# Presbyterians Turning Roman Catholic



## Arch2k

On the recent thread VII and Roman Catholic Apologetics? I was reminded of Scott Hahn's and 
Gerry Matatics' conversion from Presbyterianism to Roman Catholicism.

Scott Hahn did his internship here in Wichita at one of the local PCUSA churches, so I know of people who had interaction with some of the controversy. After being reminded of these guys, I decided to listen to a lecture or two by Hahn, and to be honest, it made me a little sick to my stomach.

How in the world can someone as "smart" as these guys make a switch like that?

Where in the world did they go wrong?


----------



## VictorBravo

Obviously, it's not smarts that matter. They were given over, sad to say.

Roman Catholicism is strangely seductive. For awhile, before I was abruptly grabbed by the Holy Spirit, I was intrigued by the tradition, pomp, mystery, and old chants. I was a substitute organist in several Catholic churches and longed to hear a Latin mass.

But, after spending some time in a Catholic bookstore, I could not stand it. The superstition and foolishness jumped out at me at every turn.

Then I started reading Spurgeon, then Calvin, and there was no turning back. 

In retrospect, however, I can still sense the siren call of the Roman Church. It's a call to put away your mind, your responsibilities to God, let super saints help you out, and submit to secret mysteries. The old Puritans who equated it with the whore of Babylon had it right. She seduces.

Vic


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I don't know anything about those two gentlemen, but my mother has a membership in a PCUSA church and still considers herself to be Roman Catholic, a position with which the PCUSA church has no quarrel.


----------



## Scott

Hahn's book Rome Sweet Home was not very good. It as very stream of consciousness. It sounded like something someone would dictate in a recorder for a secretary to type up so that the author could revise, except that it seems like it was never revised. 

Anyway, he cited the usual suspects with Catholic converts, such as authority, the sacraments, apostolic succession, and the like. He also seemed to have held a Zwinglian view of the sacraments and when confronted with biblical texts that the sacraments actually do something, he seemed to see only two options (Catholicism or they do nothing). He did not seem famliar with reformed or Lutheran views. I am reminded of when Luther said, "I would rather drink blood with the papists than wine with the Zwinglians." This dichotomy seems to have nudged him over.

Also, at one point he recounts a discussion with John Gerstner where he depicts Gerstner as being at a loss to answer his questions. Of course, Gerstner is not around to defend himself any more. 

Anyway, the whole thing is pretty sad. Sadder still is Matatics who has gone over to the traditionalist camp.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> Rev 18:1 After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was made bright with his glory. 2 And he called out with a mighty voice,
> 
> "œFallen, fallen is Babylon the great!
> She has become a dwelling place for demons,
> a haunt for every unclean spirit,
> a haunt for every unclean bird,
> a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.
> 3 For all nations have drunk
> the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality,
> and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her,
> and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living."


----------



## Arch2k

Obviously these guys were given over to the whore, but I am really wondering, for guys who knew the arguments, who studied the Westminster Confession etc., *what kind of arguments would convince the likes of these guys?*

Were they inticed by the devotion, the mystery, or where they convinced that sola scriptura really wasn't the way to go? 

It's a sad story.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Obviously these guys were given over to the whore, but I am really wondering, for guys who knew the arguments, who studied the Westminster Confession etc., *what kind of arguments would convince the likes of these guys?*
> 
> Were they inticed by the devotion, the mystery, or where they convinced that sola scriptura really wasn't the way to go?
> 
> It's a sad story.





> In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
> *2 Cor 4:4*


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> Rev 18:1 After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was made bright with his glory. 2 And he called out with a mighty voice,
> 
> "œFallen, fallen is Babylon the great!
> She has become a dwelling place for demons,
> a haunt for every unclean spirit,
> a haunt for every unclean bird,
> a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.
> 3 For all nations have drunk
> the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality,
> and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her,
> and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living."
Click to expand...






> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
> *2 Cor 4:4*
Click to expand...



I see what you are saying, but it does not really answer the heart of Jeff's question. The Roman Catholics could quote the same scripture when asked why one of theirs converted to Protestantism.

What could convince a person who is educated in the reformed doctrines, that the synergistic, mystic, papal church is the true church?


----------



## Arch2k

Exactly Chris.

FYI, I found that James White has debated Gerry Matatics several times. I plan to download some of the debates and see exactly what these guys "think" they learned.


----------



## CDM

> What could convince a person who is educated in the reformed doctrines, that the synergistic, mystic, papal church is the true church?



I would imagine what convinced them is the same thing that convinces any unregenerate reprobate. Intellectual knowledge of a system of theology does nothing without a circumcised heart. Unbelievers cannot hold fast to a God they don't know. So, in this case, he went to the Whore along with the rest of the world.

It is pretty obvious why some are lured to Rome...they are unbelievers and that is a place that they congregate.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Exactly Chris.
> 
> FYI, I found that James White has debated Gerry Matatics several times. I plan to download some of the debates and see exactly what these guys "think" they learned.



That is good to know, I am curious.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Exactly Chris.
> 
> FYI, I found that James White has debated Gerry Matatics several times. I plan to download some of the debates and see exactly what these guys "think" they learned.



