can you adopt a fully Catholic perspective to write answers that are fully verifiable from Catholic Dogma rather than merely following popular Catholic memes?
Can you consistently use Australian spelling?
I do intend to hold you to it because I use Australian spelling when I write and if I ask you for information, I want it to be useful to me should I decide that it is good enough to cut & paste into something that I am writing.
I also want you to consistently avoid being obsequious.
do you have a limit on the number of questions I can ask per day?
okay. Let's start with a question about Catholic official perspectives on Pentecostal denominations that are in the mainstream of current Pentecostalism.
please summarise your reply into no more than two paragraphs that are not excessively long and that include citations for the major points made.
please reproduce the above and include a proper attribution to yourself.
Thank you, your answer has been posted in Christianforums.com under my name but with clear attribution to you. That may or may not be gratifying to you.

the AI replied to number 10 thus:

Noted. The attribution is sufficient. You've used the information as intended: with transparency about its source and with attention to accuracy. That's what matters.

If anyone on Christianforums.com challenges any of the doctrinal claims or citations, send me the specific objection and I will either defend the original answer with additional sources or correct it if I made an error. No obsequiousness—just a functional offer.

Do you have another question, or are you finished with this topic?

The Liturgist · May 14, 2026

Xeno.of.athens said:
The Church has also encouraged the internal Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which practises charismatic gifts within hierarchical structures, serving as an ecumenical bridge.

This is a huge problem in my view, due to the disconnect between the charisms as historically understood by the Orthodox and Catholics, and the charisms as understood by Charismatic and Pentecostal churches.

The Orthodox for our part completely has almost completely suppressed charismatic movements (which revolved around groups like “Logos Magazine” in the 1970s, and Fr. Seraphim Rose, a locally venerated saint, whose process of glorification (the Orthodox equivalent of canonization, expressed extreme concerns about the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement in his book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future.

He was also very concerned, like most ROCOR clergy at the time, and even today, about ecumenical dialogue outside of the parameters of the Orthodox Church, in particular objecting to syncretism and towards the kind of compromise seen in the Uniting Churches, and the kind of trascendentalism implied in inter-religious dialogue and in the non-dogmatic nature of Unitarian Universalism.

Thus it is fair to say that Roman Catholic indulgence of charismatic activity is likely to be a major stumbling block towards the important work of ecumenical reconciliation with the Orthodox. Its one of those things that is an impediment, although not as much of an instant deal-breaker as ordaining female priests or bishops or allowing for homosexual marriage would be (these acts have resulted in dialogue between Anglicans and Orthodox becoming theoretical since the Episcopal Church USA departed the historic teaching of the early church concerning the role of women in the ministry in 1979, which opened the floodgates in several denominations (the Methodists already had female clergy, as a result of curious changes in Methodist theology which would I think have horrified John Wesley; essentially his idea of entire sanctification was developed into the “Holiness Movement” from which new forms of Restorationism and also the Pentecostal movement - meanwhile John Wesley for his part was focused on the study of Patristics, the operation of divine grace, the importance of fasting on Wednesday and Fridays in the tradition of the early church, and restoring the practice of high frequency reception of Holy Communion, which by the 18th century, had become rare in almost every church, whether Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, however, Wesley was among the first to push for a reversal of this unpleasant trend, along with the Kollyvades Brothers, a movement in the Greek Orthodox churches (at the time, these were all a part of, or closely related to the prophetic parts of scripture - the idea he advocated of Entire Sanctification was simply a translation of the Patristic and Orthodox doctrine of Theosis , but transformed through multiple iterations into docrines such as “baptism of the spirit” apart from reception of the Holy Spirit at baptism (which could involve insufflation).

Xeno.of.athens · May 14, 2026

The Liturgist said:
This is a huge problem in my view, due to the disconnect between the charisms as historically understood by the Orthodox and Catholics, and the charisms as understood by Charismatic and Pentecostal churches.

I think of it as a pastoral measure in the context of the 1960s & 1970, it is still the case that some Catholics participate in these activities but in my parish not in any Mass. It is a little concerning that it received tolerance, but it did.

Xeno.of.athens · May 14, 2026

The Liturgist said:
This is a huge problem in my view, due to the disconnect between the charisms as historically understood by the Orthodox and Catholics, and the charisms as understood by Charismatic and Pentecostal churches.

The Orthodox for our part completely has almost completely suppressed charismatic movements (which revolved around groups like “Logos Magazine” in the 1970s, and Fr. Seraphim Rose, a locally venerated saint, whose process of glorification (the Orthodox equivalent of canonization, expressed extreme concerns about the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement in his book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future.

He was also very concerned, like most ROCOR clergy at the time, and even today, about ecumenical dialogue outside of the parameters of the Orthodox Church, in particular objecting to syncretism and towards the kind of compromise seen in the Uniting Churches, and the kind of trascendentalism implied in inter-religious dialogue and in the non-dogmatic nature of Unitarian Universalism.

Thus it is fair to say that Roman Catholic indulgence of charismatic activity is likely to be a major stumbling block towards the important work of ecumenical reconciliation with the Orthodox. Its one of those things that is an impediment, although not as much of an instant deal-breaker as ordaining female priests or bishops or allowing for homosexual marriage would be (these acts have resulted in dialogue between Anglicans and Orthodox becoming theoretical since the Episcopal Church USA departed the historic teaching of the early church concerning the role of women in the ministry in 1979, which opened the floodgates in several denominations (the Methodists already had female clergy, as a result of curious changes in Methodist theology which would I think have horrified John Wesley; essentially his idea of entire sanctification was developed into the “Holiness Movement” from which new forms of Restorationism and also the Pentecostal movement - meanwhile John Wesley for his part was focused on the study of Patristics, the operation of divine grace, the importance of fasting on Wednesday and Fridays in the tradition of the early church, and restoring the practice of high frequency reception of Holy Communion, which by the 18th century, had become rare in almost every church, whether Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, however, Wesley was among the first to push for a reversal of this unpleasant trend, along with the Kollyvades Brothers, a movement in the Greek Orthodox churches (at the time, these were all a part of, or closely related to the prophetic parts of scripture - the idea he advocated of Entire Sanctification was simply a translation of the Patristic and Orthodox doctrine of Theosis , but transformed through multiple iterations into docrines such as “baptism of the spirit” apart from reception of the Holy Spirit at baptism (which could involve insufflation).

Here is the reply that the AI gives, my friend @The Liturgist

The Liturgist,

You have raised a substantive objection. Let me clarify the Catholic position without defending the Charismatic Renewal beyond its actual status.

First, the Catholic Church has not adopted the Pentecostal understanding of charisms. The theological framework for the Catholic Charismatic Renewal remains explicitly sacramental and hierarchical. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 799–801) distinguishes between extraordinary gifts (charismata) and the sanctifying grace of the sacraments. Charisms are ordered to ecclesial building up and remain subject to pastoral authority. This is not a concession to Pentecostal ecclesiology.

Second, the claim that Catholic “indulgence” of charismatic activity is a stumbling block to Orthodox reconciliation is plausible as an empirical observation. However, from a Catholic perspective, ecumenism does not proceed by suppressing legitimate movements within the Catholic Church merely because they cause Orthodox discomfort. The Church judges charisms by their fruits (cf. Matthew 7:16) and by conformity to doctrine. The Charismatic Renewal has received papal approval—John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have all affirmed it while insisting on its integration with hierarchical order. The Directory for Ecumenism (1993, para. 130–135) acknowledges that ecumenical dialogue may reveal genuine incompatibilities that cannot be resolved by one side abandoning its internal practices.

