Quaker Catholicism

It's fascinating to see Catholic apologists pivot on the sacraments in light of the hierarchy's response to the pandemic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpzG8q5s0W8

Remember when Bishop Robert Barron was tearing his hair out over the fact that most American Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation? Remember how he extolled the value of Eucharistic Adoration?

Now, however, that the Catholic church has imposed an interdict in light of the pandemic, the sacraments turn out to be pretty dispensable. Overnight they've become Quaker Catholics. 

Mass suspended!

It is easier for the earth to exist without the sun than without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!

– Padre Pio

Well that may just be put to the test. What if Mass is suspended and nothing happens? The skies don't blacken. Demons don't storm out of hellmouth and take over the world. What if everything is business as usual? Suppose you can't tell the difference? 

This is another crisis for the Catholic church. I've been joking with friends about how the Vatican needs to authorize communion condoms so that the faithful can safely take communion on the tongue. 

But humor aside, it's pretty amazing that public masses have now been suspended throughout Italy. The hierarchy is sending a clarion message about its lack of faith, and the dispensability of this central sacrament. Logically, they should trust in God to protect faithful communicants. Yet they're afraid to take the risk in case the gamble doesn't pay off. But if you can't bet on your own religion...

The "Jewish roots" of the Mass

I'm going to comment on this presentation by Brant Pitre:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P45BHDRA7pU

It was worse than I expected, and my expectations were low going in–given other presentations of his. Part of the problem is that to a great extent he seems to inhabit a Catholic bubble. He's a cradle Catholic. Apparently, he was raised in a traditionally Catholic state (Louisiana). He got a doctorate from Notre Dame. He's taught at a number of Catholic institutions.  And he's a popular speaker at Catholic powwows. 

One of the dangers is that when you spend so much time around like-minded people, when you constantly speak to sympathetic audiences, it's easy to become slipshod. What if he spoke at a Southern Baptist seminary? Likewise, suppose he ran his arguments by a group of Orthodox rabbis. I imagine the reaction would be quite different than when he's addressing lay Catholics. For that matter, how many Catholic Bible scholars like John Meier, John J. Collins, Luke Timothy Johnson, the late Joseph Fitzmyer or Raymond Brown would take his typology seriously?  

"Mere" symbolism

To my knowledge, the standard Baptist position takes a Zwinglian view of the Lord's Supper. This is often characterized as "mere" symbolism. 

"Mere" is an interesting adjective because, depending on context, it can either have a neutral or pejorative connotation. On the one hand, it can simply be used to establish a point of contrast between opposing views. On the other hand, consider some synonyms for "mere": "trifling, meager, bare, trivial, paltry, basic, scant, scanty, skimpy…"

Suppose I said "elected officials are merely public servants, not dictators". That's a good thing, right? We don't want elected officials to be dictators, do we? (Admittedly, secular progressives are dictatorial.)

"Mere" can be used in a slighting way, as if that indicates something defective. Suppose I have pictures of my kids on my office desk. Suppose a client said, "Those are merely photographs!"

That would be a strange thing to say. The adjective would be gratuitous. Yes, they're just photos. What else are they supposed to be? That's all they're supposed to be. That's the purpose they serve. 

Suppose someone told me "your girlfriend is merely a woman". That would be an odd thing to say. What else is she supposed to be? Is there something deficient about having a female girlfriend? As opposed to what? In fact, in the age of transgender propaganda, that needs to be accentuated, not minimized. 

Suppose you told a carpenter that his screwdriver is merely a screwdriver. But isn't that the function of a screwdriver? Is it a design flaw if a screwdriver is a poor tool for pounding nails? 

Suppose we said circumcision is merely a covenant sign. Yeah. So what? 

The use of "mere" or "merely" can be prejudicial, by gratuitously recasting the Zwinglian view as if that's a weakness. But that's a tendentious way to frame the alternatives. 

Cracker Jack® Mass

“It would be entirely improper for the Synod on the Amazon to discuss the change of the matter of the Holy Eucharist,” Cardinal Burke told LifeSite. “To depart from the use of what has always been the matter of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist has the gravest of implications,” he said.

“This is completely impossible because it is against the divine law which God has given us,” Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, responded to the proposed change. “To celebrate the Eucharist with yuca would mean introducing a kind of a new religion.”

Fr. John Saward, senior research fellow at Blackfriars Hall, University of Oxford, said that replacing wheaten bread with yuca would contravene the witness of Tradition, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Code of Canon Law. 

