Why Can’t Pentecostals and Roman Catholics Share Communion With Each Other?

Introduction

A Roman Catholic is prohibited by Church doctrine from actively participating in Communion with Pentecostal brothers and sisters in their church's liturgical Communion ritual.  Likewise, in the Roman Catholic parish, Pentecostal brothers and sisters are not knowingly allowed to partake and/or participate, that is they are denied or disallowed receiving Communion there. How and why can this be in exegetical hindsight based upon the biblical narratives true?  In breaking bread together and sharing Communion between Pentecostals and Roman Catholics: Where in the Biblical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is there evidence or precedent to support disallowing or prohibiting either denomination from excluding the other?  More specifically, in the Last Supper and Passover Seder narratives where does Jesus of Nazareth deny those then present a seat at the table and henceforth, the opportunity to actively recall by participating in a shared communal meal together, which is contemporarily understood as the Institution of the Eucharist?  The purpose of this paper is to highlight the differences and underscore the similarities between each denomination's interpretation of Communion through Koinonia, respectively and inclusively argue through selected sources a practical and local approach, in finding consensus and inner-Communion is if possible via Roman Catholic doctrine/orthodoxy and Pentecostalism holiness/spirituality equally rooted in Roman Catholic biblical tradition and Pentecostal spiritual Holiness are de facto congruent. 

Purpose and Need for Ecumenism

In John 17:21, Jesus prays for his disciples, and in so praying asks “that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” The plea to the Father to keep these twelve Apostles of the Word of one mind foreshadows divisions that developed throughout history as the Word of God was carried by men, not by the Lord Jesus, and it is the nature of men to set themselves above others. This happened as early as in the very beginnings of the Church, as reflected in the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 1:10 wherein Paul says “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.” Although Paul’s exhortations concerned divisions within the Church of Corinth itself, they contain within them something more universal, and with the simplicity of the words, how they harken even now to the stark divisions within the Church today, and in particular to Roman Catholics and Pentecostals unable to together celebrate the Eucharist as He instructed.  

Ecumenism is the essence of Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, unity in Christ, something which even at the outset as it was, one might think would have been simple. The frailty of men, even men consumed with love for Jesus, however, created a myriad of interpretations of all that had transpired. Men were scrambling for recognition, for position, even as this was meant for holy endeavors. We know that over time, these early divisions blossomed into a diverse Church of many denominations with their own traditions and interpretations, even their own orthodoxy. 

How the Second Vatican Council Changed the Roman Catholic Church and Recognized the Holy Spirit at Work in Other Christian Denominations

In 1959, Pope John XXIII announced the establishment of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). The Roman Catholic Church proclaimed as part of Vatican II that ecumenism is a “principal concern”, decreeing in its 1964 Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio (the” Decree”) that the restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided [1 Cor. 1:13]. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.  

The goal it seems was to seek unity. The Decree continued: “Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called ‘ecumenical.’” 

So ecumenism was chosen to be some of the glue to keep the faithful together unified in Christ across the globe and among the diverse sects of Christianity such as the Protestant and Moravian faith that developed over two millennia. The Decree acknowledges that wherever the Gospel is heard by the faithful is their Church, but cautions that almost everyone longs for a universal church. As expected, in the decree, the Roman Catholic Church is described as the first and only Church: “Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors - the bishops with Peter's successor at their head - should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love.” 

While adopting this ecumenical approach, the Roman Catholic Church by no means surrendered positions long contested among other denominations around the world regarding what is often considered “hard questions.” Consequently, near the conclusion of the Decree, there are conditions set out therein by which other churches, including the Pentecostals, must accept some principles in order for unity to be achieved. For instance, the Decree at 22 states: 

Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in Eucharistic communion. Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue. 

Dialogue has been held on various occasions in these past 50 years since this Vatican II Decree. As noted in the Decree, one of the key points of disagreement among the Churches has been Koinonia, celebration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, a prime point of contention between the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal Churches, and the focus of this paper.

Ecumenical Dialogue between Roman Catholic Church and Pentecostal Churches

According to Jerry L. Sandidge, David J. du Plessis transformed from a fundamentalist Pentecostal living in South Africa to an ecumenical Pentecostal residing in the United States. He was deeply involved in the formative years of the Pentecostal World Conference, and expressed a vision of unity among Pentecostals throughout the globe. While du Plessis was presenting a report on the state of Pentecostalism in Scotland in 1960, he made contacts with the Roman Catholic Church, and was invited to go to Rome. He did so, and met Roman Catholic officials involved in the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Subsequently, he became the only Pentecostal observer in 1964 at the third session of Vatican II.  