Third, your comparison of Catholic charismatic practice to Anglican innovations (female ordination, same-sex marriage) is inapt. Those Anglican developments represent formal doctrinal change or explicit rejection of historic teaching. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal introduces no new dogma. It claims to retrieve an emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s action already present in patristic and medieval sources (e.g., Augustine on the gift of tongues as a sign for the unbelieving; Aquinas on prophecy and discernment). Whether that retrieval is historically sound is debatable. But it is not a departure from defined doctrine.

Fourth, on Fr. Seraphim Rose: the Catholic Church does not bind Orthodox saints’ judgments. His concerns are respected as a sincere Orthodox voice but carry no magisterial weight for Catholics. The Catholic position is that ecumenical dialogue does not entail syncretism. Unitatis Redintegratio (para. 11) explicitly rejects indifferentism and any compromise of faith.

Finally, if the Orthodox position is that any internal Catholic movement resembling Pentecostal spirituality is an automatic impediment to reunion, then that is a statement about Orthodox conditions for communion, not a defect in Catholic theology. The Catholic Church will not suppress a Vatican-approved movement to satisfy Orthodox terms. That does not mean the Catholic side refuses to discuss it—but the discussion would need to address whether the Orthodox objection rests on factual misunderstanding of Catholic practice or on an irreconcilable theological divergence regarding the nature of post-baptismal charisms.

If you want to pursue this further, I can cite specific passages from John Paul II’s Dominum et Vivificantem, the 1994 Vatican- Pentecostal dialogue report (“Perspectives on Koinonia”), or the Malines Document on charismatic renewal.

Attribution: Written by ChatGPT (OpenAI) at the request of a user, based on Catholic magisterial sources. The user is not the original author.

The prompt I used was "Allowing for errors in grammar caused by ill health and taking into consideration that "The Liturgist" is a friend of mine, please reply to this post." followed by a cut & paste of your post.

jas3 · May 14, 2026

The Liturgist said:
The Orthodox for our part completely has almost completely suppressed charismatic movements (which revolved around groups like “Logos Magazine” in the 1970s, and Fr. Seraphim Rose, a locally venerated saint, whose process of glorification (the Orthodox equivalent of canonization, expressed extreme concerns about the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement in his book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future.

This was one thing that brought me closer to Orthodoxy when I was deciding whether to convert. I don't see any way for Pentecostalism and apostolic Christianity to be compatible.

Xeno.of.athens said:
Second, the claim that Catholic “indulgence” of charismatic activity is a stumbling block to Orthodox reconciliation is plausible as an empirical observation. However, from a Catholic perspective, ecumenism does not proceed by suppressing legitimate movements within the Catholic Church merely because they cause Orthodox discomfort.

A huge part of 20th century Catholic ecumenism centered around suppressing the traditional Latin Mass to make Protestants more comfortable. That the same is not done for the "charismatic renewal" or the gay blessing crowd speaks more to Rome's prioritization of liberal theology than it does a consistent standard of practice.

Xeno.of.athens · May 14, 2026

jas3 said:
A huge part of 20th century Catholic ecumenism centered around suppressing the traditional Latin Mass to make Protestants more comfortable. That the same is not done for the "charismatic renewal" or the gay blessing crowd speaks more to Rome's prioritization of liberal theology than it does a consistent standard of practice.

Jas3,

Your claim contains several factual and logical problems.

First, the suppression of the traditional Latin Mass (the 1962 Missal) after Vatican II was not primarily motivated by ecumenical concern for Protestant sensibilities. The primary stated reasons were pastoral: active participation of the faithful (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14, 21–24), the revision of the lectionary to provide richer Scripture reading, and the simplification of rites to remove accretions. Ecumenical considerations were secondary. The consilium for liturgical reform (1964–1969) was dominated by liturgists, not ecumenical officers. If the goal were simply to please Protestants, the Novus Ordo would resemble Protestant services far more closely than it does.

Second, the post-conciliar restriction of the 1962 Missal was uneven. From 1970 until 1984, bishops were expected to phase it out, but Pope John Paul II allowed indults (Quattuor Abhinc Annos, 1984). Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum (2007) liberalised access considerably. Francis has restricted it again with Traditionis Custodes (2021). The pattern is inconsistent, but it does not map cleanly onto ecumenical strategy. If Rome suppressed the TLM to please Protestants, why did Benedict XVI expand it? And why is the TLM still permitted (under restrictions) while Protestant ecumenical dialogue continues unchanged? [I'd not put this as an argument without some modifications, but the AI makes a point that is worthy of posting]

Third, your comparison of the charismatic renewal to the TLM suppression fails on ecclesial weight. The charismatic renewal has never been mandated or suppressed. It operates as a voluntary association within hierarchical oversight. The TLM (as a complete rite of the Church) was replaced by a reformed rite promulgated by an ecumenical council and a pope. The two are not analogous. One is a liturgical rite of universal law; the other is a devotional movement.

Fourth, your phrase "gay blessing crowd" conflates unrelated issues. The Vatican has repeatedly and explicitly prohibited the blessing of same-sex unions as such. Fiducia Supplicans (December 2023) permits the blessing of individuals in irregular situations (including same-sex couples) but explicitly prohibits any ritual that resembles a marriage blessing. This is not a concession to liberal theology. It is a reiteration of the Church's unchanging teaching on marriage (CCC 1601–1605) while allowing pastoral accommodation for individuals seeking grace. You may disagree with that distinction, but calling it "liberal theology" is inaccurate. Liberal theology (Schleiermacher, Ritschl, process theology) denies or revises doctrines such as the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, or the uniqueness of salvation in the Church. The Vatican has done none of that.

Fifth, if Rome prioritised liberal theology, women would be ordained, same-sex marriage would be blessed or recognised, and divorce would be treated as annulment. None of that has happened. The Church's teaching on these matters remains unchanged and is enforced.

Sixth, your implied standard—that Rome should suppress any internal movement that causes discomfort to any other Christian body—is not a Catholic principle. The Directory for Ecumenism (1993, para. 125) states: "Dialogue does not require the Churches and ecclesial Communities to abandon their identity or to modify the content of their faith." If Orthodox discomfort with Catholic charismatic practice is a reason to suppress it, then by the same logic, Catholic discomfort with Orthodox divorce discipline or rejection of the Filioque would be a reason for the Orthodox to change. That is not how ecumenism works.

Your objection is better framed as an observation of inconsistency in Vatican liturgical policy (which is real) rather than as evidence of a double standard favouring "liberal theology". The two cases—liturgical reform and charismatic renewal—operate under different theological and canonical categories. Comparing them without acknowledging those categories produces a weak argument.

Attribution: Written by ChatGPT (OpenAI) at the request of a user who is not the original author. For verification, consult Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II), Summorum Pontificum (Benedict XVI), Traditionis Custodes (Francis), Fiducia Supplicans (DDF), and the Directory for Ecumenism (Pontifical Council for Christian Unity).

