This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Texas, Austin/History of Pentecostalism in the Americas (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
This section definitely needs to be expanded.
I've heard that many Charismatic Catholics are critical of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, particularly the use of the vernacular. Is this true, and if it is, can anyone provide a reference? -- Saforrest 03:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to say the Colin Donovan reference about Paul VI is biased. He may have warned, but there are many stories of Paul VI's great support and his comments that I have heard were greatly in favor of the renewal. This lack of mention makes it seem that Paul VI was allowing it, but was only worried about. The reference to Cardinal Ratzinger now Benedict the XVI was about a famous interview with him, where the questions he was asked all dealt with the problems of the renewal. He finally added in on his own accord his belief in the goodness of the movement, which seemed to be a result of the questions asking about only negative characteristics of individuals within the renewal itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.135.226 ( talk) 13:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
How is this bias? Only the reference to EWTN was removed in 2015. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 01:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Three popes have acknowledged the movement: Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI. Pope John Paul stated that the movement was integral to the renewal of the entire Catholic Church. Both Popes Paul and Benedict, while acknowledging the good aspects of the movement, at the same time urge caution to its members to maintain their link to the Catholic Church.
Just want to add a comment that being baptized in the Holy Spirit was a catalyst in my life. All who are baptized have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, but what this prayer asks is that God stir that gift into flame. And He does not dissappoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.62.52 ( talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I propose the following changes in the lead:
giftin the 1st, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs if used at all should be in quotes and not in wikivoice.
charismaticin the 1st, 2nd, and 5th paragraphs should not be capitalized (and neither should
renewalin the 5th paragraph).
personal relationship with Jesusand
gifts of the Holy Spiritshould be in quotes and not in wikivoice.
As Fr Raniero Cantalamessa saysto
According to Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, per WP:SAY.
and feature such gifts asto
that feature.
testifyto
say, per WP:SAY.
Please let me know if you object to any of these proposed edits. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 13:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I removed material that lacked independent sources (that is, sources other than those from the charismatic movement and official Church statements). Other parts of the article also need better sourcing.
According to
WP:PROMO, Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.
Earlier I made some edits to the lead (listed above in this talk-page) in order to make the tone more encyclopedic. But this topic is far from my own areas of knowledge, so other editors would be better able to improve the neutrality and the sourcing in the main body. Whenever possible, statements should be verifiable through independent, third-party sources
. I'd have no objection to putting the material I removed back in the article if care is taken to give better sourcing and not to express religious opinions in wikivoice.
NightHeron (
talk)
21:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Anupam: You put back the material without adequate sourcing and with religious opinions still being expressed in wikivoice. All of your new section on "Ecumenical implications" is based on just one source, and it is not an independent third-party source. The authors are part of the movement they're writing about. The Amazon "About the authors" information says the following: "Peter Hocken, Ph.D was an accomplished ecumenist, scholar of pentecostalism, and longtime participant in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. His books included Azusa, Rome, and Zion and Pentecost and Parousia. Christopher A. Stephenson, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Lee University and author of Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit (OUP, 2013), as well as articles in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, International Review of Mission, Ecumenical Trends, and Istina. Tony L. Richie, D. Min, Ph. D. is Lecturer in Theology at Pentecostal Theological Seminary, Lead Pastor at New Harvest Church of God, and author of Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue." Please do not put back the material again until you've found independent, third-party sources and removed wording that implies Wikipedia endorsement of religious opinions. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 10:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:NightHeron, you removed a very large quantity of information from this article (twice). Note that the information you removed is sourced to academic publishers. Your most recent edit replaced the lede sentence of the article, which was previously well buttressed with two citations that meet WP:RS, with an unsourced version. The first source is published by an academic press Ashgate Publishing and authored by Todd M. Johnson, PhD, a professor of Global Christianity and Mission at Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary. The second source is authored by Peter Hocken, PhD, who received his PhD for his research on the history of charismatic renewal from the University of Birmingham, England. Both of these individuals are very well qualified to write on this movement. You will need to explain why you removed that since the lede sentence you instated violates the policy of WP:V as it is completely uncited. Additionally, you removed an entire section on Ecumenical implications from this article, even though it is authored to Peter Hocken, PhD, who is clearly notable and even has his own article on Wikipedia, as well as Tony Richie, PhD, an Adjunct Professor of Historical Theology and Systematic Theology, and Christopher A. Stephenson, PhD, an assistant professor of systematic theology at Lee University, Cleveland; moreover, the text was published by an academic publisher, Brill Academic Publishers. These certainly and undoubtedly meet the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. Asserting that these individuals are not reliable in an article about Christian theology because they are Christian theologians themselves is as bizarre as saying that a biologist is disqualified as a source for an article pertaining to Staphylococcus aureus. Please note that if you revert again, you will have reached WP:3RR and that with another revert, you will have crossed that and will be taken to WP:AN3. I am going to ask that you respectfully discuss your edits rather than reverting since your reverts are unjustified. If you continue to revert, I will undo your edit again. Please sit back and allow others to join the discussion. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 13:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Please calm down. And please stop threatening me. My lack of knowledge of the topic has nothing to do with the matter. I'm trying to explain to you why your use of wikivoice for religious claims violates a core Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV. Since you boast of tremendous experience editing, I'm amazed that you find this so hard to understand. Let me try once more. Saying that a claim should be "attributed" does not just mean "sourced". It means you have to say something like "According to..." or "So-and-so said" or something similar. You have to be careful not to use certain words that suggest that Wikipedia agrees (or disagrees) with the statement, see WP:EDITORIAL and WP:SAID. Wikipedia has to be neutral, especially about things like politics and religion.