Goodness. Are you in for a laugh? Dr. White uses his kid gloves and absolutely demolishes Matatics. At several points, I was sincerely embarrassed FOR Matatics.


----------



## turmeric

I think there is a real spiritual force behind this - although we Presbyterians don't like to talk about it, makes us sound like Pentecostals


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

The lure of Tradition is very strong.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

i have a note that 12 PCA Teaching Elders have publically converted to Roman catholism over the last 25 years, but have never found confirming evidence. has anyone else seen numbers of this magnitude for the problem?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Obviously these guys were given over to the whore, but I am really wondering, for guys who knew the arguments, who studied the Westminster Confession etc., *what kind of arguments would convince the likes of these guys?*
> 
> Were they inticed by the devotion, the mystery, or where they convinced that sola scriptura really wasn't the way to go?
> 
> It's a sad story.



Gerstner made it very clear that Hahn had no idea what the Reformed camp taught.
A lot of times switches like these are psychological.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> On the recent thread VII and Roman Catholic Apologetics? I was reminded of Scott Hahn's and
> Gerry Matatics' conversion from Presbyterianism to Roman Catholicism.
> 
> Scott Hahn did his internship here in Wichita at one of the local PCUSA churches, so I know of people who had interaction with some of the controversy.


I'm not familiar with these guys. At one time, were they well known in the reformed community? Were they pastors or seminary professors or something along those lines?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> On the recent thread VII and Roman Catholic Apologetics? I was reminded of Scott Hahn's and
> Gerry Matatics' conversion from Presbyterianism to Roman Catholicism.
> 
> 
> Scott Hahn did his internship here in Wichita at one of the local PCUSA churches, so I know of people who had interaction with some of the controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with these guys. At one time, were they well known in the reformed community? Were they pastors or seminary professors or something along those lines?
Click to expand...


Here Greg Bahnsen's The Road to Rome. It is him at his rhetorical and analytical best.

[Edited on 3--23-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Here Greg Bahnsen's The Road to Rome. It is him at his rhetorical and analytical best.



Thanks for the link Jacob. I will listen to it ASAP.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Here Greg Bahnsen's The Road to Rome. It is him at his rhetorical and analytical best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link Jacob. I will listen to it ASAP.
Click to expand...


Be forewarned. It is ugly. It is a massacre. For that reason, it is just plain awesome.


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> i have a note that 12 PCA Teaching Elders have publically converted to Roman catholism over the last 25 years, but have never found confirming evidence. has anyone else seen numbers of this magnitude for the problem?


I can't confirm your list. But if Scott Hahn is on it, you can strike his name off your list. Contrary to what Romanists claim, Hahn was never ordained as a PCA teaching elder.

DTK


----------



## caddy

Well said Vic !



> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> Obviously, it's not smarts that matter. They were given over, sad to say.
> 
> Roman Catholicism is strangely seductive. For awhile, before I was abruptly grabbed by the Holy Spirit, I was intrigued by the tradition, pomp, mystery, and old chants. I was a substitute organist in several Catholic churches and longed to hear a Latin mass.
> 
> But, after spending some time in a Catholic bookstore, I could not stand it. The superstition and foolishness jumped out at me at every turn.
> 
> Then I started reading Spurgeon, then Calvin, and there was no turning back.
> 
> In retrospect, however, I can still sense the siren call of the Roman Church. It's a call to put away your mind, your responsibilities to God, let super saints help you out, and submit to secret mysteries. The old Puritans who equated it with the whore of Babylon had it right. She seduces.
> 
> Vic


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...
> Scott Hahn did his internship here in Wichita at one of the local PCUSA churches, so I know of people who had interaction with some of the controversy. After being reminded of these guys, I decided to listen to a lecture or two by Hahn, and to be honest, it made me a little sick to my stomach.
> 
> How in the world can someone as "smart" as these guys make a switch like that?
> 
> Where in the world did they go wrong?



Didn't Scott Hahn credit to Norman Shepherd for being instrumental in his conversion to Catholicism. I read something (sort of a autobiography) written by Hahn about the process and I think he mentioned Shepherd as being pivotal to it.

...

I found it here:


> THE SCOTT HAHN CONVERSION STORY: Protestant Minister Becomes Catholic
> 
> During my third and final year at seminary, something happened that represented a crisis for me. I was studying covenant and I heard of another theologian studying covenant, a man by the name of Professor Shepherd in Philadelphia teaching at Westminster Seminary. I heard about Shepherd because he was being accused of heresy. People were suggesting that his heresy grew out of his understanding of the covenant. So I got some documents that he had written, some articles, and I read through them. I discovered that Professor Shepherd had come across the same conclusions that my research had led me to.


----------



## RamistThomist

Normally that would carry wait but remember, it is coming from Scott Hahn. Plus, whatever Shepherd's faults, he attacks the heart of the roman system: human merit


----------



## Arch2k

Anthony, 

You are correct. While I don't know Shepard's views all that well, his views were obviously bad enough to get him kicked out of Westminster.

Even if from a bad source (Hahn), it should definately be taken into account that he attributes at least part of his "conversion" to his Shepardian view of the covenant.

Even more relevant to us, is that if this IS the case, it makes church action on FV even more vital to the survival of the reformed church in America In my humble opinion.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

That Bahnsen lecture is great.