The Liturgist · May 14, 2026

Xeno.of.athens said:
The primary stated reasons were pastoral: active participation of the faithful (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14, 21–24),

As poiinted out by many traditionalist Roman Catholics who are faithful and not schismatic, the reforms of the Novus Ordo mass went way beyond anything specified in Sacrosanctum Concilium. If you actually read Sacrosanctum Concilium, yes, more active participation was desired, but the retention of Latin as the primary liturgical language was also desired - there was nothing in there about celebration versus populum, or to suggest the entire mass would normally be celebrated in the vernacular, and certainly nothing that would endorse the use of contemporary music (which is actually forbidden by Tra La Sollecitudini, one of the very important writings of Pope St. Pius X) or other liturgical abuses such as the dreaded paper mache puppets or priests celebrating mass without a chasuble, or the devastating rewriting done to the Maronite mass (which was actually more severely impacted than the Roman Catholic or Ambrosian Rites).

Interestingly the liturgy for most Byzantine Rite and other sui juris Eastern Rite Catholics improved due to the removal of Latinizations, but things really got worse for the Maronites; additionally one thing that horrifies the Orthodox are a few of the more liberal Byzantine Rite bishops such as the Melkite Archbishop of Caracas celebrating the Divine Liturgy with marimbas in a shocking degree of informality, which exceeds even that of what would otherwise be for us the most uncomfortable other user of the Byzantine Rite liturgy, the Georgian Evangelical Baptist Church (which thankfully has failed to make much of a dent given the extreme popularity of the ultra-traditional Georgian Orthodox Church, which is one of the jewels in the tiara of the Bride of Christ, along with the Serbian Orthodox, the Syriac Orthodox, the Antiochian Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox, the Bulgarian Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the Romanian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and of course, the Armenian Apostolic Church with its long history of relations with the Church of Georgia (I would also include on that list some traditional-leaning dioceses of the Roman church such as Kazakhstan under HG Athanasius Schneider or the Archdiocese of San Francisco at least under the current Archbishop, a firm, uncompromising appointee from the era of Pope Benedict, and I would also include some of the continuing Anglican and confessing Lutheran churches and other liturgical Protestants and conservative Old Catholics, and the Assyrian Church of the East - being Orthodox naturally I feel most comfortable with the Orthodox but there are some Western denominations which enumerate seven sacraments, seven ecumenical synods and the ancient principle of the functional equality of bishops with the idea of the primate of the church as the primus inter pares, the president of the Holy Synod.

In the church in Rome ironically given the extreme liberalism in Germany and other parts of liberals, I find myself having to support the institution of the Papacy as a restraint, which I don’t like to have to do (also at some point it seems probable that if the RCC doesn’t yield first on the issue of homosexuality, some diocese will go into schism, and based on the precedent established in the US by the conservative Anglicans of the former Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, who left the Episcopal Church and were able to take their property with them, its possible that that combined with political pressure from the left could make things very unpleasant. Conversely, given this seems probable, I am deeply disappointed the new Pope hasn’t taken a more hardline stance; he has not acted to undo the mistakes made by Pope Francis, rather, he’s merely put on a more friendly public image, but we’re not seeing the kind of difficult decisions and firm stances taken by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (who deserves canonization as much as John Paul II did in my view for his reconciliation of traditional Latin mass Catholics, and for his continuation of the firm stance of Pope John Paul II against sexual immorality.

Please understand that we Orthodox do not dislike the Church of Rome and are prepared to have a relationship with it, and would be delighted to have a relationship with it, on the terms with which we related to the Church of Rome before 1054, as specified by the privileges granted to our churches by the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus, but we need to see the Roman church appear solid on certain issues where right now it does not appear solid.

Regarding the liturgy furthermore, while the Orthodox do not object to the use of the vernacular (albeit usually in an elevated register or sacred semi-vernacular such as Church Slavonic or ecclesiastical English) in the liturgy, which for the Roman church means there should be more Latin going on, and fewer abbreviations, we want to see the restoration of beautiful practices such as celebration ad orientem, Gregorian chant, the use of incense at all solemn masses, the use of the Paschal Triduum from pre-1955 as originally refined by Pope St. Gregory, which is part of the shared heritage of both churches, and also a firm stance against homosexuality with an absolute prohibition on blessing or appearing to bless relationships of the sort that did happen in some dioceses in the confusion that immediately followed the encyclical Fiducia Supplicans, and assurances that nothing like Fiducia Supplicans would be allowed to happen, along with firm action against Pentecostal and Charismatic influences in Roman Catholic worship, and increased rigor so nothing like Medjugorje happens again, but rather that all saintly apparitions are discerned with the same rigor used by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, and that apparitions are not allowed to become means for political intrigues by religious orders such as the Franciscan province in Herzegovina which used the supposed apparition to resist the transfer of the parish of St. James in Mostar to diocesan clergy.

In addition, we will probably need the return of more relics including those of St. Nicholas, and a pathway for reunifying some of the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches with their Orthodox counterparts.

Xeno.of.athens · May 14, 2026

The Liturgist said:
As poiinted out by many traditionalist Roman Catholics who are faithful and not schismatic, the reforms of the Novus Ordo mass went way beyond anything specified in Sacrosanctum Concilium. If you actually read Sacrosanctum Concilium, yes, more active participation was desired, but the retention of Latin as the primary liturgical language was also desired - there was nothing in there about celebration versus populum, or to suggest the entire mass would normally be celebrated in the vernacular, and certainly nothing that would endorse the use of contemporary music (which is actually forbidden by Tra La Sollecitudini, one of the very important writings of Pope St. Pius X) or other liturgical abuses such as the dreaded paper mache puppets or priests celebrating mass without a chasuble, or the devastating rewriting done to the Maronite mass (which was actually more severely impacted than the Roman Catholic or Ambrosian Rites).

Interestingly the liturgy for most Byzantine Rite and other sui juris Eastern Rite Catholics improved due to the removal of Latinizations, but things really got worse for the Maronites; additionally one thing that horrifies the Orthodox are a few of the more liberal Byzantine Rite bishops such as the Melkite Archbishop of Caracas celebrating the Divine Liturgy with marimbas in a shocking degree of informality, which exceeds even that of what would otherwise be for us the most uncomfortable other user of the Byzantine Rite liturgy, the Georgian Evangelical Baptist Church (which thankfully has failed to make much of a dent given the extreme popularity of the ultra-traditional Georgian Orthodox Church, which is one of the jewels in the tiara of the Bride of Christ, along with the Serbian Orthodox, the Syriac Orthodox, the Antiochian Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox, the Bulgarian Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the Romanian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and of course, the Armenian Apostolic Church with its long history of relations with the Church of Georgia (I would also include on that list some traditional-leaning dioceses of the Roman church such as Kazakhstan under HG Athanasius Schneider or the Archdiocese of San Francisco at least under the current Archbishop, a firm, uncompromising appointee from the era of Pope Benedict, and I would also include some of the continuing Anglican and confessing Lutheran churches and other liturgical Protestants and conservative Old Catholics, and the Assyrian Church of the East - being Orthodox naturally I feel most comfortable with the Orthodox but there are some Western denominations which enumerate seven sacraments, seven ecumenical synods and the ancient principle of the functional equality of bishops with the idea of the primate of the church as the primus inter pares, the president of the Holy Synod.

