Calvinist pastor welcomed to the Roman Catholic Mass by...
by David and Tim Bayly on August 26, 2008 - 4:06pm
(Tim, w/thanks to James) There's some truth to the statement that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Still, a Protestant Calvinist pastor who has never been received into the Roman Catholic Church, yet for much of his life is granted Table Fellowship there? And both Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II knowingly gave him Communion?
Well, it couldn't happen to a better man.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (18)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Abortion euthanasia... (584)
Feminism (584)
Politics (366)
Reformed world (322)
PCA (302)
Evangelicalism (294)
Homosexuality (294)
Misc. (269)
Throw the radio in the bathtub (258)
Academia (256)
Reformed theology (234)
Culture (227)
Children are a blessing (217)
Emergent church (208)
R2K (Radical Two Kingdom) (196)
Recent Comments
- Daniel Meyer on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Sue McKeown on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Fr. Bill on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- K. Bartholomew on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
Comments
Dear Tim:
Not sure what you mean here.
Brother Roger was a compromiser from the get go. My one visit to Taize was a great disappointment. At Taize, the blind are leading the blind, quite literally. Nothing Reformed about it.
Ecumenical gatherings/groups like this do lots of harm. The only real ecumenical movement is the Pro-Life movement.
With love, David
>The only real ecumenical movement is the Pro-Life movement.
So you would disapprove of something like Touchstone?
This is something that the likes of John Armstrong will trumpet loudly as an example of his own 'pilgrimage'.
Come to think of it, didn't Peter Leithart's church( a sister church to that pastored by Douglas Wilson in Moscow, ID.) just issue a statement that said in a round about way that the Roman Catholic Mass was within the boundaries of legitimacy simply because the RCC was Trinitarian?
>Not sure what you mean here.
I wasn't commending it.
>This is something that the likes of John Armstrong will trumpet loudly as an example of his own 'pilgrimage'.
Mr. Armstrong has been untethered for quite a while, now. I suspect it's difficult for him to act on his new convictions given that many would say, "I thought so," and his financial base would evaporate.
But there's something else to say about him. A pilgrimage is in a certain direction, whereas John's changes have been almost willy-nilly. Yes, they've all headed away from the same place, but then in many different directions. Take for example three of his changes--from opposing to promoting gender-neutered Bibles; from typical evangelical roots as a conservative baptist pastor to itinerant lecturer making common cause with mainline Protestants; and from the Baptist ordinance-only view to, as far as I can tell, pure ex opere operata Sacramentalism.
So where does he go? Rome won't have his gender-neutered Bibles. Wheaton evangelicalism won't have his Sacramentalism (not quite yet). And Mainline Protestantism is a train wreck only an idiot would climb on to at this late date (although the money is very, very good, as several of my friends can attest).
About fifteen years ago, a nationally recognized evangelical with one of the larger media ministries was in our home for a meal. During table conversation following the meal, I asked whether he was converting to Roman Catholicism?
The answer moved in two directions: First, that Rome was pulling; and second, that I was not to speak of it to anyone because of the damage it would do to the constituency base. (I should add that I did, and still do have great affection and respect for this person, although I myself have only grown more opposed to Roman Catholic doctrine and practice as the years have passed.)
So yes, the recent statement issued by Trinity Reformed Church served by Pastor Leithart causes me concern:
http://havingtwolegs.blogspot.com/2008/08/statement-on-roman-catholicism...
"Come to think of it, didn't Peter Leithart's church just issue a statement that said in a round about way that the Roman Catholic Mass was within the boundaries of legitimacy simply because the RCC was Trinitarian?"
You'll have to explain the roundabout there, since all I saw was that they accepted RCC baptism (which Charles Hodge argued for as well).
Raises an interesting question about whether true beleivers (assuming there are any) in the RCC can get *any* benefits from Christ via RCC sacraments. There are impediments in the RCC to be sure, but at least they have communion in both kinds now (unlike most presbyterian churches)
there's also this
"With the Reformers, we insist that liturgical idolatry is a most dangerous temptation and sin for many within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. This includes the veneration of man-made images, statues, relics, Eucharistic elements, the invocation of the saints, as well as other practices and traditions which are not according to Scripture. Likewise, we warn all the faithful to flee those doctrines or practices which, whether in doctrine or in practice, undermine the fundamental and sovereign graciousness of God in salvation."
Pduggie
I didn't see where it was restricted to Baptism. As a matter of fact didn't they used the word sacraments in the plural along with sacramental system?
Dear David Gray:
I don't read "Touchstone" much, but every time Tim or someone recommends an article from them, I find it is right on.
So I stand corrected.
Thanks, David
>I don't read "Touchstone" much, but every time Tim or someone recommends an article from them, I find it is right on.
Subscriptions aren't too expensive. That and Modern Reformation are both good values.
Ah I see where you're reading that.
I had focussed on this "On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians"
and not "result in disparaging the validity of the ordinations or sacraments of other churches that worship our Triune God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."
Baptism is usually the sticking point for "validity", since it impacts what Reformed churches do with people who show up at their door.
I think its certainly arguable that RCC pastors *are* pastors (bad ones), their rite of baptism *can* be effectual to the elect within the RCC, and that, its possible that their rite of Eucharist, in so far as it matches the biblical pattern, can be effectual to the elect within the RCC. There is distracting bric a brac in their tradition, but also in the reformed churches. I'll grant some kinds of Eucharistic practice impair the essence of the sacrament, but I'm not so sure that Eucharist in a 21st century RCC church is *necessarily* possessed of those impairments.
I didn't notice any discussion of the RCC sacramental system (with its famous 7 sacraments).
Add new comment