When I hear from time to time of some young evangelical Presbyterian going into Roman Catholicism, I ask myself, “Why bother? You’re already in a church pretty much like what the Reformers rejected.”
In the Medieval church, the congregation did little but watch while the priest and choir did everything. It’s not much different in conservative Presbyterianism. There is little for the congregation to do but sing some hymns. That’s why the Reformers wrote liturgies.
In the Medieval church, the psalms were absent from the song of the congregation. That’s why the Reformers were psalm-fanatics. Neither real psalms nor metrical psalms are much in evidence in conservative Presbyterianism today. The Trinity Hymnal certainly does not contain near all the psalms. Look at the bulletin of any conservative Presbyterian church and see if there is even one psalm sung.
In the Medieval church, people were served only one half of the Lord’s Supper. Wine was never served to them. Wine is pretty much never served in conservative Presbyterianism either. In this, modern Presbyterianism is identical with Rome. (And don’t tell me grape juice is wine. If it is, then use wine. Woops! The moment you say that, you find out that grape juice is most definitely not wine!) “Grape juice” communion is for all intents and purposes identical with Roman Catholic communion.
Medieval Rome also served wafers as bread, and people only came to communion once a year. Modern conservative Presbyterians are served crackers, not bread, and usually only a few times a year.
Rome had no interest in the Bible. The touchstone of truth was tradition, as understood by the Romanists of Luther’s Day. Luther, Bucer, Calvin and the other Reformers showed over and over that in fact Augustine and the Fathers did not teach the Roman doctrines, and that they (the Reformers) were in line with the true tradition. It made no difference. The same is identically true today. “Federal Vision” people have shown repeatedly that their teaching is right in line with the Reformation, and have been answered over and over with citations from Confessions and Catechisms wrenched from context and fitted with new meanings. Not once has any “study committee” dealt with the Bible in dealing with the “Federal Vision.”
The Papists at the time of the Reformation pulled various power games to suppress the Reformers. At that time, this included murder. Today, the conservative Presbyterians resort to internet slander, creating “investigatory commissions” that contain no one sympathetic to any other views, and holding secret meetings. Most interestingly, in the Presbyterian Church in America there is the SJC (Standing Judicial Commission) which has total and absolute power in the PCA. This Star Judicial Chamber has exercised its power to threaten to dissolve the Louisiana Presbytery if it did not fail to condemn the teachings of one of its members — after the Presbytery itself had twice exonerated him. There is no recourse in the PCA against this Star Chamber, and evidently the PCA is too full of milquetoasts for anyone to stand up against them. So it seems.
So, if a young conservative Presbyterian leaves the idolatries of the PCA and goes into the Papal church, he’s not making much of a change. And it’s not a big surprise when people do so.
I agree. And you’ll find that it’s not just conservative Presbyterian churches which are like that.
“So, if a young conservative Presbyterian leaves the idolatries of the PCA and goes into the Papal church, he’s not making much of a change. And it’s not a big surprise when people do so.”
Sorry, but that’s simply not true. I understand your point. But…it’s not nice to lie.
I wish it WERE a lie!
I have to say that I agree; but then, I’m pretty much fed-up with the Church in general, never mind the denomination. In my book, the whole thing has fallen too far from what true Christianity is all about.
About the Communion issue, I’ve been to Lutheran churches where it was announced that grape juice was available for those who could not physically tolerate wine. At the time, this seemed acceptable to me; but, after reading this blog, I get the impression that this too may be just another ‘excuse’ for whatever reason.
Theresa,
Messed up as the Church is, that’s where Jesus is also. We may have to hold our nose at a lot of things, but He’s holding His also. We can’t abandon the assembly.
That said, I agree with you about offering grape juice as a substitute. A person can always dip his/her finger in the wine and just take a sip.
Churches that have used grape juice for the last 100 years often go to having both as a way to avoid pastoral problems. We have to be sensitive to this, but it’s best to teach the matter clearly and make a complete break with grape juice.
JBJordan
James, this is a very good post.
A Roman Catholic convert from modern evangelicalism wrote to me to say that the RC church he has joined has lots of Bible, lots of congregational singing, etc., and far more of these than the Presbyterian church he abandoned. I have no doubt that this is true, though of course he has embraced some serious problems by becoming RC. I was commenting on the state of the Papal church at the time of the Reformation.
His point, however, is still of some validity. More often than not, a person moving from a PCA church to the Roman Catholic Church is moving from less Bible to more Bible, from less psalmody (i.e., zero) to more psalmody, from starvation to food.
It makes me think of how the Ithamar and Eleazar lines of priests shifted back and forth during the old age.
Ah, that Rome would give up its silly and abominable notions of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it’s semi-necromancy, and its semi-iconolatry! Until then, I’ll suffer in evangelicalism.
James,
I certainly agree with you on the whole but I do have a question regarding the elements of Communion. Of course where bread and wine are available one ought use (both of) them but was not the reason Jesus used bread and wine because they were both staple elements of the diets of 1st C. E. Palestine? Say, for example, you went to a foreign country as a missionary where they neither ate bread nor drank wine, would you have to import them to have Communion or could you use the staple elements of their diet?
Richard,
I believe that “daily bread” of a society is what should be used, and “the good alcoholic drink used with meals” is what should be used. That might mean “date wine” in some tropical cultures. I wrote this in Rite Reasons No. 42, November 1995.
