I’ve been asked to comment on Chris Castaldo’s article Three
Misnomers to Avoid [about the Roman Catholic teaching about the “Mass”],
and by extension, Justin
Taylor’s echo of that article.
What was Castaldo’s point? He’s saying that Protestants are “propagating
misnomers” about what Roman Catholics actually teach about the Mass.
Misnomer One: Catholics teach that Christ is “physically present” in
the Mass.
In response to this, Castaldo cites from the CCC:
1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and
wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated
species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a
true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and
his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS
1640; 1651).
Turretinfan
has provided an excellent clarification of the technical, theological issues, and I’d refer anyone to that article for some very helpful thoughts on
the difference between such concepts as “sacramental presence”, “real
presence”, “physical presence”, etc. and some of the meanings these words and
concepts have taken over the centuries.
Interestingly, Chris Castaldo showed up at Turretinfan’s
post and gave this comment:
For all of its bold letters and
superlatives, there is still no explicit evidence in this post to contradict
the fact that official (de fide) Catholic doctrine nowhere defines the presence
of Christ as “physically” present.
This is precisely the sort of thing I’d expect a Roman Catholic
to say in response to some of the kinds of contradictions that Turretinfan
pointed out.
Bear in mind, Turretinfan is citing popes here (and very
recent popes), and he is citing them at the Vatican’s official website. And bear
in mind that Chris Castaldo’s purpose in writing was to chastise Protestants
for “propagating misnomers that directly contradict the explicit teaching of
the Catholic Church.”
Yet here we have popes propagating the same “misnomers” (or
at least, the Vatican’s official website’s official translations are
propagating some of the misnomers) he is accusing Protestants of propagating.
Well, interestingly enough, even Popes can’t get this sort
of thing straight. And the reason for this is, historically, Rome has been all
over the map concerning what is the “explicit teaching of the Catholic Church”.
Here was my comment to Chris Castaldo:
"...no explicit
evidence..." "official (de fide) Catholic doctrine" ...
Highlighting the very slippery nature [note, a pope can say "physical
presence"] of what Roman Catholics say they believe, and what they really
do believe. It really is a reprehensible, and reprehensibly dishonest, way to
do business. And why individuals like
you should both "know better", and be less willing to chastise
Protestants for "not using proper terms" or "mischaracterizing
Roman Catholic doctrine", and more willing to chastise Roman Catholics for
being slippery and dishonest in their characterizations of their own doctrine
(emphasis added).
Of course, Christ has been taught, at various times, to be
“present” in more ways than just “truly”, “really”, “substantially” (yet in no
way “physically” present!). Just a brief perusal of Edward J. Kilmartin’s “The
Eucharist in the West” (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press ©1998, 2004)
provides a number of other ways that the Roman church, or representatives
thereof, have tried to characterize Christ’s presence in the Eucharist: Some of
these include: “actively”, “actually”, “commemoratively actual”, “personal
actual”, “objective”, “real dyamic”, “real and objective”, and “sacramentally”.
Yes, the Roman church even says “memorially” present, because Augustine said it
that way. There are more. Just don’t say “physically”. What do you think about
that “Holy Mother Church”. She really is just a girl who wants to have it all!
Yes, folks, I’m sure that some Roman Catholics have even
said that Christ is “Truly madly deeply”
present in the Eucharist. But just don’t say “physically present”. That would
be “propagating misnomers” contradicting the “explicit (de fide) teaching of
the Catholic Church”.
The late Fr. Hardon has a recording online on this very point. It made my head hurt, and he took quite a while to lay the groundwork in the lecture. But I did finally understand the point.
ReplyDeletehttp://catholicaudio.blogspot.com/2008/07/fr-hardon-sj-transubstantiation.html
Thanks Suburban, I'll give that a listen when I get a chance.
ReplyDeleteOne of the commenters at Chris Castaldo's site actually has given an overview of *everything (?)* the CCC says about "the Eucharist", "Transubstantiation", and "the Sacrifice of the Mass".
***
• The last supper was a real sacrifice in which Christ’s blood was poured out for our sins in the cup. (*610, 621, 1339)
• In the Mass the bread & wine become the literal body & blood of Christ. (*1373-1377)
• Christs body & blood exist wholly & entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread & wine in every Roman catholic church around the world. (*1392, 1405, 1419)
• The consecrated bread & wine are heavenly food which can help one to attain to eternal life. (*1392, 1405, 1419)
• The consecrated bread & wine are to be worshipped as divine. (*1378-1381)
• Christ has ordained certain men to the ministerial office of the priesthood to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross by the performance of the mass. (*1142, 1547, 1577)
• The sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of the cross. Only the manner in which it is offered is changed (*1085, 1365-1367)
• The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the sacrifice of the Mass. (*1323, 1382)
• The Mass makes Christ present in His death & victimhood. (*1353, 1362, 1364, 1367, 1409)
• At each Mass the priest presents again to the Father the sacrifice of Christ. (*1354, 1357.)
• The Mass is an unbloody sacrifice which atones for the sins of both the living and the dead. (*1367, 1371, 1414)
• Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath on sin. (*1371, 1414)
• The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the sacrifice of the Mass. (*1366, 1407)
• The sacrificial work of redemption is continued through the performance of the sacrificial Mass. (*1364, 1405, 1846)
• The Church is to continue the sacrifice of Christ for the salvation of the world. (*1323, 1382, 1405, 1407)
Willful blindness. That's what I think of when I think of anybody reading that list and not being repulsed.
ReplyDeleteOne thought on this point:
"The Mass is an unbloody sacrifice which atones for the sins of both the living and the dead"
If the "unbloody" sacrifice of the mass can atone for sin, why did Christ's sacrifice need to be bloody? Can an unbloody sacrifice atone for sin?
Or would they say that they really didn't mean that the mass atones, but that the mass remembers the atonement?
Either explanation seems a tad dicey to me.
Hi Jeff -- the concept is more like "the effects of the one bloody sacrifice of Christ is "made present" or "re-presented" to us each time the Mass is said."
ReplyDeleteMy objection to this is that Rome teaches that only Rome has its hand on the spigot of the saving Grace of Christ (which is only dribbled out in tiny drips when Rome opens the spigot.)
When Scripturally, God's grace pours out upon us at all times, in very many ways, as from a fire hose.
Or a better metaphor is: God's grace pours from God like energy from the sun; we are only one small planet, millions of miles away.
Among other things, the Roman Catholic version of God is just too small, with its conception that "the fullness" of God's grace comes through the Roman "church".