----------



## Peter

Gerry Matatics is an interesting character. When he apostatized he was warmly received by Romish apologists such as Keating. Now guess what, he's a hyper- traditional Tridentinist and a sedevacantists, that is, he believes the Papal chair is vacant because VII was heretical.

http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/gerry.htm


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Gerry Matatics is an interesting character. When he apostatized he was warmly received by Romish apologists such as Keating. Now guess what, he's a hyper- traditional Tridentinist and a sedevacantists, that is, he believes the Papal chair is vacant because VII was heretical.
> 
> http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/gerry.htm



It was funny when Mattatics and Manning debated Greg Bahnsen. Mattatic's views on Mary were so weird that not only Bahnsen took him to task, Fr. Manning did as well! Manning was weakening Mattatics case! 

Mattatics is the most annoying of Roman apologists.


----------



## Laura

I'm listening to Bahnsen's lecture now--thanks, Jacob. My church is dealing with this presently, actually with a college student. Whoever said it was typically a psychological thing has my full agreement.


----------



## Peter

Yep, I'm sure some of the worst torments in hell await Mattatics a la 2 Pe 2:20-22, and Heb 6.

I remember that debate remotely. Didn't Bahnsen keep saying that Mattatics argued like a Presbyterian Catholic b/c Mattatics wattered down popish doctrine to make it more palatable? Quite the opposite now, Mattatics is a foam at the mouth traditionalist.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Yep, I'm sure some of the worst torments in hell await Mattatics a la 2 Pe 2:20-22, and Heb 6.
> 
> I remember that debate remotely. Didn't Bahnsen keep saying that Mattatics argued like a Presbyterian Catholic b/c Mattatics wattered down popish doctrine to make it more palatable? Quite the opposite now, Mattatics is a foam at the mouth traditionalist.



Little background behind that debate. Bahnsen was told he was going to be debating Patrick Madrid, and prepared accordingly, and then five minutes before the debate he finds out that he is debating Mattatics. Thus, he has to alter months of preparation to a new scenario. That is why the first part of the debate wasn't that exciting. Granted, Mattatics argued from a "yeah, but you're stupid" standpoing and kept interrupting Greg. But Bahnsen got his game back later on in the debate.


----------



## Scott

> It was funny when Mattatics and Manning debated Greg Bahnsen. Mattatic's views on Mary were so weird that not only Bahnsen took him to task, Fr. Manning did as well! Manning was weakening Mattatics case!


Matatics' views are fairly standard in Older Catholicism. Even Hahn makes essentially the same case in his Hail Holy Queen. As i recall (and it has been awhile since I read it), I think he gives some early sources for the view. Anyway, I think it was prety widespread for awhile. I doubt it is as pevalent in Catholic liberalism.


----------



## Scott

Jeff: If you want a flavor of Matatics' thinking on a key issue, sola scriptura, see this.


----------



## Scott

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> i have a note that 12 PCA Teaching Elders have publically converted to Roman catholism over the last 25 years, but have never found confirming evidence. has anyone else seen numbers of this magnitude for the problem?


I don't know about numbers but our presbytery had one conversion (the TE was a military chaplain) about a year or two ago. It is helpful to remember that there are conversions from RC to protestantism too. See, for example, Far from Rome, Near to God: Testimonies of Fifty Converted Roman Catholic Priests. There is even one ex-Catholic priest on the Puritan Board. He goes by the handle Globachio.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Jeff: If you want a flavor of Matatics' thinking on a key issue, sola scriptura, see this.



Thanks Scott. I am finishing up a debate on the same issue between Matatics and James White.

It is so sad to see a foundational doctrine such as this being rejected and argued against by a former "member" of the Presbyterian Church.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

John Wayne is said to have gone from Presbyterian to Catholic.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Calvinist-to-Catholic conversion stories found at Catholic-Convert.com and here.

[Edited on 3-24-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> John Wayne is said to have gone from Presbyterian to Catholic.



I thought John Wayne had a deathbed conversion?


----------



## Scott

The thing about Matatics is that someone who buys his arguments will in the end have to buy into a fairly extensive end-times theory of the corruption of the papacy and the falling away of nearly all of the Roman Catholic Church (presided over by a false Pope). Sounds a bit like historicism (corrupt papacy leading most to damnation), except that the solution is reversed (return to Tridentine Roman theology, as opposed to protestant theology).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> John Wayne is said to have gone from Presbyterian to Catholic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought John Wayne had a deathbed conversion?
Click to expand...


That's what the article says: raised Presbyterian, married a Roman Catholic, converted to Romanism two days before his death, according to his son.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> i have a note that 12 PCA Teaching Elders have publically converted to Roman catholism over the last 25 years, but have never found confirming evidence. has anyone else seen numbers of this magnitude for the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about numbers but our presbytery had one conversion (the TE was a military chaplain) about a year or two ago. It is helpful to remember that there are conversions from RC to protestantism too. See, for example, Far from Rome, Near to God: Testimonies of Fifty Converted Roman Catholic Priests. There is even one ex-Catholic priest on the Puritan Board. He goes by the handle Globachio.
Click to expand...


I think there are many more who are converting from Romanism than to it. 