9. What about lands that don’t produce grapes and wine? Well, use some other alcoholic beverage then. The Bible speaks of both wine and beer being offered to God (Numbers 28:7). Alcohol was created by God and designed by Him to communicate a sense of rest and well-being. It is a sensible sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is not true of non-alcoholic drinks. Whatever the local “wine” is, that is what should be used. Similarly, whatever the local bread is, that is what should be used. It does not have to be wheat.
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-42-doing-the-lords-supper/
“Ah, that Rome would give up its silly and abominable notions of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it’s semi-necromancy, and its semi-iconolatry! Until then, I’ll suffer in evangelicalism.”
Pastor Jordan, Im ex-Catholic and love my Reformed faith, so my first reaction to the above was that I was taken back a little. But thinking on it a bit more, I’m sympathetic to your catholic (small ‘c’) sentiment here, so can you elaborate? In the same vein, do you think a papacy could ever be Biblically legitimate? (assuming the Bible does surely militate against a Roman and/or Petrine-style papacy)
I don’t see a problem with a “first among equals” minister of the word as bishop of a diocese/presbytery, or archbishop over all the dioceses in a nation, or an archbishop who coordinates all the dioceses in the world. Somewhat like the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople coordinating all the other patriarchs of the EO churches. It could not be a separate office, nor is “bishop” a separate office. At this point in history, that’s pretty theoretical.
If Rome repented of all her errors, but retained justification by faith plus works, it would still have to be resisted.
Drinking a grape juice instead of wine is of course a problem of the whole modern evangelical community, here in Russia too. People in evangelical churches willingly rejected drinking an alcohol for their lives, why then use it in a church?
Though… personally for me, such refusal, speaking Russian, is a “tilt at windmills”, because I’ve never seen problems with using a communion wine in churches, even for children.
Moreover, I see some sort of contradiction – wllingly rejecting drinking an alcohol for the life everlasting in the communion and, from other side, willingly using drugs, like morphine, ketamine etc., for a body in a medicine. What is finally more important?
Nice post, but I think the grape juice comment is overstated. I’ve received communion from probably a dozen PCA churches in my life, and it’s 100% of the time been wine. To say that wine is rare strikes me as a dramatic overstatement.
AJ, hmmm. I don’t know where you live, but I have to say I think your own experience is virtually unique. I’ve been in numerous PCA and OPC churches, and the only time I was served wine was in a church that had just, after a decade of arguments and trauma, finally moved to it. Most PCA churches are in the South, if that makes any difference to your understanding my my post.
Others can chime in here.
Jim,
In my experience, wine is commonly used in PCA/OPC churches in New England while grape juice was commonly used in the PCA churches I attended in Mississippi and North Carolina.
That said, your claim is outrageous (“So, if a young conservative Presbyterian leaves the idolatries of the PCA and goes into the Papal church, he’s not making much of a change.”). If someone told you they were considering joining either the PCA or the Roman Catholic Church, would you really say that it doesn’t make much difference?
David
Of course it’s outrageous. Editorials are supposed to be outrageous. But that said, the situation in the PCA is outrageous. As you well know, neither Calvin nor Bucer nor Knox would be allowed to serve in the PCA or the OPC; and not only that, but they would loudly condemn these groups for just what I’ve condemned them for. In fact, I doubt if any of the delegates at the Westminster Assembly would be allowed to serve in either of these groups. Matthew 23:29-30 certainly is beginning to apply.
As for joining churches, people don’t join either the RCC or the PCA. They join local parishes. And generally speaking, a PCA parish would be preferable. At the same time, I know of a PCA parish in Northwest Florida that is virtually a synagogue of Satan, and a decent RCC church might be a better place to attend (though they won’t let you have communion).
Mr. Jordan,
I appreciate and encourage the sentiment of “reformed and always reforming”, but even during the Reformation there were the radicals like Andreas Karlstadt and Thomas Muntzer who advocated chucking it all and starting over. They even called Luther, “Dr. Easy-Chair”. For the record, I’m not PCA or OPC, but rather RPNA.
I fear what happens…or actually what DOES happens when such criticism are not carefully formulated and disclaimed against the possibility, is that heretics use these kind of articles to support their cause. As a matter of fact, I came to this link after reading about it on a heretical site. (the heresy of hyperpreterism; a “movement” that advocates among other things that Jesus came back once and for all in the 1st-century, that the resurrection of the believers happened in the 1st-century and was non-physical, that the judgment of the wicked and righteous happened in the 1st-century, and that there will be no end of sin and no culmination of God’s plan for this world).
Mr. Jordan, I’ve written you before, privately about this very issue because for years hyperpreterists have been using your very name to support their cause. There was a time you participated in a debate with a hyperpreterist at one of their conventions and by the end of the event, the hyperpreterists weaseled and asked you the question they always ask in an attempt to get men like you on record; “Do you think hyperpreterism is heresy?” — You at the time replied no, and expressed that you regretted ever calling them heretics. They have been using you as a PR campaign trying to prove they are legitimate.
Thus I strongly, strongly urge you to be very, very protective of the community of saints. Sure, question and reform; but from within, like a family does.
Individual congregations need accountability otherwise the “teaching elder” becomes nothing but a mini-pope over his own private Rome, as is the case in say Baptist congregations. The question is how is a congregation going to be accountable? This wave of “local churchism” has caused many of the problems. The church was never meant to be a collection of disconnected congregations. This was the allegation the RCC said would happen to the Protestants, that we’d fragment and fragment and so we have. How do we fix/stop this if not by drawing a doctrinal line somewhere?
Respectfully in Christ and His Church and Faith once and for delivered to the saints,
Roderick Edwards
http://thekingdomcome.com