A comment on Devin Rose's Frightening Article

Frightening to me anyway. It is titled "Time for Catholic Praise and Worship?" Thank God for the question mark Devin. As one commentor put it:
"The Ring’s whisper is drawing you near… Do you need an intervention before you put it back on and turn invisible?"


Here is one of my comments in response to this comment:

Restless Pilgrim said:

"What has to be done to get Catholics to sing?! Traditional music or contemporary music, I don’t care which!"

That not caring is part of the problem. It cannot be both. It is not a choice between equals. It is not a matter of taste. If Catholics were actually given their traditional music, they eventually would begin to sing again. But they rarely are given the opportunity, and so they feel lost when the chance to sing chant comes.

Have you ever been to a modern art museum? Stinks right? Well that is not merely your opinion. It actually is objectively bad art. That is why it stinks. Compare the modern art to real art, and imagine nearly every parish in the nation having almost nothing but the modern stuff, and wondering why the people don’t seem to like their art. That is the current music situation. Most of our liturgies are absolutely dominated by 1970's show tunes style music. It is objectively bad music, and ironically it is often hard to sing in a group anyway.

Give them their Catholic music and they will sing! Just like Protestants have their Protestant music, and they sing. Btw, the reason you can go into a huge megachurch and hear everyone singing loudly/getting into it, is because they choose to be there and not the other 40 local Protestant liturgical options from Anglican to Pentecostal. Catholics do not have this option. We have ONE liturgy from which very specific music has grown, and unlike Protestants, who choose an ecclesial community whose liturgy produces the type of music they prefer, Catholics can either stick with what the Church has given them, or force the Protestant music onto the mass. The square Protestant peg will get shredded as it goes into the round Catholic hole, and then we wonder why Catholics don’t want to sing. It is not that they don’t want to sing, it is that they are Catholics at a mass and not Protestants at a Sunday service. Each style is suited to each liturgy, and has grown organically out of each liturgy. When I was a Presbyterian, we sang Wesley hymns in 4 part harmony on Sunday morning. It was beautiful. That is their heritage, rising naturally from their liturgy. The Church has given permission to use their songs, if we want, but it must be in THIRD PLACE behind chant and polyphony. (this is from Church documents, not my opinion)

Currently, even the nicer Protestant hymns are in third place behind 1.) Marty Haugan show tunes,
and 2.) "contemporary" folk or happy-clappy!

I assume we can all agree that the chant and polyphony that has grown out of the mass over thousands of years (and even traditional Protestant hymnody) is objectively better than “praise and worship music”? But perhaps someone will argue that some people like the P and W music, so let’s use that music to draw them/make them comfortable, etc. Now to Devin’s main thrust in the article, I know he must be thinking “Hey dude, I was not talking about music in the mass though.” Ok, fair enough. But why use a foreign tradition to introduce someone to your tradition?

Put another way, why use an inferior foreign tradition to draw someone to your tradition? Watch the above video of “Gather us in” by Haugan. That song has a place. It’s place is in a Protestant liturgy, or around a campfire! The words of the song, the music itself, and the instruments likely to be used (guitar) are totally inappropriate for mass according to the clear teaching of the Magisterium. So why have a service outside of mass that tells the participant “we are Catholics who really like this Protestant liturgical music, and we like to sing it outside of mass as opposed to our own liturgical music which is much richer and deeper and in the long run more emotional, but for some reason we would rather skip all that and sing this disposable stuff.” The clear implication is “this is the music we really like, and we want it at mass”. Otherwise why not sing from the vast storehouse of Catholic music that we have, that is specifically Catholic, ancient, and objectively beautiful? Shouldn’t we put our BEST foot forward when we are showcasing the Catholic faith to people? Why in the world would we use the scraps from the Protestant table to showcase Catholicism? Protestants have seen the scraps, they want the Church.

It is as if a great king wanted to show his wealth to a visitor, and instead of bringing him into the vault and blinding him with the huge mounds of bright gold and jewels as far as the eye can see, he meets him at the city gates and shows him a fancy carriage and some Russel Stover chocolates- gifts which a neighboring king gave him. “Really, believe me, I’m super rich, really I am, trust me!” The visitor can’t help but think “If he is so rich, why not just show me?” Catholicism is the rich king, and Protestant hymns are the gilded carriage. The sickly sweet chocolates are praise and worship songs. Why would we have a meeting at the city gate (in the basement of the Church) to hand out these chocolates when we can invite everyone to the storeroom (mass) to see the treasure?
One last point. Even if this idea of a service outside of mass was great, lets first get the music inside mass fixed before we start focusing on the outside.

R.C. Sproul Jr. on converts to Catholicism

On May 14, I received one of R.C. Sproul Jr’s “Kingdom Notes” in my inbox that all but said that it was written to me. The Kingdom Notes are sent out by R.C. once or twice a week and just give a little thought from R.C. or they answer one of the “Ask R.C.” questions. A whole string of emails with Keith Mathison began by me asking R.C. a question about Sola Scriptura which he forwarded to his friend and co-worker Keith Mathison. (Who has been very helpful and treated me as a brother in Christ)In RCJr.'s seeming response to me he discarded my specific question about Sola Scriptura and made it into something he could answer easier. I was disappointed at what he said. Not only with the attitude displayed, but also with the seeming lack of knowledge of Trent and just plain poor argumentation. I guess I expected better from him. He seemed to have the attitude of his (and his father’s) mentor Dr. John Gerstner in his screed A Primer on Roman Catholicism which is the apologetic equivalent of “Catholicism is bad, everyone who is smart knows it, and anyone who disagrees with me does not deserve respect, neener neener Catholics are evil.” (I would recommend this booklet by Dr. Gerstner by the way for anyone that wants reasons to convert to Catholicism) R.C. Jr. has been one of my Reformed heroes and to hear him say these words in this email was chilling for me. I had never seen him as being bitter or unreasonable until I read this. I felt sad to hear his words that were directed it seemed at people in my exact situation. I will always consider him a brother working in the Kingdom for the glory of our King, so to hear him say he does not consider me one was heartfelt for me. I felt like “Buddy” in the movie The Incredibles when Mr. Incredible says “go home Buddy, I work alone!” I have heard him speak wonderfully about loosy goosey evangelicals and even unbelievers he knows and how we can be winsome and loving to them. I don’t see that attitude towards Catholics. I include the entirety of the email here.