I already made several edits to the lead (see above), which I first proposed on the talk page to see if anyone objects. It's not my duty to edit the entire article, and specifically it's not my duty to edit what you want to add. You added some material that violates core Wikipedia policies, and I reverted it, explaining why. Then you kept putting it back, falsely claiming to have met my objections. That's not collaborative editing, which is what we're supposed to be doing here. NightHeron ( talk) 22:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem to think that I'm being unreasonable. Please reread the 4th paragraph in the lead. At my insistence you attribute the last part, but you don't attribute the earlier claim. You state as a fact in wikivoice that the Catholic charismatic movement is "intrinsically ecumenical in nature". That is an opinion, and in fact a controversial one. Don't you see what's wrong there?
As I said, if you agree, we could ask for a third opinion ( WP:3O). NightHeron ( talk) 23:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmmmm...the academic references seem relevant for the article and in their context they dictate the interpretation of "ecumenical". Not sure what the debate is about but certainly if the sources speak of the charismatic movement being a part of or spreading into the Catholic church, then they certainly would not be unwelcome here. Attribution should resolve any disputes if there are controversial claims coming from the sources, but it looks like the adds are just about the background and history than anything else. Ramos1990 ( talk) 00:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
independent, third-partysources and must not read like a website for the group, per WP:PROMO.
Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus.From WP:ONUS:
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
to rise above or go beyond; overpass; exceed:
to outdo or exceed in excellence, elevation, extent, degree, etc.; surpass; excel.
(of the Deity) to be above and independent of (the universe, time, etc.).
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Texas, Austin/History of Pentecostalism in the Americas (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
This section definitely needs to be expanded.
I've heard that many Charismatic Catholics are critical of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, particularly the use of the vernacular. Is this true, and if it is, can anyone provide a reference? -- Saforrest 03:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to say the Colin Donovan reference about Paul VI is biased. He may have warned, but there are many stories of Paul VI's great support and his comments that I have heard were greatly in favor of the renewal. This lack of mention makes it seem that Paul VI was allowing it, but was only worried about. The reference to Cardinal Ratzinger now Benedict the XVI was about a famous interview with him, where the questions he was asked all dealt with the problems of the renewal. He finally added in on his own accord his belief in the goodness of the movement, which seemed to be a result of the questions asking about only negative characteristics of individuals within the renewal itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.135.226 ( talk) 13:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
How is this bias? Only the reference to EWTN was removed in 2015. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 01:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Three popes have acknowledged the movement: Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI. Pope John Paul stated that the movement was integral to the renewal of the entire Catholic Church. Both Popes Paul and Benedict, while acknowledging the good aspects of the movement, at the same time urge caution to its members to maintain their link to the Catholic Church.
Just want to add a comment that being baptized in the Holy Spirit was a catalyst in my life. All who are baptized have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, but what this prayer asks is that God stir that gift into flame. And He does not dissappoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.62.52 ( talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I propose the following changes in the lead:
giftin the 1st, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs if used at all should be in quotes and not in wikivoice.
charismaticin the 1st, 2nd, and 5th paragraphs should not be capitalized (and neither should
renewalin the 5th paragraph).
personal relationship with Jesusand
gifts of the Holy Spiritshould be in quotes and not in wikivoice.
As Fr Raniero Cantalamessa saysto
According to Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, per WP:SAY.
and feature such gifts asto
that feature.
testifyto
say, per WP:SAY.
Please let me know if you object to any of these proposed edits. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 13:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I removed material that lacked independent sources (that is, sources other than those from the charismatic movement and official Church statements). Other parts of the article also need better sourcing.
According to
WP:PROMO, Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.
Earlier I made some edits to the lead (listed above in this talk-page) in order to make the tone more encyclopedic. But this topic is far from my own areas of knowledge, so other editors would be better able to improve the neutrality and the sourcing in the main body. Whenever possible, statements should be verifiable through independent, third-party sources
. I'd have no objection to putting the material I removed back in the article if care is taken to give better sourcing and not to express religious opinions in wikivoice.
