]Actually, the early Church was very liturgical - Saint Paul, for example, describes the Eucharist and “feast days” in 1 Corinthians. Early Church Fathers such as Polycarp, Saint Ignatius, Saint Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr all talk about the Eucharist, liturgy, bishops, and other elements of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.
The movement of the Holy Spirit and the “movement” of the Holy Spirit today are two entirely different actions, and serve two entirely different purposes. The practice of speaking in tongues at Pentecost was not in a strange, possessed language but one that was able to be understood by all. No one ever rolled around on the floor, threw up, or laughed uncontrollably. Furthermore, no one ever spoke of “Holy Ghost machine guns” nor “Holy Ghost enemas.” The only people who did all these things were early heretics such as the Montanists, who acted like they were possessed by the Holy Spirit - in fact, such ideas were common only in Pagan faiths. The worship of Christians was controlled, and as the ante-Nicene Fathers show us even the disciples of the apostles believed in a reserved but strong-willed faith.
Actually, the Early Church was sacramental, liturgical and … charismatic. If you read the Didache, part II, there are instructions for fasting, baptism, the eucharist and Sunday worship. But the largest section refers to how one should treat itinerant prophets who speak words of knowledge through the Spirit.
I agree with a previous poster that ever more stringent liturgical standards may have choked out the Spirit in the Church over the centuries, in contrary to Scripture.
So please don’t be smug: any church that rejects the practice of the charismatic gifts is rejecting the authentic faith of the New Testament church and the Early Church Fathers.
There are excesses in the practice of many spiritual gifts; such should not lead us to reject spiritual gifts, but rather the un scriptural use of those gifts.
The Roman Catholic Church has been wise to welcome the charismatic movement.