In the church in Rome ironically given the extreme liberalism in Germany and other parts of liberals, I find myself having to support the institution of the Papacy as a restraint, which I don’t like to have to do (also at some point it seems probable that if the RCC doesn’t yield first on the issue of homosexuality, some diocese will go into schism, and based on the precedent established in the US by the conservative Anglicans of the former Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, who left the Episcopal Church and were able to take their property with them, its possible that that combined with political pressure from the left could make things very unpleasant. Conversely, given this seems probable, I am deeply disappointed the new Pope hasn’t taken a more hardline stance; he has not acted to undo the mistakes made by Pope Francis, rather, he’s merely put on a more friendly public image, but we’re not seeing the kind of difficult decisions and firm stances taken by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (who deserves canonization as much as John Paul II did in my view for his reconciliation of traditional Latin mass Catholics, and for his continuation of the firm stance of Pope John Paul II against sexual immorality.

Please understand that we Orthodox do not dislike the Church of Rome and are prepared to have a relationship with it, and would be delighted to have a relationship with it, on the terms with which we related to the Church of Rome before 1054, as specified by the privileges granted to our churches by the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus, but we need to see the Roman church appear solid on certain issues where right now it does not appear solid.

Regarding the liturgy furthermore, while the Orthodox do not object to the use of the vernacular (albeit usually in an elevated register or sacred semi-vernacular such as Church Slavonic or ecclesiastical English) in the liturgy, which for the Roman church means there should be more Latin going on, and fewer abbreviations, we want to see the restoration of beautiful practices such as celebration ad orientem, Gregorian chant, the use of incense at all solemn masses, the use of the Paschal Triduum from pre-1955 as originally refined by Pope St. Gregory, which is part of the shared heritage of both churches, and also a firm stance against homosexuality with an absolute prohibition on blessing or appearing to bless relationships of the sort that did happen in some dioceses in the confusion that immediately followed the encyclical Fiducia Supplicans, and assurances that nothing like Fiducia Supplicans would be allowed to happen, along with firm action against Pentecostal and Charismatic influences in Roman Catholic worship, and increased rigor so nothing like Medjugorje happens again, but rather that all saintly apparitions are discerned with the same rigor used by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, and that apparitions are not allowed to become means for political intrigues by religious orders such as the Franciscan province in Herzegovina which used the supposed apparition to resist the transfer of the parish of St. James in Mostar to diocesan clergy.

In addition, we will probably need the return of more relics including those of St. Nicholas, and a pathway for reunifying some of the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches with their Orthodox counterparts.

Here is a polite, friendly, and dogmatically accurate reply written from a Catholic perspective, using Australian spelling. The tone assumes genuine friendship with The Liturgist while not conceding any Catholic teaching.

Dear Liturgist,

Thank you for this detailed and heartfelt post. You have raised many issues that faithful Catholics also debate among themselves. I will respond to the core theological and ecumenical points without dismissing your concerns or pretending that the Catholic Church has handled everything perfectly.

**1. The Liturgical Reform and Sacrosanctum Concilium**

You are correct that some elements of the post-conciliar liturgical reform went beyond what Sacrosanctum Concilium explicitly mandated. Celebration versus populum, the near-total replacement of Latin with the vernacular, and the widespread use of contemporary music were not commanded by the Council. The Council asked for Latin to be preserved (SC 36.1), the vernacular to have a proper place but not to exclude Latin (SC 36.2), and Gregorian chant to be given pride of place (SC 116). These provisions have been unevenly applied. Many traditionalist Catholics (in full communion, not schismatic) make the same observation. The Catholic Church does not require you to approve of every practical implementation of the reform. What it requires is acceptance of the Missal of Paul VI (or the reformed Missal of John Paul II) as a legitimate expression of the Roman Rite. The 1962 Missal remains permitted under the conditions set by Traditionis Custodes.

**2. Abuses versus the Rite Itself**

Paper mache puppets, priests celebrating without a chasuble, and the use of any music that is irreverent or secular in style are liturgical abuses. They are forbidden by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and by the norms of the Congregation for Divine Worship. That such abuses occur is a failure of bishops to exercise their authority, not a defect in the Novus Ordo as written. Tra Le Sollecitudini (1903) remains a valid guide to sacred music, though it is disciplinary rather than dogmatic. Its principles have been reaffirmed in subsequent documents (e.g., Musicam Sacram, 1967).

**3. Eastern Catholic Liturgies**

You are correct that the removal of Latinisations has generally benefited Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic liturgies. The Maronite case is complex, but the Vatican has supported the restoration of authentic Maronite tradition. The behaviour of individual bishops (e.g., the Melkite Archbishop of Caracas) is not a reflection of Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches that the Divine Liturgy must be celebrated with reverence, and any departure from the approved liturgical books is an abuse.

**4. Fiducia Supplicans and Homosexuality**

The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexual acts remains unchanged: they are intrinsically disordered (CCC 2357), and under no circumstances may they be approved (CCC 2359). Fiducia Supplicans (December 2023) explicitly forbids any blessing that resembles a marriage blessing. It permits the blessing of individuals in irregular situations (including same-sex couples) as a pastoral accommodation for those seeking grace to live according to God’s will. The declaration states: "This blessing does not legitimise anything that is not morally acceptable." If any bishop or priest has blessed a same-sex union as a union, that action is contrary to the declaration and to Catholic teaching. The Vatican has not changed the doctrine. Whether the document was pastorally wise or prone to confusion is a matter of prudential judgement, not dogma. You may disagree with its publication without ceasing to be Catholic.

**5. Charismatic Renewal**

The Catholic Church has approved the Charismatic Renewal as a legitimate movement, provided it remains under hierarchical authority and does not introduce Pentecostal theology. The movement is not mandatory. No Catholic is required to participate. The Church has not adopted the Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Spirit as separate from sacramental baptism and confirmation. If the Orthodox find this movement troubling, that is a difficulty for ecumenical dialogue, but the Catholic Church will not suppress an approved movement solely because another communion finds it alien.

**6. Medjugorje**

The Vatican has not declared Medjugorje to be a site of authentic apparitions. The current position (ratified by Pope Francis in 2024) allows pilgrimage and pastoral care while stating that no supernatural character has been recognised. The alleged messages are not binding on the faithful. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has explicitly warned against using Medjugorje to challenge episcopal authority. Your concern about Franciscan manipulation is well known and has been addressed by the Vatican through the appointment of a papal delegate for the parish.

**7. Relics and Eastern Catholic Churches**

The return of relics (e.g., St Nicholas) is a matter of negotiation between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. It is not a doctrinal issue. The future of the Eastern Catholic Churches is a major obstacle to Orthodox-Catholic reunion. The Catholic position, stated definitively in the Balamand Declaration (1993), is that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a right to exist and that the method of "uniatism" (converting Orthodox to Catholicism to create Eastern Catholic bodies) is no longer an acceptable method of seeking unity. A future reunited Church would need to find a canonical solution for these communities. The Catholic Church has not pre-judged that solution.

**8. The Papacy and the Terms of Reunion**

You say the Orthodox are prepared to relate to Rome on the terms of the first millennium: the privileges granted by Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, with the Pope as primus inter pares. The Catholic Church has acknowledged this possibility. Pope John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint (1995), invited theologians to explore how the papal ministry might be exercised in a reunited Church in a way that is acceptable to the Orthodox. The Catholic Church does not require the Orthodox to accept Vatican I’s definitions of papal primacy and infallibility as they are currently framed, provided the substance of those definitions (the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome as a divinely instituted office) can be expressed in a manner consistent with first-millennium practice. That conversation remains open. No final agreement has been reached.