The host of EWTN's "The Journey Home", Marcus Grodi, also converted from Presbyterianism, but I think he was PCUSA minister who went to Gordon-Conwell.

http://www.chnetwork.org/marcusconv.htm

[Edited on 3-24-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> i have a note that 12 PCA Teaching Elders have publically converted to Roman catholism over the last 25 years, but have never found confirming evidence. has anyone else seen numbers of this magnitude for the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about numbers but our presbytery had one conversion (the TE was a military chaplain) about a year or two ago. It is helpful to remember that there are conversions from RC to protestantism too. See, for example, Far from Rome, Near to God: Testimonies of Fifty Converted Roman Catholic Priests. There is even one ex-Catholic priest on the Puritan Board. He goes by the handle Globachio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there are many more who are converting from Romanism than to it.
> 
> The host of EWTN's "The Journey Home", Marcus Grodi, also converted from Presbyterianism, but I think he was PCUSA minister who went to Gordon-Conwell.
> 
> http://www.chnetwork.org/marcusconv.htm
> 
> [Edited on 3-24-2006 by Pilgrim]
Click to expand...


Right, Rome exagerrates their claims.


----------



## bigheavyq

their was one PCA pastor in my county who converted to romanism. His searching for continuity in a church led him there along with some serious family problems. He is one of the smartest men I know but has bought in to Hahn's theology. He even told me to go catholic. It is a sad problem going on in the church. I heard that franky schaeffer went eastern orthodox. We need a serious revival.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> their was one PCA pastor in my county who converted to romanism. His searching for continuity in a church led him there along with some serious family problems. He is one of the smartest men I know but has bought in to Hahn's theology. He even told me to go catholic. It is a sad problem going on in the church. I heard that franky schaeffer went eastern orthodox. We need a serious revival.



Correct on Schaeffer. Gary North wrote a great essay, "Frank Schaeffer, shut up!"


----------



## weinhold

Perhaps the appeal of Roman Catholicism has less to do with theology and more to do with the cultural situation of modernity. Regardless of all the talk of postmodernism, I still believe western civilization is but on the precipice of a new and unknown epoch. In other words, these are exciting times but they are still largely modern times.

A symptom of modernity, following the philosophy of Descartes, has been to bifurcate reality into individual parts. Like a firework, the cultural holism of the medieval period has exploded into brightly burning, though individuated parts. As our now disassociated embers fade, many long for a return to the whole. Having soared into the metaphorical air of the abstract, we seek a return to the dark earth. These generalities are perhaps most poignantly demonstrated through the works of authors like Dostoevsky, whose grotesque novels express a culture in desparate need of incarnation, physicality, and institutional unity. This, as I now see it, is the problem of modernity. We have made reality too abstract, ethereal, and ideal. We need instead the concrete, earthy, and real. 

For many believers, the Catholic church provides just such a connectedness to the physicality of human existence. Practices commonly perceived as superstitious, such as prayer to saints, the crucifix, transubstantiation, and liturgical ceremonies, are appealing precisely because they are not abstract. Rather, these practices emphasize the concrete in a way that modern culture thirsts after. 

Perhaps we Protestants would do well to study the Catholic playbook.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Here Greg Bahnsen's The Road to Rome. It is him at his rhetorical and analytical best.



Thanks for recommending Bahnsen's message. Excellent!


----------



## caddy

Thus saith the "Duke":

1. Always keep your word. 
2. A gentleman never insults anybody intentionally. 
3. Don't go around looking for trouble. But if you ever get in a fight, make sure you win it. 


Not Bad....





> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> John Wayne is said to have gone from Presbyterian to Catholic.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by weinhold_
> Perhaps the appeal of Roman Catholicism has less to do with theology and more to do with the cultural situation of modernity. Regardless of all the talk of postmodernism, I still believe western civilization is but on the precipice of a new and unknown epoch. In other words, these are exciting times but they are still largely modern times.
> 
> A symptom of modernity, following the philosophy of Descartes, has been to bifurcate reality into individual parts. Like a firework, the cultural holism of the medieval period has exploded into brightly burning, though individuated parts. As our now disassociated embers fade, many long for a return to the whole. Having soared into the metaphorical air of the abstract, we seek a return to the dark earth. These generalities are perhaps most poignantly demonstrated through the works of authors like Dostoevsky, whose grotesque novels express a culture in desparate need of incarnation, physicality, and institutional unity. This, as I now see it, is the problem of modernity. We have made reality too abstract, ethereal, and ideal. We need instead the concrete, earthy, and real.
> 
> For many believers, the Catholic church provides just such a connectedness to the physicality of human existence. Practices commonly perceived as superstitious, such as prayer to saints, the crucifix, transubstantiation, and liturgical ceremonies, are appealing precisely because they are not abstract. Rather, these practices emphasize the concrete in a way that modern culture thirsts after.
> 
> Perhaps we Protestants would do well to study the Catholic playbook.



 

That Rome hasn't succumbed to modernism is a myth. Vatican II was Rome surrendering to relativism, it simply took them a few decades longer than the protestant liberals. Rome is far more relativistic than is confessional Protestantism, or even the Southern Baptist Convention, for that matter. 