Out of these and other relationships and contacts made by du Plessis (and according to Sandidge the Rev. Ray Bringham), the Vatican/Pentecostal Dialogue ultimately took place, amidst a confluence of circumstances that made the timing right. These included the wider acceptance of Pentecostalism among world churches, a revival of charismatic understanding and practice in the both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and the outreach begun by the commencement of Vatican II. 

But before an international discussion between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals could actually take place, “there had to be a discussion about the possibility of a dialogue.”  The first such discussion occurred in the latter part of 1970, and the second in the middle of 1971. During that second meeting, both sides presented what they considered “five hard questions”,  and during that second preliminary discussion Cardinal Willebrands and du Plessis concluded it was time to enter into the dialogue itself. Four key conclusions came out of the preliminary discussions including most importantly unanimity about entering into a dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and Pentecostals.  The Cardinal and du Plessis also agreed to the structure of the dialogue teams, and a plan for five meetings over the succeeding three years. Specific discussion topics were put off to be decided by a Steering Committee. 

The Steering Committee convened, and in October, 1971 a general outline of the dialogue was agreed. A quinquennial was arranged and took place between 1972 and 1976. The reports at the conclusion were non-binding to any theological principles covered in the report.  During the second quinquennial, 1977-1982, the makeup of the Pentecostal side changed somewhat so that only “classical Pentecostals” were invited, in order to bring the Roman Catholic church in closer contact with the worldwide Pentecostal movement, and from the Pentecostal’s standpoint, to bring in more Pentecostal denominations.  This was also carried out by having Pentecostal observers attend who were unable to participate in discussions, but were able to monitor the proceedings, thus having the effect of bringing in a wider cross-section of the Pentecostal church. Again, the reports were prepared though no binding conclusions were made. In 1983, David J. Du Plessy received The Benemerenti medal from Pope John Paul II, honoring his outstanding service to all Christianity. He was the first non-Catholic to receive such an honor. That same year, Killian McDonnel, the chair of the Roman Catholic committee on the Dialogue.  was also honored by the Vatican with the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifica award for his work in ecumenism. 

The third quinquennial meeting, took place from 1985-1989. “The overall theme was The Communion of the Saints (1985); The Holy Spirit and the New Testament Vision of Koinonia (1986); Koinonia, Church and Sacrament (1987); and Koinonia and Baptism (1988).  Thus, the dialogue pertaining to koinonia and partaking in the Sacrament of the Eucharist was entered into by both the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal church bodies.  Despite the convening of the two divergent ecclesiastical bodies to discuss “the hard questions,” and their vigorous discussion, no solution has been the subject of any agreement, and there remain between the Roman Catholic Church and the Pentecostal Church fundamental differences that exist with respect to koinonia and the Eucharist. 

The Differences in Communion: Roman Catholic Church and Pentecostal Church

 “Koinonia is the Anglicization of the Greek word (κοινωνία) which means communion by intimate participation. It identifies the idealized state of fellowship and community that should exist within the Christian Church.”  According to Killian McDonnell, “The ultimate source of koinonia is Trinitarian, Christological, pneumatological, and in the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 10:16). It is the highest expression of the unity both Catholics and Pentecostals seek.”  Indeed, the ideological divisions between Orthodox Roman Catholics and Pentecostals with respect to Koinonia, in terms of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the Sacrament of the Eucharist are indistinguishable from one another. Between  Roman Catholics and Pentecostals there is a schism however, in the manner in which communion is celebrated, which is indicative of deep-rooted, fundamental and organizational differences, as well as interpretive differences in the term “community” to which the partaking of the Eucharist applies. Kärkäinnen succinctly states,

In sum, it can be said that there is no contention between Catholics and Pentecostals concerning the trinitarian basis of koinonia in the Spirit, except for the way it is manifested; for Pentecostals this takes place in the individual, for Catholics it is through the church. 

Catholics base doctrinal views surrounding koinonia on the gospels of Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22-25; and Luke 22:17-20, wherein Jesus speaks directly to his disciples, instructing them in the Lord’s Supper: “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”  This directive given to Jesus’ disciples rather than the church or community has resulted in a closed communion in Roman Catholic liturgy. Pentecostals alternatively, embrace a policy of open communion, whereby individuals other than church members are not denied the partaking of the body of Christ, yet are strongly encouraged to receive instruction in the Lord and baptism in order to receive the spirit and enter into fellowship with the Church.  One point of agreement among both denominations is that they eschew the partaking of the Eucharist for members who engage in habitual sin such as sexual immorality, drunkenness, or demon worship. In I Corinthians 5:11 Paul states, “I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler — not even to eat with such a one.”  In I Corinthians 10:20-22 Paul asserts, “You cannot drink from the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”  An examination of the historical development and relationship between the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches will demonstrate that these verses are relevant to the discussion regarding koinonia, and the failure to reach ecumenical reconciliation in terms of shared communion.