May 14, 2010 In this Issue: Ask RC Ask RC What would you say to a Christian who is thinking of converting to Roman Catholicism? First- don't. After that my approach would likely adjust for the particular person, and what I knew about what was motivating them to make that move. Any approach, however, would look at both personal issues and theological issues. Too often we unwisely focus on one to the exclusion of the other. In my own circles we tend to jump to the theological. The problem is, precious few, if any people I've ever known to be tempted in this direction went Roman Catholic, from their own perspective, because they had done a serious study of the important theological issues and found Rome to be more faithful to the Scriptures. Their motives tend to be more about practice than dogma. That is, they are active in the pro-life movement, and like what they see in Rome on this issue. Or, they are frustrated with the aesthetic and even intellectual barrenness of the evangelical world. Or, more often than anything else, after living through church splits and denominational squabbles, they long to be a part of the one true church. All of which is at the end of the day wishful thinking about greener grass. Rome is not a united body as they would have us believe. They are no more likely to be pro-life in conviction or in terms of activism than evangelicals. Their worship may have pleasing smells and bells, but it culminates in an abomination, the immolation of the Lord Jesus Christ in the mass. The desires for these things, beauty and intellect, unity and activism in the cause of life, these are all good. They are just not any better in Rome than they are in the evangelical church. Their strengths are just as much ours, and our weaknesses just as much theirs. Which brings us to the theological. I typically direct these folks to the sixth session of the Council of Trent. Trent was convened to deal with issues arising out of the Reformation. It is, as even Vatican II and the current Roman Catechism affirm, unchangeable dogma not just for the church, but for all within its pale. And it, the sixth session, says that those who affirm that a man is justified apart from the works of the law should be damned. I have yet to meet a potential or actual convert to Rome who is willing to agree with this bald damning of the Biblical doctrine of how we have peace with God. And yet, by joining Rome they formally confess the truth of this damnable doctrine. In short, even if Rome beats the evangelical church hands down in principled activism, in intellectual and aesthetic fruitfulness, in unity of mind and purpose, so do the Shriners. The evangelical church is that place where the good news of Jesus Christ is not damned, but preached. With Rome it is exactly the opposite. Finally, with my friends who have made the jump I seek to make sure they live with the consequences. That is, though they don't believe the sixth session of the Council of Trent, I make them live with it. That means that if they are right, they must not treat me as a brother, for I hold to damnable doctrine. If they are wrong, I must not treat them as a brother, for they hold to damnable doctrine. There is no option where we can both be right. My friends know that if they should repent, if they should return to the one true church, the evangelical church, if they should publicly and formally affirm their dependence on the finished work of Christ alone, I will rejoice with them. Until they do, however, we are not united in Him.

I will always see you as my brother in Christ R.C. and will pray you join into full unity with the Church Christ founded so that your vision of the Kingdom can have glorious success as you realize that Kingdom is the Catholic Church! As for some of the other aspects of the email let me quote a friends response after reading it:

I was intrigued by two things in the Sproul note. First, he said, "And it, the sixth session, says that those who affirm that a man is justified apart from the works of the law should be damned." The Sixth Session doesn't say this, anywhere. Canon 19 says: "If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema." And Canon 20 says this: "If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema." But the commandments there shouldn't be equated with "works of the Law", which is a Pauline phrase referring properly to the Jewish law (particularly the ceremonial law) under the Old Covenant. The Sixth Session of Trent is referring to the moral law (revealed in the Decalogue). Sometime later this summer I hope to post something on justification on CTC. The other thing that Sproul misunderstands is the nature of the anathemas. See, for example, here.

Again if you read this R.C. I consider you a brother and wish you well. I would suggest to you that you first be able to describe accurately the opposing viewpoint before trying to dismantle it. This will avoid the appearance of straw man arguments. Much of what you said seemed tailor made to speak to people firmly convinced of the errors of Catholicism rather than, as the "Ask RC" question implied, that you were speaking to someone like me who was thinking of converting to Catholicism. Let me give an example. You said:

Their worship may have pleasing smells and bells, but it culminates in an abomination, the immolation of the Lord Jesus Christ in the mass.

This is unfair. You should know better that this is not how Catholics would describe their position. They say that the Mass is the same moment in time as Christ's immolation at Calvary. You believe as much about the worship we offer in church in the sense of being lifted up to heaven during worship. (I have heard as much from listening to you in dozens of "basement Tapes") We are then "outside time" in a sense when we participate in Christs body and blood. So why falsely characterize Catholics as participating in an "abomination"? They see themselves as being at the foot of the cross and at Jesus side as he offers a pleasing sacrifice to the father. Was Jesus not immolated? I don't get your position.