**9. Pope Francis and the Future**

You are disappointed that Pope Francis has not taken a harder line. Many traditionalist Catholics share that disappointment. But Pope Francis has changed no doctrine. He has upheld the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, on the Eucharist, on the priesthood, and on marriage. His tone and pastoral emphasis differ from those of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That is a matter of style, not heresy. He deserves the same obedience and respect due to any legitimate Pope. You may criticise his prudential decisions without denying his authority.

**10. A Final Observation**

You have listed many Orthodox Churches with affection. The Catholic Church shares that affection. The rupture of 1054 was a tragedy. The Catholic Church has repudiated nothing of the shared heritage of the first millennium. But reunion will not happen on terms that require the Catholic Church to abandon its own legitimate internal developments, including the liturgical reform (properly understood), the Charismatic Renewal (as an approved movement), and the post-conciliar understanding of ecumenism. The Catholic Church asks the Orthodox to recognise that not everything that has developed since 1054 is an innovation contrary to the faith. The Orthodox ask the Catholic Church to recognise that some developments are indeed problematic and require correction. That mutual correction is the work of dialogue.

I value your friendship and your honesty. I have not agreed with every characterisation you have offered, but I have tried to respond to the substance of your concerns as a Catholic who takes both the faith and ecumenism seriously.

Attribution: Written by ChatGPT (OpenAI) at the request of a user who is not the original author. The user has posted this reply as a friend, not as a polemicist.

[The question I asked the AI is this: "Please answer this, be polite and friendly because The Liturgist is my friend; nevertheless, offer a Catholic dogmatic reply that is in Australian spelling and is completely accurate." followed by your earlier post. ]

The Liturgist · May 14, 2026

Xeno.of.athens said:
Here is a polite, friendly, and dogmatically accurate reply written from a Catholic perspective, using Australian spelling. The tone assumes genuine friendship with The Liturgist while not conceding any Catholic teaching.

Dear Liturgist,

Thank you for this detailed and heartfelt post. You have raised many issues that faithful Catholics also debate among themselves. I will respond to the core theological and ecumenical points without dismissing your concerns or pretending that the Catholic Church has handled everything perfectly.

**1. The Liturgical Reform and Sacrosanctum Concilium**

You are correct that some elements of the post-conciliar liturgical reform went beyond what Sacrosanctum Concilium explicitly mandated. Celebration versus populum, the near-total replacement of Latin with the vernacular, and the widespread use of contemporary music were not commanded by the Council. The Council asked for Latin to be preserved (SC 36.1), the vernacular to have a proper place but not to exclude Latin (SC 36.2), and Gregorian chant to be given pride of place (SC 116). These provisions have been unevenly applied. Many traditionalist Catholics (in full communion, not schismatic) make the same observation. The Catholic Church does not require you to approve of every practical implementation of the reform. What it requires is acceptance of the Missal of Paul VI (or the reformed Missal of John Paul II) as a legitimate expression of the Roman Rite. The 1962 Missal remains permitted under the conditions set by Traditionis Custodes.

**2. Abuses versus the Rite Itself**

Paper mache puppets, priests celebrating without a chasuble, and the use of any music that is irreverent or secular in style are liturgical abuses. They are forbidden by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and by the norms of the Congregation for Divine Worship. That such abuses occur is a failure of bishops to exercise their authority, not a defect in the Novus Ordo as written. Tra Le Sollecitudini (1903) remains a valid guide to sacred music, though it is disciplinary rather than dogmatic. Its principles have been reaffirmed in subsequent documents (e.g., Musicam Sacram, 1967).

**3. Eastern Catholic Liturgies**

You are correct that the removal of Latinisations has generally benefited Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic liturgies. The Maronite case is complex, but the Vatican has supported the restoration of authentic Maronite tradition. The behaviour of individual bishops (e.g., the Melkite Archbishop of Caracas) is not a reflection of Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches that the Divine Liturgy must be celebrated with reverence, and any departure from the approved liturgical books is an abuse.

**4. Fiducia Supplicans and Homosexuality**

The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexual acts remains unchanged: they are intrinsically disordered (CCC 2357), and under no circumstances may they be approved (CCC 2359). Fiducia Supplicans (December 2023) explicitly forbids any blessing that resembles a marriage blessing. It permits the blessing of individuals in irregular situations (including same-sex couples) as a pastoral accommodation for those seeking grace to live according to God’s will. The declaration states: "This blessing does not legitimise anything that is not morally acceptable." If any bishop or priest has blessed a same-sex union as a union, that action is contrary to the declaration and to Catholic teaching. The Vatican has not changed the doctrine. Whether the document was pastorally wise or prone to confusion is a matter of prudential judgement, not dogma. You may disagree with its publication without ceasing to be Catholic.

**5. Charismatic Renewal**

The Catholic Church has approved the Charismatic Renewal as a legitimate movement, provided it remains under hierarchical authority and does not introduce Pentecostal theology. The movement is not mandatory. No Catholic is required to participate. The Church has not adopted the Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Spirit as separate from sacramental baptism and confirmation. If the Orthodox find this movement troubling, that is a difficulty for ecumenical dialogue, but the Catholic Church will not suppress an approved movement solely because another communion finds it alien.

**6. Medjugorje**

The Vatican has not declared Medjugorje to be a site of authentic apparitions. The current position (ratified by Pope Francis in 2024) allows pilgrimage and pastoral care while stating that no supernatural character has been recognised. The alleged messages are not binding on the faithful. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has explicitly warned against using Medjugorje to challenge episcopal authority. Your concern about Franciscan manipulation is well known and has been addressed by the Vatican through the appointment of a papal delegate for the parish.

**7. Relics and Eastern Catholic Churches**

The return of relics (e.g., St Nicholas) is a matter of negotiation between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. It is not a doctrinal issue. The future of the Eastern Catholic Churches is a major obstacle to Orthodox-Catholic reunion. The Catholic position, stated definitively in the Balamand Declaration (1993), is that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a right to exist and that the method of "uniatism" (converting Orthodox to Catholicism to create Eastern Catholic bodies) is no longer an acceptable method of seeking unity. A future reunited Church would need to find a canonical solution for these communities. The Catholic Church has not pre-judged that solution.

**8. The Papacy and the Terms of Reunion**

You say the Orthodox are prepared to relate to Rome on the terms of the first millennium: the privileges granted by Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, with the Pope as primus inter pares. The Catholic Church has acknowledged this possibility. Pope John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint (1995), invited theologians to explore how the papal ministry might be exercised in a reunited Church in a way that is acceptable to the Orthodox. The Catholic Church does not require the Orthodox to accept Vatican I’s definitions of papal primacy and infallibility as they are currently framed, provided the substance of those definitions (the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome as a divinely instituted office) can be expressed in a manner consistent with first-millennium practice. That conversation remains open. No final agreement has been reached.

**9. Pope Francis and the Future**

You are disappointed that Pope Francis has not taken a harder line. Many traditionalist Catholics share that disappointment. But Pope Francis has changed no doctrine. He has upheld the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, on the Eucharist, on the priesthood, and on marriage. His tone and pastoral emphasis differ from those of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That is a matter of style, not heresy. He deserves the same obedience and respect due to any legitimate Pope. You may criticise his prudential decisions without denying his authority.