Roman Catholic process theology regards the Church as the “Body of Christ, idealized in sacramental communion [. . .] In the meal, Christ and Church are fully united in nuptial union, a union of one flesh [. . .] This communion allows the Church as Christ’s Body to be the transparency of God’s eternal agape in the world.”  

In the Second Quinquennial Report on the dialogues between the Roman Catholic Church and certain classical Pentecostals in 1977-1982, one of the “hard questions” considered was communion, because the Eucharist was one of the most contentious issues between the Roman Church and the Pentecostal Church.  In the report it is noted that Roman Catholics consider the Lord’s Supper a Sacramental “memorial” of the sacrifice that our Lord Jesus made on Calvary, in particular in the full sense and meaning of the term ἀνάμνησις (anamnesis), which is comprised of both the memorial sacrifice and solemn reminiscence.  Roman Catholics hold that it is by the power of God that Jesus is “present in His death and resurrection in the celebration of the Eucharist. The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is that this Sacrament, a sacred rite, is one of the key privileges or worship, and one of the central means by which worshippers can find grace. In the Roman Catholic Church, the celebration of this Sacrament is made very often, daily if possible. 

Conversely, Pentecostal ecclesiology holds that, “The Body of Christ is nothing other than the fellowship of persons. It is the fellowship of Jesus Christ or fellowship of the Holy Ghost where fellowship of koinonia signifies a common participation, a togetherness, a community life.”  The Second Quinquennial Report also notes that the Lord’s Supper does not occupy such a central place in Pentecostal worship,  and that most Pentecostals partake in the Eucharist more as an “ordinance in obedience” to the Lord’s command to do so, as reflected in the scriptures, Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22-25; and Luke 22:17-20. The report does acknowledge that there are some Pentecostal Churches that consider the Last Supper a pathway to grace, more than just a reminder of the Lord’s death and resurrection. Althouse describes the Pentecostal Eucharist as a community Sacrament:

Koinonia looks to the future kingdom for its character and is strengthened by the Spirit’s activity. Through the charismata, and Eucharist, the Spirit establishes the ministry of Jesus in the community as the church c0nvessed Christ’s lordship. Through the Charismata, the Holy spirit re-creates Christ’s kingdom ministry in the church. In the Eucharist, the church symbolically (I would add sacramentally) participates in Christ’s kingdom. 

Biddy refers to some accommodation by Pentecostals before reconciliation. “Pentecostal Sacramentology will have to begin with an account of sacraments as events of a divine-human encounter that take place through symbols….Once that is accepted…it will be easier for Pentecostals to engage the other (older) issues in a profitable dialogue with Christians of other traditions. “ 

Alluding back to the gospels of Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22-25 and Luke 22:17-20, Roman Catholicism envisions the Church as both partakers and beneficiaries of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, whereas Pentecostals align communion to passages such as 2 Corinthians 13:13, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”  

One of the main points of contention between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals is the nature of the way in which the communion itself is offered. The Second Quinquennial Report points out that in general, Pentecostals offer an open communion, one in which anyone can participate, only provided they acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord “and have examined their own dispositions”, citing 1Cor. 11:28 (“Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup”.)  However, for the Roman Catholic Church, communion is available only to its own members, and only provided they are free from sin, as Paul warned the Corinthians. The Roman Catholic Church, as the Second Quinquennial Report argues, does not refuse communion to non-members as a “refusal of fellowship” to fellow Christians, but rather as an expression of the Roman Catholic Church’s view of the pivotal relationship between the Last Supper and the Church itself. 

As to the conclusion of the Quinquennial Dialogue considering the “hard question” about communion, the Second Quinquennial Report states the justification for this practice by Catholics was contested by Pentecostals. This was found to be painful on both sides and the dialogue agrees that the subject with regard to admission to communion requires a great deal of further discussion.