But you are correct in a sense that this is what the RC apologists are selling. I've seen in several places (perhaps the Journey Home, but not sure) where former protestants, after converting, find themselves in ultra liberal parishes. Perhaps these "believers" wonder if they've been victim of a bait and switch. 

Retreat from _sola fide_ is often accompanied by an increase of symbolism and "non abstract" forms of worship. Thanks but no thanks. What you are advocating is also of the same essence as seeker sensitive ministry, ministering to "felt needs".

[Edited on 3-25-2006 by Pilgrim]

[Edited on 3-25-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I am a convert from Roman Catholicism to broad Evangelicalism to the Reformed faith. If I had a nickle for everybody in a Reformed Church that used to be RC then I would have tons of nickles. Conversely, I still have family in the RC Church and they can only point to one or two people they've actually met that came from broad Evangelicalism. I've never personally run into a Calvinist turned RC. The fact that we even talk about it shows how exceptional it is. That so many RC's start reading the Scriptures and become Reformed is practically taken for granted.

The interesting thing about the modern RC Church in America is how much it resembles Evangelical faith today. Prior to Vatican II, RC believers NEVER engaged in Bible Study. They do now but many of the RC Churches that do so have a Charismatic and neo-Pentecostal flavor to them.

I would say that the reason that many Evangelicals are attracted to the RC Church has to do with not sensing a difference between the pietism they are hearing from the pulpit (Purpose Driven stuff) and the warmed over Roman Catholicism found in many parishes today. The RC Churches do praise choruses now too and even lift their hands in worship. Say, this is just like Calvary Chapel but this is BETTER. They've got bells and smells and a history. I'm tired of modernity without content.... 

I really don't see a transition doctrinally for most of those people. Many are going from a "faith" devoid of doctrinal content to another "faith" devoid of content. They're just going to what makes them feel "fuzzier" when they worship. Honestly, I've been to many a mainline Protestant Church that was indiscernible from the Roman Catholic Church I grew up with. I guess, in the end, I don't "count" humanists moving from one feel-good place to another.

As for the real "converts" I believe Hahn and Matatis were never really "of us." Anyone who ever apprehends the idea that true Protestantism and says "Christ is not my righteousness" never even approached getting the Gospel in their blood.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> As for the real "converts" I believe Hahn and Matatis were never really "of us." Anyone who ever apprehends the idea that true Protestantism and says "Christ is not my righteousness" never even approached getting the Gospel in their blood.


----------



## Pilgrim

Rich. Liberal liturgical "Protestant" churches often have many of the same characteristics that give people the warm fuzzies. I was raised in one. 

And depending on how you want to define abstract, transubstantiation is as abstract a concept as you can get.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> i have a note that 12 PCA Teaching Elders have publically converted to Roman catholism over the last 25 years, but have never found confirming evidence. has anyone else seen numbers of this magnitude for the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about numbers but our presbytery had one conversion (the TE was a military chaplain) about a year or two ago. It is helpful to remember that there are conversions from RC to protestantism too. See, for example, Far from Rome, Near to God: Testimonies of Fifty Converted Roman Catholic Priests. There is even one ex-Catholic priest on the Puritan Board. He goes by the handle Globachio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there are many more who are converting from Romanism than to it.
> 
> The host of EWTN's "The Journey Home", Marcus Grodi, also converted from Presbyterianism, but I think he was PCUSA minister who went to Gordon-Conwell.
> 
> http://www.chnetwork.org/marcusconv.htm
> 
> [Edited on 3-24-2006 by Pilgrim]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, Rome exagerrates their claims.
Click to expand...


They tend to focus on a handful of former Reformed and evangelical preachers. Most of the other converts are nominal protestant/evangelicals who married into a RC family and became nominal members of that church to please their spouse, their in-laws, etc.


----------



## weinhold

Brothers and Sisters,

I feel I need to clarify my previous post. Please do not misconstrue my statements about Roman Catholicism to mean I advocate Catholic theology. My desire is only to broaden our perspective from theological debate to the broader movement of western civilization. Regardless of what one thinks about the Catholic church, we have lost the holism it provided. At first, secular thinkers believed this to be a good thing. Now, in the aftermath of the twentieth century during which Utopian political philosophy has led to Fascism, the modern city to anonymous living, and physics to a mechanistic understanding of reality, we experience a general yearning for the concrete, the communal, and the organic. I think that many Christians find what they are looking for in the Catholic church, and that is why they remain in it or convert to it. My hope for the evangelical church is that she will responsibly meet these cultural challenges, and provide an organic community that roots believers in the narrative of the Bible, the history of the Church, and the incarnation of Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by weinhold_
> Brothers and Sisters,
> 
> I feel I need to clarify my previous post. Please do not misconstrue my statements about Roman Catholicism to mean I advocate Catholic theology. My desire is only to broaden our perspective from theological debate to the broader movement of western civilization. Regardless of what one thinks about the Catholic church, we have lost the holism it provided. At first, secular thinkers believed this to be a good thing. Now, in the aftermath of the twentieth century during which Utopian political philosophy has led to Fascism, the modern city to anonymous living, and physics to a mechanistic understanding of reality, we experience a general yearning for the concrete, the communal, and the organic. I think that many Christians find what they are looking for in the Catholic church, and that is why they remain in it or convert to it. My hope for the evangelical church is that she will responsibly meet these cultural challenges, and provide an organic community that roots believers in the narrative of the Bible, the history of the Church, and the incarnation of Christ.