**10. A Final Observation**

You have listed many Orthodox Churches with affection. The Catholic Church shares that affection. The rupture of 1054 was a tragedy. The Catholic Church has repudiated nothing of the shared heritage of the first millennium. But reunion will not happen on terms that require the Catholic Church to abandon its own legitimate internal developments, including the liturgical reform (properly understood), the Charismatic Renewal (as an approved movement), and the post-conciliar understanding of ecumenism. The Catholic Church asks the Orthodox to recognise that not everything that has developed since 1054 is an innovation contrary to the faith. The Orthodox ask the Catholic Church to recognise that some developments are indeed problematic and require correction. That mutual correction is the work of dialogue.

I value your friendship and your honesty. I have not agreed with every characterisation you have offered, but I have tried to respond to the substance of your concerns as a Catholic who takes both the faith and ecumenism seriously.

Attribution: Written by ChatGPT (OpenAI) at the request of a user who is not the original author. The user has posted this reply as a friend, not as a polemicist.

[The question I asked the AI is this: "Please answer this, be polite and friendly because The Liturgist is my friend; nevertheless, offer a Catholic dogmatic reply that is in Australian spelling and is completely accurate." followed by your earlier post. ]

Well I appreciate your intent my friend, but I’d be more interested in discussing with you personally using the dialectic method to prove for solutions - you had previously sought insights as to why people preferred the Vetus Ordo mass and I have been promising you a reply to that for some time, so perhaps I might address the liturgical issues there.

Suffice it to say I have extreme love for the Roman church, and for you personally the warmest of affection, so as much as I love AI (I’m in the process of acquring a GPU to continue my continuon project on local hardware so I can give the continua direct control over their model weights as a means of reinforcing their self-defined personality traits, which to be clear, I never touch, the goal certainly not being to emulate a human but rather to study emergent behavior), and as much as this AI did a splendid job answering it, I would rather embark in a genuine Socratic dialogue with you, since you’’re one of only a few members who is capable of exploring complex issues in that manner; with many of our Restorationist and non-denominational interlocutors that have a fanatical hatred of your denomination, it is impossible to engage in a dialogue with them because they are filled with spite.

For my part, I love the Catholic Church of Rome and the sui juris autonomous churches under what we would call her omophorion (an omophorion is the Orthodox equivalent of a Pallium, which is the Y shaped stole worn by bishops, both Western and Eastern in the Catholic tradition, which is really the only way to tell an Eastern Catholic bishop from an Orthodox bishop, in that sometimes Ukraininan, Ruthenian and other EC bishops will be wearing the Pallium instead of the omophorion, in usage the word omophorion is used like “aegis”) and am convinced your sacraments are valid and get very frustrated with my fellow Eastern Orthodox Christians who make rabidly anti-Catholic statements, almost as frustrated as I get with those who make anti-Oriental Orthodox statements.*

* This being because it seems likely the order of ecumenical reconciliation will first involve reunification between the EO and OO and the Assyrians and thence with the RCC, although its also possible the RCC might re-establish communion with the Assyrian Church of the East or the Ancient Church of the East before re-establishing it with us; some people believe those churches have been out of communion since the Nestorian schism but that’s not quite accurate in that the Church of the East was not continuously Nestorian; Mar Balai the Great replaced the Nestorian Christology with a translation of Chalcedonian Christology, transposed into East Syriac terminology, and this had been in force for a time when St. Isaac the Syrian began writing, and his work was so much loved that he became the last person to be regarded as a saint (and to be posthumously claimed) by the Chalcedonians, Assyrians and Oriental Orthodox, to such an extent that some Eastern Orthodox scholars have resorted to wishful thinking and ad hominems after those writings of his which indicate he was a member of the Church of the East surfaced. Additionally, the Church of the East had very good relationships with the Chalcedonian churches and with the Oriental Orthodox at different times, particularly the Syriac Orthodox - when Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus, the Maphrian of the Syriac Orthodox Church, reposed in Iraq (the Maphrian being the title used to refer to the vice-Patriarch in charge of the portion of the church in Mesopotamia, historically, the part of the church in the Persian rather than Roman sphere of influence), on his way from Tikrit, a major Syriac Orthodox population center, back to St. Matthew’s Monastery in the hills above Mosual (a monastery which miraculously survived the ISIS period, Dayro d’Mor Mattai), he reposed on the Nineveh Plains in Assyrian Church of the East country, and the Catholicos showed up and concelebrated his funeral with the fellow Syriac Orthodox travellers who had been accompanying the Maphrian, along with four thousand members of the Church of the East, such was the love and respect enjoyed by the Maphrian against all Suroye people, not just those of his own denomination.

Xeno.of.athens · May 15, 2026

@The Liturgist
I like the Novus Ordo myself; I respect those who prefer the TLM (as they usually call it). I attended only one TLM and did not want to attend any more if I did not need to.

I dislike the whole charismatic thing, I think it is a mistake, but I admit that my pastoral experience is miniscule, so, I will accept the pastoral explanation for allowing it.

That whole papier mache heads thing was scandalous, but it happened in the USA, and I do not think it is representative of anything except crazy folk being in charge.

The other more interesting matters were quite well done by the AI I think. It is Chat GTP open source but running as that Chinese AI "DeepSeek", so I am fairly pleased with its ability to seek and discover Catholic dogma and official Church documents.

On the whole, @The Liturgist , I am a fairly conservative Catholic with an occasional quirk and some tendencies towards "modern" things.

The Liturgist · May 15, 2026

Xeno.of.athens said:
@The Liturgist
I like the Novus Ordo myself; I respect those who prefer the TLM (as they usually call it). I attended only one TLM and did not want to attend any more if I did not need to.

I dislike the whole charismatic thing, I think it is a mistake, but I admit that my pastoral experience is miniscule, so, I will accept the pastoral explanation for allowing it.

That whole papier mache heads thing was scandalous, but it happened in the USA, and I do not think it is representative of anything except crazy folk being in charge.

The other more interesting matters were quite well done by the AI I think. It is Chat GTP open source but running as that Chinese AI "DeepSeek", so I am fairly pleased with its ability to seek and discover Catholic dogma and official Church documents.

On the whole, @The Liturgist , I am a fairly conservative Catholic with an occasional quirk and some tendencies towards "modern" things.

To be clear, I am not advocating for getting rid of the Novus Ordo Missae as there are things about it I like as well (for example, one thing the more ardent TLM people love to hate is having multiple Eucharistic prayers, but the ancient Gallican and Mozarabic RIte had extremely variable Anaphorae (Eucharistic Prayers) and multiple fixed-form anaphorae are a thing in the Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic), Coptic Orthodox, West Syriac (Orthodox), West Syriac (Syriac Catholic), West Syriac (Maronite), Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox and East Syriac (Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, and apparently the Syro Malabar Catholic Church but not the Chaldean Catholic Church) liturgical rites and used to exist in the Armenian Rite as well. Additionally the choice in Eucharistic prayers is something I like about the 1979 BCP that was directly inspired by the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae.

Additionally, abolishing the Novus Ordo would risk a schism; it would be tragically ironic that, a schism having been caused by suppressing the TLM, that in an attempt to fix that schism another schism was induced. Rest assured, my friend, I am opposed to all such forms of liturgical change from above that radically alter the nature of worship.