Both Pentecostals and Roman Catholics agree that a common faith is the basis of communion in the body of Christ. For Roman Catholics full communion means the collegial unity of the heads of the local Churches; namely, the bishops, with the bishop of Rome who exercises the primacy. Pentecostals would not attach the same significance to structural bonds between churches, and will welcome fellowship with many autonomous churches. The Roman Catholic church recognizes the mediation of Christ at work in churches which are not in full communion with it, through the Word that is preached and believed, the sacraments that are celebrated and the ministry that is exercised. If it considers that these gifts are not found in their fullness in a particular church it does not thereby make any judgment of the actual holiness of the members of that church. The roman Catholic church describes the relationship of other Christians with Catholics as that of brothers and sisters in an incomplete communion. (Decree of Ecumenism).

Despite the discussions regarding this contentious issue over many years, no solution has been offered. In essence the Roman Catholic Church has said to its sister Churches around the globe, “don’t take it personally” that we don’t allow communion except as to our own members. Yet many Christians, including Pentecostals, and Roman Catholics themselves question this.

The New Passover Feast – The Lord’s Supper

In his book on the life of Jesus, Pope Benedict considered carefully the long-running debate about the question whether the Last Supper was a Jewish Passover Feast or not. Christianity is different from a Jewish and Christian perspective. The analysis the Pope reviews is essentially one of timing, because there is an inconsistency in the scriptures about the timing of the Last Supper with the Feast of Passover in that year in which Jesus was crucified. The Pope discusses several theories and analysis and settles on one which holds that the first night of Passover in fact began on Friday evening and ran through to Saturday evening, and that Jesus was in fact at supper with the disciples the night before Passover. 

John goes to great lengths to indicate that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal. … The Passover therefore began only in the evening, and at the time of the trial the Passover meal had not yet taken place; the trial and crucifixion took place on the day before the Passover, on the “day of preparation”, not on the feast day itself. The Passover feast in the year in question accordingly ran from Friday evening until Saturday evening, not from Thursday evening until Friday evening. 

Pope Benedict’s explanation of the importance of this is equally important to the discussion here. He alludes to Luke’s reference to the Lord Jesus’ pronouncement of His intention regarding the Last Supper, In all the Synoptic gospels the prophecy of Jesus’s death and resurrection form part of this meal. Luke presents it in an especially solemn and mysterious form: “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” ([Matthew] 22:15f).  

And the Pope concludes that one thing emerges clearly from the entire tradition: essentially, this farewell meal was not the old Passover, but the new one, which Jesus accomplished in this context. Even though the meal that Jesus shared with the Twelve was not a Passover meal according to the ritual prescriptions of Judaism, nevertheless, in retrospect, the inner connection of the whole event with Jesus’s death and resurrection stood out clearly. It was Jesus’s Passover. And in this sense he both did and did not celebrate the Passover: the old rituals could not be carried out – when their time came, Jesus had already died. But he had given himself, and thus he had truly celebrated the Passover with them. The old was not abolished, it was simply brought to its full meaning. 

What is equally interesting to this conclusion by Pope Benedict is that the connection between Jesus and the Passover Seder has always been significant, and Pope Benedict adverts to a new Passover beginning, a Passover that began with Jesus, not ended. In the Jewish Passover tradition, the Seder is a celebration of the glory of God in freeing the Jews from slavery in Egypt, and for all the miracles He performed.  In drinking the traditional four cups of wine, there was always a question about the fifth cup, and thus this was left for Elijah to determine. Yet, in many traditions, Elijah was likened to the Messiah, and was not Jesus the Messiah? And so, is it also not significant that the Lord Jesus transformed the old Passover, as Pope Benedict suggests, into a new Passover, also celebrating the Glory of God, but here in his resurrection and in God offering up His only Son for the sins of all. But if this is true, and the character of the Feast remains the same, the celebration of the Glory of God, it is traditionally a Feast in which the door is opened, and Elijah is welcomed. On that night, Elijah, in the form He had taken, Jesus, the Christ, had already come in the opened door. The Eucharist is an open Feast in remembrance of the Lord Jesus. In fact, in the words of Jesus himself, he tells his disciples that he “earnestly” desires to eat this Passover meal with them. How then can the Lord’s Supper be considered a closed ritual for “members only”?

The Eucharist, the New Passover and Shared Communion

Communion, the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, one of the most important sacraments in Christianity, is presently mutually exclusive between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals. How can this be true?  We began with this question.