NightHeron (
talk)
21:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Anupam: You put back the material without adequate sourcing and with religious opinions still being expressed in wikivoice. All of your new section on "Ecumenical implications" is based on just one source, and it is not an independent third-party source. The authors are part of the movement they're writing about. The Amazon "About the authors" information says the following: "Peter Hocken, Ph.D was an accomplished ecumenist, scholar of pentecostalism, and longtime participant in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. His books included Azusa, Rome, and Zion and Pentecost and Parousia. Christopher A. Stephenson, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Lee University and author of Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit (OUP, 2013), as well as articles in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, International Review of Mission, Ecumenical Trends, and Istina. Tony L. Richie, D. Min, Ph. D. is Lecturer in Theology at Pentecostal Theological Seminary, Lead Pastor at New Harvest Church of God, and author of Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue." Please do not put back the material again until you've found independent, third-party sources and removed wording that implies Wikipedia endorsement of religious opinions. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 10:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:NightHeron, you removed a very large quantity of information from this article (twice). Note that the information you removed is sourced to academic publishers. Your most recent edit replaced the lede sentence of the article, which was previously well buttressed with two citations that meet WP:RS, with an unsourced version. The first source is published by an academic press Ashgate Publishing and authored by Todd M. Johnson, PhD, a professor of Global Christianity and Mission at Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary. The second source is authored by Peter Hocken, PhD, who received his PhD for his research on the history of charismatic renewal from the University of Birmingham, England. Both of these individuals are very well qualified to write on this movement. You will need to explain why you removed that since the lede sentence you instated violates the policy of WP:V as it is completely uncited. Additionally, you removed an entire section on Ecumenical implications from this article, even though it is authored to Peter Hocken, PhD, who is clearly notable and even has his own article on Wikipedia, as well as Tony Richie, PhD, an Adjunct Professor of Historical Theology and Systematic Theology, and Christopher A. Stephenson, PhD, an assistant professor of systematic theology at Lee University, Cleveland; moreover, the text was published by an academic publisher, Brill Academic Publishers. These certainly and undoubtedly meet the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. Asserting that these individuals are not reliable in an article about Christian theology because they are Christian theologians themselves is as bizarre as saying that a biologist is disqualified as a source for an article pertaining to Staphylococcus aureus. Please note that if you revert again, you will have reached WP:3RR and that with another revert, you will have crossed that and will be taken to WP:AN3. I am going to ask that you respectfully discuss your edits rather than reverting since your reverts are unjustified. If you continue to revert, I will undo your edit again. Please sit back and allow others to join the discussion. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 13:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Please calm down. And please stop threatening me. My lack of knowledge of the topic has nothing to do with the matter. I'm trying to explain to you why your use of wikivoice for religious claims violates a core Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV. Since you boast of tremendous experience editing, I'm amazed that you find this so hard to understand. Let me try once more. Saying that a claim should be "attributed" does not just mean "sourced". It means you have to say something like "According to..." or "So-and-so said" or something similar. You have to be careful not to use certain words that suggest that Wikipedia agrees (or disagrees) with the statement, see WP:EDITORIAL and WP:SAID. Wikipedia has to be neutral, especially about things like politics and religion.
I already made several edits to the lead (see above), which I first proposed on the talk page to see if anyone objects. It's not my duty to edit the entire article, and specifically it's not my duty to edit what you want to add. You added some material that violates core Wikipedia policies, and I reverted it, explaining why. Then you kept putting it back, falsely claiming to have met my objections. That's not collaborative editing, which is what we're supposed to be doing here. NightHeron ( talk) 22:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem to think that I'm being unreasonable. Please reread the 4th paragraph in the lead. At my insistence you attribute the last part, but you don't attribute the earlier claim. You state as a fact in wikivoice that the Catholic charismatic movement is "intrinsically ecumenical in nature". That is an opinion, and in fact a controversial one. Don't you see what's wrong there?
As I said, if you agree, we could ask for a third opinion ( WP:3O). NightHeron ( talk) 23:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmmmm...the academic references seem relevant for the article and in their context they dictate the interpretation of "ecumenical". Not sure what the debate is about but certainly if the sources speak of the charismatic movement being a part of or spreading into the Catholic church, then they certainly would not be unwelcome here. Attribution should resolve any disputes if there are controversial claims coming from the sources, but it looks like the adds are just about the background and history than anything else. Ramos1990 ( talk) 00:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
independent, third-partysources and must not read like a website for the group, per WP:PROMO.
Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus.From WP:ONUS:
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
to rise above or go beyond; overpass; exceed:
to outdo or exceed in excellence, elevation, extent, degree, etc.; surpass; excel.
(of the Deity) to be above and independent of (the universe, time, etc.).