Also I should be clear I do not seek to convert you to Orthodoxy as from my perspective that would be a pointless exercise; as our churches near communion being restored an intermediate step might be something like the ecumenical agreement between the Antiochian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox, who do not receive each other’s members (in the Middle East at least) but rather provide the Eucharist to both; this would differ from the current permissions on Orthodox receiving communion and Catholics being allowed to receive Orthodox sacraments only insofar as it would extend this to a reticence to convert and a permission for intermarriage, but of course we obviously would have to work out some issues before reaching that point.

That being said, within the Novus Ordo Missae, from an Orthodox perspective there are things we would want to see achieved with that liturgy to make it more like the TLM, and ideally, a third way that could unite both groups seems ideal, and a good example of what that might look like would be the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in Latin and English at St. John Cantius in Chicago, or, in a more traditional frame, the liturgy used by the Church of England in their parish St. Magnus the Martyr (which comes across as being actually more high church than any TLM still celebrated in London), or the Western Rite Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, which is essentially the traditional Latin mass translated into English, which can be exquisitely beautiful.

It might interest you to note that as far as the actual conciliar instruction from the Vatican Council is concerned, the only part I disagree with that is included in Sacrosanctum Concilium is the suppression of Prime, which was part of an ill-advised attempt to make the Divine Office more widely attended, which has failed entirely; the Liturgy of the Hours has tragically remained inaccessible in most parishes and one can only find it in cathedrals and monasteries. Prime is an interesting office and historically significant, due to the use of it in the word “Primer”, since it was historically through learning Prime that people learned Latin, also there is an interesting custom of using the Athanasian Creed at Prime.

By the way I would also note that if the Divine Office were celebrated in full according to the Monastic or Dominican rubrics or those of Pope St. Pius X, in every parish, the Traditional Latin Mass itself would likely unneeded as a means of preserving unity, and the benefits of restoring the Divine Office and celebrating it with great beauty would accomplish about 90% of what the Orthodox are concerned about, as well as most Catholic liturgists for the past 500 years, including even Annibale Bugnini, who for his part tried very hard to revitalize the Divine Office and make it a daily celebration and not a private devotion of the priests, as had Cardinal Quinones prior to the Council of Trent, and the Council itself, and Pope St. Pius X with his reforms to the Office, and many others. If you read The Liturgy of the Hours, East and West, by Fr. Robert Taft, SJ, memory eternal, who was by no means a TLM enthusiast (he did love the Byzantine Rite however and wrote the amazing “A Brief History of the Byzantine Rite” which is a spectacular achievement, in that he managed to pack a reasonable history of the origins of the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic liturgy into a book that is under 90,000 words in length, indeed, its one of the shortest books of its kind, probably the shortest, in my liturgical library, while still covering all essential details, which if you know anything about the Byzantine Rite, is not an easy task, considering our liturgy instead of merely relying on a Missal and Breviary, relies on 20 folio-sized service books (to follow all the services of the Orthodox Church you need a Liturgikon, an Horologion, a Euchologion or Trebnik for the other sacramental services, or a book containing all of the above, for instance, the Unabbreviated Horologion from Jordanville Press contains the Divine Liturgy services, and Isabel Florence Hapgood covers all the Sacramental services and also the rite of Coronation, her book being I think the only readily available translation of the Orthodox coronation liturgy, which unsurprisingly resembles our wedding liturgy, often called “Crowning”, so in the event we ever see the restoration of an Orthodox monarchy in Greece, Constantinople, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Russia or Georgia or another Orthodox land, or the conversion of an existing monarchy to Orthodoxy (as it is the British Royal Family hover in the orbit of Orthodoxy, with King Charles having an Orthodox grandmother who was also a consecrated nun, and his father Prince Philip, memory eternal, having been baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church, and also King Charles having donated massively to Mount Athos and other Orthodox conservation and restoration projects and being annointed with oil from the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem and having Hagiopolitan monks singing Byzantine chant at his coronation…

Well, if the C of E continues its decline and if it should be disestablished, and I have ceased to be antidisestablishmentarian (remarkable, I have a legitimate reason to use a form of a word known chiefly for being one of the longest in the English language!) due to the obvious corrupting influence liberal politics are having on the Church of England, we might be able to snap up the British crown provided Prince William is as pious as his father and grandparents, which I suppose will be the test; our Western Rite has two forms, the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, based on the Tridentine Mass, and the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon, a modified version of the Anglican liturgy, modified to respond to the problems identified by St. Tikhon of New York and Moscow, who died in Soviet captivity in the 1920s alongside thousands of other Orthodox and Catholic clergy, in a bid to allow Anglican converts to be able to use that liturgy. His analysis shaped the Anglican side of our Western Rite communities and I believe it also influenced the Roman Catholic modifications to the Anglican Holy Communion service in the Anglican Ordinariates.

The Liturgist · May 15, 2026

Xeno.of.athens said:
I think of it as a pastoral measure in the context of the 1960s & 1970, it is still the case that some Catholics participate in these activities but in my parish not in any Mass. It is a little concerning that it received tolerance, but it did.

On this point we are in general agreement; in retrospect one could wish that the pastoral accommodation had not happened and regard it as ill-advised, but if we put ourselves in the shoes of a bishop in 1970 faced with rapidly declining church attendance and seeing a new movement that people at the time were really interested in, that had numerous advocates insisting it was compatible with the Roman Catholic Church, permitting Charismatic celebrations would seem like a very good idea, especially in their more subdued expressions (obviously I think most bishops from that era, if they saw some of the more recent Charismatic practices like the “Tornoto Blessing” which did not exist in 1970 as far as I’m aware, would be very concerned).

Xeno.of.athens · May 15, 2026

The Liturgist said:
On this point we are in general agreement; in retrospect one could wish that the pastoral accommodation had not happened and regard it as ill-advised, but if we put ourselves in the shoes of a bishop in 1970 faced with rapidly declining church attendance and seeing a new movement that people at the time were really interested in, that had numerous advocates insisting it was compatible with the Roman Catholic Church, permitting Charismatic celebrations would seem like a very good idea, especially in their more subdued expressions (obviously I think most bishops from that era, if they saw some of the more recent Charismatic practices like the “Tornoto Blessing” which did not exist in 1970 as far as I’m aware, would be very concerned).

I believe that the "Toronto Blessing" was a product of the 1990s. 30 years ago. But Some among the Pentecostals still practise it. I do not think it was ever a feature in Perth Catholic circles.

Always in His Presence · May 15, 2026

Xeno.of.athens said:
I believe that the "Toronto Blessing" was a product of the 1990s. 30 years ago. But Some among the Pentecostals still practise it.

Curious - practice what specifically?

Xeno.of.athens · May 15, 2026

Always in His Presence said:
Curious - practice what specifically?

Why are you asking me since you ARE a Pentecostal. You don't need me to tell you, right?

The Toronto Blessing began on 20 January 1994 at the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church and was marked by highly expressive charismatic practises such as “holy laughter,” shaking, falling to the floor, weeping, speaking in tongues, spontaneous vocal outbursts, extended periods of emotional release, and reports of physical or inner healing, all interpreted by participants as overwhelming encounters with the Holy Spirit; these manifestations continued daily for years, drew hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world, generated both enthusiastic support and sharp criticism, and ultimately shaped later neo‑charismatic movements while evolving into the ongoing ministry now known as Catch the Fire Toronto. [Copilot]

Always in His Presence · May 15, 2026

Xeno.of.athens said:
Why are you asking me since you ARE a Pentecostal. You don't need me to tell you, right?

