RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by SRoper
I think we agree, Jacob.
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.
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.
OORAH! I say that as a guttural "AMEN" as it resonates to my core.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.
Well, this is precisely how so many unwary Protestants get sucked into Rome, by means of some ephemeral subjective experience.For me, it was surprising and refreshing to discover a unity in Christ with my Catholic brothers and sisters.
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.
Correct on Schaeffer. Gary North wrote a great essay, "Frank Schaeffer, shut up!"
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.
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.