Presbyterians Turning Roman Catholic

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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]
 
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.
 
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
 
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]
 
It's worth reading Come Out From Among Them: 'Anti-Nicodemite' Writings of John Calvin and The Hurt of Hearing Mass by John Bradford.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top