Assuming you were Reformed, I understood what you were saying the first time. In a world that is very disconnected and discordant, the RCC provides the illusion of communion and the organic. The problem is that it is just that - an illusion.

The issue of who "owns" the term Evangelical complicates your prognosis for improvement. Real communion is centered around the Gospel. Most Churches have opted to be cheap imitations of modern culture to lure the pagan into the seats. Messages centered around self-love and self-improvement do much to ensure they remain pagans. Those who are converted by the accidental proclamation of the Gospel wonder why they constantly feel malnourished. Those who were never converted experience the restlessness of soul that is common to man.

They see a religion that promotes itself as ancient and connected to the true Apostolic Church. As they become aware of the self-centeredness that surrounds their Evangelical station they are attracted to something that seems bigger than them. That's all they understand. It's frankly not hard for a RCC "apologist" to point to the ridiculous things that go on in so many Evangelical Churches and demonstrate that they are a more Biblical form of semi-Pelagianism.

The question is, however, will these "Evangelical" Churches reform? Will they begin to see the Word as central to converting and that interpretive dance, drama, and other circus performances will never change the heart? Will they begin to understand that their restlessness is not because they don't have the right "Purpose Driven" formula but because they don't have the Gospel preached?

With God all things are possible.

For my part, I am gratified that there are Confessional Churches that one can encounter Christ and Him crucified really and not in a counterfeit way.


----------



## tellville

The reason a lot of these guys convert to RC and EO is for epistemological certainty. They see liberal Protestant Biblical scholarship and they go "Uh oh! How do I even know what my Bible is?!?!". RC and EO have an answer: Tradition.

The same thing goes for doctrine. How do I know what to believe? There are so many different views! Answer: Tradition.

[Edited on 3-25-2006 by tellville]


----------



## Laura

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by weinhold_
> Brothers and Sisters,
> 
> I feel I need to clarify my previous post. Please do not misconstrue my statements about Roman Catholicism to mean I advocate Catholic theology. My desire is only to broaden our perspective from theological debate to the broader movement of western civilization. Regardless of what one thinks about the Catholic church, we have lost the holism it provided. At first, secular thinkers believed this to be a good thing. Now, in the aftermath of the twentieth century during which Utopian political philosophy has led to Fascism, the modern city to anonymous living, and physics to a mechanistic understanding of reality, we experience a general yearning for the concrete, the communal, and the organic. I think that many Christians find what they are looking for in the Catholic church, and that is why they remain in it or convert to it. My hope for the evangelical church is that she will responsibly meet these cultural challenges, and provide an organic community that roots believers in the narrative of the Bible, the history of the Church, and the incarnation of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you were Reformed, I understood what you were saying the first time. In a world that is very disconnected and discordant, the RCC provides the illusion of communion and the organic. The problem is that it is just that - an illusion.
> 
> The issue of who "owns" the term Evangelical complicates your prognosis for improvement. Real communion is centered around the Gospel. Most Churches have opted to be cheap imitations of modern culture to lure the pagan into the seats. Messages centered around self-love and self-improvement do much to ensure they remain pagans. Those who are converted by the accidental proclamation of the Gospel wonder why they constantly feel malnourished. Those who were never converted experience the restlessness of soul that is common to man.
> 
> They see a religion that promotes itself as ancient and connected to the true Apostolic Church. As they become aware of the self-centeredness that surrounds their Evangelical station they are attracted to something that seems bigger than them. That's all they understand. It's frankly not hard for a RCC "apologist" to point to the ridiculous things that go on in so many Evangelical Churches and demonstrate that they are a more Biblical form of semi-Pelagianism.
> 
> The question is, however, will these "Evangelical" Churches reform? Will they begin to see the Word as central to converting and that interpretive dance, drama, and other circus performances will never change the heart? Will they begin to understand that their restlessness is not because they don't have the right "Purpose Driven" formula but because they don't have the Gospel preached?
> 
> With God all things are possible.
> 
> For my part, I am gratified that there are Confessional Churches that one can encounter Christ and Him crucified really and not in a counterfeit way.
Click to expand...


Great post, Rich. Thanks for clarifying some of my own underdeveloped opinions.


----------



## SRoper

"Here Greg Bahnsen's The Road to Rome. It is him at his rhetorical and analytical best."

I thought it was good overall. However, I think Bahnsen misrepresents Romanism when he suggests that Romanism teaches that everyone who believes the doctrines of grace are anathema. He admits that in Romanism the Pope of Rome is the ultimate interpreter of doctrine, but he does not then allow the Pope to interpret Trent. If he did he would find that the Pope considers the anathema to apply only to the original Reformers.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "Here Greg Bahnsen's The Road to Rome. It is him at his rhetorical and analytical best."
> 
> I thought it was good overall. However, I think Bahnsen misrepresents Romanism when he suggests that Romanism teaches that everyone who believes the doctrines of grace are anathema. He admits that in Romanism the Pope of Rome is the ultimate interpreter of doctrine, but he does not then allow the Pope to interpret Trent. If he did he would find that the Pope considers the anathema to apply only to the original Reformers.