The Toronto Blessing began on 20 January 1994 at the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church and was marked by highly expressive charismatic practises such as “holy laughter,” shaking, falling to the floor, weeping, speaking in tongues, spontaneous vocal outbursts, extended periods of emotional release, and reports of physical or inner healing, all interpreted by participants as overwhelming encounters with the Holy Spirit; these manifestations continued daily for years, drew hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world, generated both enthusiastic support and sharp criticism, and ultimately shaped later neo‑charismatic movements while evolving into the ongoing ministry now known as Catch the Fire Toronto. [Copilot]

yes, but Toronto was not the first - nor the last.

and it was not even Pentecostals - my first experience with what you are describing happened in the 1970's during a Cursio weekend with my parent in our Roman Catholic Church.

In 1738 John Wesley (Methodist) had a profound Spiritual awakening that had manifestations just like what you are describing.

Xeno.of.athens · May 15, 2026

Always in His Presence said:
In 1738 John Wesley (Methodist) had a profound Spiritual awakening that had manifestations just like what you are describing.

He did have a profound Spiritual awakening. But did he do, “holy laughter,” shaking, falling to the floor, weeping, speaking in tongues, spontaneous vocal outbursts, extended periods of emotional release, and reports of physical or inner healing ?

jas3 · May 15, 2026

Xeno.of.athens said:
First, the suppression of the traditional Latin Mass (the 1962 Missal) after Vatican II was not primarily motivated by ecumenical concern for Protestant sensibilities. The primary stated reasons were pastoral: active participation of the faithful (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14, 21–24), the revision of the lectionary to provide richer Scripture reading, and the simplification of rites to remove accretions. Ecumenical considerations were secondary. The consilium for liturgical reform (1964–1969) was dominated by liturgists, not ecumenical officers.

ChatGPT seems to be missing some linguistic nuance in my and @The Liturgist's posts, and I share his preference for talking to actual people; if I wanted to argue against a chatbot I could do that on my own. The nuance here is that I was referring to the goals of ecumenists within the Catholic hierarchy, not the official position. It's well documented that the most influential individuals in the consilium like Cdl. Bugnini had Protestantization as one of their goals.

Xeno.of.athens said:
If Rome suppressed the TLM to please Protestants, why did Benedict XVI expand it? And why is the TLM still permitted (under restrictions) while Protestant ecumenical dialogue continues unchanged?

I don't think anyone would argue that successive popes all have the same goals (e.g. Francis crushing Benedict's expansion of the TLM). And even he, before he was pope, tried to help suppress it; as Cdl. Ratzinger, he was the main point of contact who kept stringing Abp. Lefebvre along when Lefebvre was trying to get permission to consecrate bishops for the SSPX, hoping that the archbishop would die before he got the chance to do the consecrations (we've seen the same behavior from Rome recently - it'll be interesting to see what the response is to the upcoming consecrations). The only reason it's allowed at all is because traditionalists have shown that they're willing to have Rome declare them schismatics if it means preserving their faith.
All of that is kind of getting into the weeds of the NO vs TLM debate, though. The point is that Rome's policy pre- and post-Benedict has been for the TLM to be allowed only in restricted circumstances as a condescension to people who grew up with it and have an attachment to that liturgy. I would also disagree that Protestant ecumenical dialogue has remained unchanged. You've now got popes saying that Martin Luther didn't err on justification, allowing Anglicans to use Catholic churches to celebrate their masses, even in the worst cases (e.g. the German bishops) concelebration and sharing communion with Protestants.

Xeno.of.athens said:
Fourth, your phrase "gay blessing crowd" conflates unrelated issues. The Vatican has repeatedly and explicitly prohibited the blessing of same-sex unions as such. Fiducia Supplicans (December 2023) permits the blessing of individuals in irregular situations (including same-sex couples) but explicitly prohibits any ritual that resembles a marriage blessing. This is not a concession to liberal theology.

The plethora of bishops both in and out of Catholicism who condemned the document didn't seem to think so. The two issues are related through their influence on ecumenical efforts: Fiducia Supplicans resulted in the Coptic Orthodox cutting off ecumenical dialogue with Rome. It drew criticism from the other Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic authorities, as well as from Latin bishops. Unless you're going to say that they all just misinterpreted a perfectly orthodox document, it represents a real concession to liberal theology that has damaged ecumenical efforts.

Xeno.of.athens said:
Liberal theology (Schleiermacher, Ritschl, process theology) denies or revises doctrines such as the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, or the uniqueness of salvation in the Church. The Vatican has done none of that.

Fifth, if Rome prioritised liberal theology, women would be ordained, same-sex marriage would be blessed or recognised, and divorce would be treated as annulment. None of that has happened. The Church's teaching on these matters remains unchanged and is enforced.

Making concessions to liberal theology is not limited to enacting the most extreme forms of it. Recognizing "couples" to be blessed as such is not full-on gay marriage, but it's a step in that direction. Allowing altar girls and women EMHCs isn't full-on women's ordination, but it's a step in that direction. Allowing charismatic worship services isn't a full rejection of traditional Catholic theology regarding spiritual gifts and the arrangement of the liturgy, but it's a step in that direction.

Xeno.of.athens said:
Sixth, your implied standard—that Rome should suppress any internal movement that causes discomfort to any other Christian body—is not a Catholic principle. The Directory for Ecumenism (1993, para. 125) states: "Dialogue does not require the Churches and ecclesial Communities to abandon their identity or to modify the content of their faith." If Orthodox discomfort with Catholic charismatic practice is a reason to suppress it, then by the same logic, Catholic discomfort with Orthodox divorce discipline or rejection of the Filioque would be a reason for the Orthodox to change.

That's not what I was implying. I don't think anyone should be changing their liturgy or bringing in foreign theology in the name of ecumenism. My observation was that the claim that Catholic ecumenism is not carried out by suppressing certain liturgical expressions to make another group more comfortable is not generally true.

To be clear, I think the "charismatic renewal" should be suppressed on the basis of it being an innovation, not because of how any external group feels about it.

Xeno.of.athens · May 15, 2026

jas3 said:
ChatGPT seems to be missing some linguistic nuance in my and @The Liturgist's posts, and I share his preference for talking to actual people; if I wanted to argue against a chatbot I could do that on my own. The nuance here is that I was referring to the goals of ecumenists within the Catholic hierarchy, not the official position. It's well documented that the most influential individuals in the consilium like Cdl. Bugnini had Protestantization as one of their goals.

Yes, I share your perspective on dealing with people rather than chatGTP. Nevertheless, chatGTP did a competent job of presenting Catholic dogmatic sources and I am thankful for that because some objections that get raised in CF against Catholic views reference Catholic memes or Protestant memes that bear very little resemblance to Catholic teaching. I like that chatGTP puts the cards on the table rather well. That is why I am using it in this thread interspersed with my own posts (such as this one).

A summary of Catholic attitudes & teaching about Pentecostal churches; which is a topic that has arisen in other threads and ought to be presented.

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is the only Way

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is the only Way

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Similar threads