More than fourteen hundred years before Jesus ministered to the Jews on the Mount before his disciples and the multitudes, Moses laid the law of Israel as it had been given and as it had developed before the people. More than a millennium later, the Christ came to teach the people that they had forgotten God's miracle and His purpose in choosing them in the first place, and that the endless array of rules and practices, and their justification and enforcement had corrupted the faith and replaced the glory of God and His words with false traditions and overseers. In His ministry on earth, Jesus gave a new meaning to the law and the teachings, and he announced a new way of celebrating God in the form of the Eucharist. 

Jesus pronounced a view of faith during His ministry that cannot be reconciled now with infighting among His people about the practice of the Eucharist or speaking in tongues or a vast array of traditions, requirements, prescriptions and regulations. Some of this is not so very different from what He had preached were distractions from “The way and the truth and the life”.  He had come to proclaim, if anything, that faith in Him was paramount, and faith in the details of thousands of years of men building a hierarchy to serve God was not. Jesus criticized the priests and the rabbis and the culture that had grown up so far away from His Father’s teachings. 

Churches around the world ask congregants, who after all are the focus of any Church's ministry bringing God to them and they to Him, what would Jesus do (or we might say θέωσις (theosis) or imitatio dei or imitatio Christi)? Are we not urged to imitate Him? In Ephesians 5, Paul says “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children.” What is the point of this inquiry if not to put life and the Lord in context? In 1 Corinthians 11:1 it is said “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” 

So too, if He were to minister to us now, at this very moment, in our churches, divided and squabbling over pomp and procedure, what would He say? It has been almost two thousand years since the last time the people were warned and taught, led and amazed from on high these simple truths, and now we are once again trying to reconcile the hierarchies that have been constructed over millennia out of division and myopia. What would He say to us now, and is it not our responsibility to ask the question and answer it as honestly and truthfully as we can before that day?  

Closing Thoughts and Restatement of Purpose

We started with the question about Holy Communion having become between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals both essential to each, and yet a mutually exclusive concept, and we asked “How can this be true?” There are no scriptures that prohibit anyone from partaking in the Lord’s Supper aside from those sinners singled out by the Apostle Paul in Corinthians.  In fact, in John 17:21 Jesus prays that his disciples can all be as one. This must translate to the same prayer for His Church, which are his people. Unity is the only interpretation.

In over fifty years, so many dialogues between the Roman Catholic Church and the Pentecostal Church have taken place, and yet there is no progress on this point. While we speak of unity, we seem to always conclude with disunity. While we speak of the celebration of the Eucharist, and we truly can appreciate the momentous gift from our Lord Jesus that Communion is, yet we seem to go against what He said that day on the mount, exhortations to inclusiveness, not exclusion, to unity, not disharmony. Jesus offered us the New Passover the night before He died on the cross. Now, we must make take up this new feast with vigor and embrace the Lord’s earnest desire to share this feast with his disciples, and thus with us all.

Bibliography

Althouse, Peter. “Left Behind” – Fact or Fiction: Ecumenical Dilemmas of the Fundamentalist Millenarian Tensions with Pentecostalism.  Journal of Pentecostal Theology 13.2 (2005)

Decree on ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio. Boston: St. Paul Books & Media, 1964

Final Report of the dialogue between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and some classical Pentecostals, 1977-1982:  Second Quinquennial. The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal  Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, Fall 1990, 97-115

John 14:6 New Revised Standard Version

John 17:21, New Revised Standard Version

Kärkäinnen, Veli-Matti “Anonymous ecumenists”? Pentecostals and the struggle for Christian identity,” Ecclesiastical Studies, 37, 1 (Winter 2000): 24.

Kärkäinnen, Veli-Matti, “Trinity as Communion in the Spirit: Koinonia, Trinity, and Filioque in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue,”Pentecostal studies, 22, 2 (Fall, 2000): 220.

Luke 22: 17-20, New Revised Standard Version

McDonald, Killian, “Five Defining Issues: The International Classical Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue” Pentecostal Studies, 17, 3 (Fall 1998): 178.

Mark 14:22-25, New Revised Standard Version

Matthew 26:26, New Revised Standard Version

Power, David N. “Roman Catholic theologies of Eucharistic communion: A Contribution to ecumenical conversation,” Theological Studies 57, 4 (December 1996): 587.

Ratzinger, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: part two : Holy Week: from the entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 2011.

Robeck, Cecil M. “The Holy Spirit and the NT Vision of Koinonia,” (Pentecostal position paper read at the 12th dialogue session, Pasadena, CA, 24-30 May 1986), 7.

Sandidge, Jerry L., “Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue: A Contribution to Christian Unity,” Pentecostal Studies (Spring 1985): 41.

Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p.352.