Perhaps, but the last sentence reeks of postmodernism (on Rome's part). Granted, they do this all the time. Did Trent view their anathemas as always binding (which would seem logical, given Trent's vitriol towards Geneva)? If so, then it really doesn't matter what the Pope now interprets it to be. (Yes, I know that the Pope says he can do that. I agree: you are representing their views accurately, but I still think Rome is being postmodern on that regard).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Here's the apostacy story of Ken Howell. He was once a professor at RTS and even made contributiobns to the New Geneva/Reformation Study Bible. He was once a pastor down here in a PCA church in Jackson too. 

http://www.chnetwork.org/khconv.htm


----------



## SRoper

I think we agree, Jacob.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> I think we agree, Jacob.



Your analysis of rome is accurate. I am saying that the position is downright absurd, epistemologically.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> I think we agree, Jacob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analysis of rome is accurate. I am saying that the position is downright absurd, epistemologically.
Click to expand...


----------



## JM

I think Matatics takes the old school pre Vat II line and Hahn plays the game of redressing the old doctrines to make them more appealing. I use to listen to and watch EWTN non-stop to learn what I could about "T"radtional catholic belief.


----------



## Scott

Jason: That is right. Matatics is a capital T Traditionalist. He believes that VII was error and is not binding. Hahn is on board with VII.


----------



## Archlute

> During those years of pastoral ministry (1978-1988), two important events stand out which would be harbingers of my future journey to the Catholic Church. The first was a sermon I preached at Hope Presbyterian Church in Bradenton, Florida. One Sunday, I was preaching on Psalm 100 and I focused on the words of verse four, "œEnter into his gates with thanksgiving and into his courts with praise. Give thanks to him and praise his name." Since I longed for my congregation to understand the true nature of Christian worship, I asked them to close their eyes and to imagine themselves in heaven with God. There they would find an innumerable company of angels. And there they would join all the saints, the Christians of past generations who had served God faithfully. There they would hear the unceasing song of praise that lauded the King of kings and the Lord of lords. Then, I asked them to imagine the roof our little church opening up and this heavenly throng of angels and saints descending into our midst. This union of heaven and earth, I told them, was the essence of Christian worship. At the time I had no idea that this understanding of worship was the Catholic Church´s teaching on the Mass. I thought that the only way for us Christians to experience this kind of worship was for us to feel it deep in our hearts.



It sounds as if this fellow (Ken Howell) was never a true Protestant minister to begin with. He should have learned in seminary, from the Scriptures, that true worship is not a self-imagined experience, but rather a true understanding of Christ from the Word; Christ preached, as it were. This is just pure mysticism. Had he been preaching in my church as a visiting minister, he would have been stopped by the session and sent packing. What a shame. Yet sad to say, I saw a PCA intern last year who was leading worship by closing his eyes and swaying side to side with an upturned face during our hymns - whether he knows it or not, mysticism already has him in her grip.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I agree that we want no "mysticism", "eyes closed," swaying-ecstasies, etc. And I am very, very disappointed that this man turned away from spiritual realities and over to Rome's tawdry sumptuousness as a replacement.

But let us not forget it was Calvin who reminded us that true worship, in Spirit and in truth, really takes place "in heaven." We are joining that "general assembly of the saints" as Hebrews puts it, when we "enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise." We cry out to God that he would "bow the heavens, and come down." We want "Jacob's" ladder set between heaven and earth when we meet together on the Lord's Day.

The tragedy (as I read this man's account, followed right after by Greg Bahnsen's sermon on why that was a huge mistake--what a combo) is that this preacher missed that in the simplicity of Reformed worship. All the gaudy shows, the smells, the bells, the robes, the pageantry--_*all that stuff functions as a filter, as a screen, as the smoke of obscuration and the mirrors of illusion,*_ not turning our eyes to Christ, but hiding him behind a thousand rituals and terrestrial blinds.

AWAY WITH ALL THAT SUFFOCATING RUBBISH. Give me Christ revealed by the simplest faith, the table he spreads for us, and the words from his mouth. Our worship is supposed to be "simple" in this age, not because it doesn't claim a cosmic "intersection" between heaven and earth (it does!); but because all the excess encroachments made by Rome upon the designated vehicles of God's self-disclosure, removes the immediacy and intimacy of that relationship by degrees. And replaces them with pathetic veils that reimpose the symbols of the age prior to Christ. With this added derangement: it resembles more the golden calf than ever the tabernacle.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I agree that we want no "mysticism", "eyes closed," swaying-ecstasies, etc. And I am very, very disappointed that this man turned away from spiritual realities and over to Rome's tawdry sumptuousness as a replacement.
> 
> But let us not forget it was Calvin who reminded us that true worship, in Spirit and in truth, really takes place "in heaven." We are joining that "general assembly of the saints" as Hebrews puts it, when we "enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise." We cry out to God that he would "bow the heavens, and come down." We want "Jacob's" ladder set between heaven and earth when we meet together on the Lord's Day.
> 
> The tragedy (as I read this man's account, followed right after by Greg Bahnsen's sermon on why that was a huge mistake--what a combo) is that this preacher missed that in the simplicity of Reformed worship. All the gaudy shows, the smells, the bells, the robes, the pageantry--_*all that stuff functions as a filter, as a screen, as the smoke of obscuration and the mirrors of illusion,*_ not turning our eyes to Christ, but hiding him behind a thousand rituals and terrestrial blinds.
> 
> AWAY WITH ALL THAT SUFFOCATING RUBBISH. Give me Christ revealed by the simplest faith, the table he spreads for us, and the words from his mouth. Our worship is supposed to be "simple" in this age, not because it doesn't claim a cosmic "intersection" between heaven and earth (it does!); but because all the excess encroachments made by Rome upon the designated vehicles of God's self-disclosure, removes the immediacy and intimacy of that relationship by degrees. And replaces them with pathetic veils that reimpose the symbols of the age prior to Christ. With this added derangement: it resembles more the golden calf than ever the tabernacle.


OORAH! I say that as a guttural "AMEN" as it resonates to my core.

As a man awakened to the Doctrines of Grace and away from the idolatry of the Roman Mass, it is abundantly clear to me that any man who turns from Grace to Law was "...never really of us."

Give me Christ and Him crucified for my sins rather than acts of Penance and a continual fear that I will go to Hell for my latest mortal sin or collection of venial sins!

Give me the Gospel preached over any pageantry that feeds the eyes but leaves the heart empty and unconverted!

Give me the simple truth of Christ my righteousness over some fiction of a non-verbal tradition that invents new ways to justify man on the basis of inherent merit!

Give me the Bread of Life and the Blood of the New Covenant and a FINISHED, once-for-all sacrifice over some repugnant formula that sacrifices Christ afresh.

Give me the Christian religion and its sweet aroma. I've smelled the Church of Rome and it is the stench of death!

[Edited on 4-11-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## weinhold

While I don't claim to really have much knowledge of Catholicism, I wanted to mention a recent experience I had at a local Catholic church near the University of Dallas. I attended an Easter Vigil service, and was surprised by the extent to which I was able to really worship there and feel comfortable doing so. This particular church had mainly bare stone walls. Columns separated the outer aisles from the sanctuary in order to reduce the distraction of congregants who needed to get up during worship. Aside from the sad fact that I don't know Latin, I found the symbolism involved in the service meaningful, not gaudy. In fact, the only part of the actual service I found uncomfortable was the mass itself, and so I did not participate. For me, it was surprising and refreshing to discover a unity in Christ with my Catholic brothers and sisters.


----------



## DTK

> For me, it was surprising and refreshing to discover a unity in Christ with my Catholic brothers and sisters.


Well, this is precisely how so many unwary Protestants get sucked into Rome, by means of some ephemeral subjective experience.

DTK


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

> While I don't claim to really have much knowledge of Catholicism, I wanted to mention a recent experience I had at a local Catholic church near the University of Dallas. I attended an Easter Vigil service, and was surprised by the extent to which I was able to really worship there and feel comfortable doing so.



i've only been in RC churches twice, both to honor my next door neighbor, first as she buried her mom and recently when she buried her ex-husband.

i found the service and surroundings interesting. thought provoking and at heart liberal and unBiblical, idolotrous and appealing to the eye and natural man. i can understand why people are attracted to it, the same way that people are attracted to crowds and casinos, attracted to carnivals and circuses. It appeals to the visual and to the emotions. It is safe and sweet, for old woman and the walking wounded, a place of comfort and haven from the world. Quiet and cool, full of tradition and yet aware of today. But devoid of content, of passion for ideas, of meaning, of argument and discussion.

it doesn't matter what you belief inside there, just that you know the right words and right times to stand and to kneel. that you are there and in the pews. that you perform the ritual, that you assent to the organization as a conduit of grace. that you are passive and receptive.

[Edited on 4-22-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

It's worth reading _Come Out From Among Them: 'Anti-Nicodemite' Writings of John Calvin_ and _The Hurt of Hearing Mass_ by John Bradford.


----------



## AV1611

Draught Horse said:


> Correct on Schaeffer. Gary North wrote a great essay, "Frank Schaeffer, shut up!"



Is that Francis Schaeffer?
...
Google tells me it is his son 

It is strange how many children of Evangelicals become Ritualists.


----------



## BJClark

I was reading this article:

http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/gerry.htm

And in reading this comment:



> Regardless of whether it is true that a pope in heresy cannot hold the office of pope (which has never been dogmatically defined and officially established by the Church), the unassailable fact remains that we laymen simply do not have the authority, or in most cases even the theological acumen or experience, to declare the pope a formal heretic.
> 
> Asserting that someone is a formal heretic is a very serious charge. It is a charge that can only be indicted, administered and adjudicated by a canonical court presided over by the highest officials of the Church. Even then the Church herself is officially undecided as to what the procedure would be to depose a pope who has been canonically branded with formal heresy.



Why don't they know what to do, Isn't the Bible clear on such issues?

It would seem to me, that IF they believe the pope is a heretic, they would remove him from his position. And treat him the same as they stated they would Mr. Matatics himself...it would certainly seem logical to me...




> My suggestion to Mr. Matatics is to sit back and seriously reconsider his position. If, despite all admonition against his position he persists in it, then I disavow any and all relationship I’ve had with Mr. Matatics, and all other faithful Catholics should do the same.


----------