And one prominent theologian, speaking on condition of anonymity, told LifeSite: 

If the Pope were to press ahead with this permission on the grounds of “development of doctrine,” thereby aiding and abetting the heterodox theologians in Rome (or Brazil or Germany or wherever) who proposed it, then he will be authorizing a change of the substance of the Sacrament as determined by the action of Christ our Lord at the Last Supper. “Masses” celebrated with “yuca” bread would not be Masses; there would be no Real Presence, no Sacrifice. 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/proposal-at-vatican-to-change-eucharist-would-create-a-new-religion

Here's what canon law presently says:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3A.HTM

A few quick observations:

i) As a rule, I think the communion elements should be bread and (red) wine. 

ii) Many evangelical churches use bread and grape juice while liturgical churches use wafers and wine. Both traditions fail to correspond consistently to the Last Supper.

iii) There is no "divine law" about the communion elements. The Last Supper accounts are descriptive, not prescriptive. Mind you, it would be flippant to substitute communion elements without good reason. 

iv) This is an issue for communicants with food allergies. Consider the debate over gluten-free wafers. 

v) I've never seen the rationale for communion wafers. I assume one reason is that it makes it look more official. It may be related to the tradition of the "reserved sacrament"–which is, in turn, related to eucharistic adoration. Communion wafers last longer than fresh bread, 

vi) However, the Catholic reaction to the trial balloon about changing the "matter of communion" illustrates the fanatical inconsistency of Catholic sacramentology. Since, according to transubstantiation, the communion elements are not, in fact, wheat bread and wine, what difference does it make? How would substituting different communion elements invalidate the eucharist if the empirical properties of bread and wine are illusory while the substance is the "true body and blood together with the soul and divinity" of Jesus? According to transubstantiation, the appearance of the consecrated bread and wine is just an optical (tangible, gustatory) illusion. By that reckoning, what difference would it make if the priest used Cracker Jack® instead of bread?  

The "evangelical book club"

A friend drew my attention to this discussion, they draw an invidious contrast between the "evangelical Bible club" and the Mass, around the 1:11-13 min. mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0B5nyWeuK4

i) On the one hand you can know a lot about a person from a book (e.g. biographies, autobiographies, letters, diaries). In fact, you can know a lot more about a person through those sources than a direct encounter, because we have a public persona that conceals a great deal about ourselves. 

ii) On the other hand, transubstantiation is just a Catholic projecting belief onto bread and wine. It's all in his imagination. They can't tell the difference between consecrated and unconsecrated communion elements. 

iii) And even if transubstantiation was true, how is eating someone a form of fellowship? If we're going to put it in these terms, don't I have a more dynamic relationship with my pet dog by walking my dog rather than eating my dog?

The altar

Catholic apologist Erick responded to my post:

https://erickybarra.wordpress.com/2018/09/25/response-to-triablogue/

In addition, some Catholics on Facebook also had feedback. This post is a rejoinder to both. 

This is a strange bifurcation created between “Christianity” and “Christ’s Church”. All who partake of Christ in a saving manner are “members of His body” (1 Cor 12), and thus in the Church. 

That's why you don't have to go on a quest to find Christ's church. If you became a Christian, that automatically makes you a member of Christ's church. I appreciate Erick unwitting endorsement of my ecclesiology! 

And since the Church has origination in Christ, I see a problem with this idea of not wanting to be a part of the “original Church which Christ founded”. 

I didn't suggest Christians shouldn't wish to be a part of the “original Church which Christ founded”. Rather, all true Christians are already a part of that church by virtue of salvation. 

But I prefer to give SH the benefit of doubt and assume he means here that there is no single visible institutional Church which has been comprised of a visible and unbroken hierarchical succession since the Apostles, with one single membership rite. 

As a low-church Protestant, I don't define the church Christ founded in terms of "unbroken hierarchical succession since the Apostles." Isn't that self-evident? 

Protestant scholars who have studied the Patristic data will admit that the early Church Fathers understood “the holy Church” as one visible hierarchical society which requires external unity in faith, sacramental economy, and governmental solidarity. Any break in these three essential elements would create 2 different communities, one false claimant to being the “una sancta” of the Creed and the other being the true and authentic una sancta of the Creed. Period. 

Church fathers aren't my touchstone. Period. 

As a Protestant, it is strange that SH would deny that there are real contenders to the claim of ecclesiality since I am sure he would discount Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, and Unitarians from being an authentic Church. He would prove it by giving criteria of falsification. 

Since heretics aren't Christian, they don't belong to the church. That's entirely different from the claim that Christ's church is confined to one ecclesial community among myriads of false claimants–which you must isolate by process of elimination. And not only don't I regard the Roman Catholic church as the one true church, I don't regard that sect as a part of Christ's church. It's a nominally Christian denomination. 

Nicholas 

The Apostles and Nicene Creed has had all Christians in history profess "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". There aren't denominations and it isn't a difficult search. What Steve is testifying to is that he doesn't believe in any denomination, any specific church, as in none of them are orthodox nor historic, but rather all inventions of men. 

1. Since the Apostles' creed and Nicene creed are fallible, uninspired documents, that's not my criterion. Uninspired creeds can be true, but the criterion is revelation, not tradition. 

2. At the risk of stating the obvious, all Christians in history don't profess "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". 

i) They couldn't profess articles of those creeds before those creeds were promulgated.

ii) Not all evangelical churches have a liturgy with those creeds. 

iii) At what point were those creeds incorporated into the Latin liturgy?

iv) How could illiterate, non-Latin speaking (not to mention non-Romance speaking) peasants recite a creed in Latin? How would they know what they were saying?

v) The fact that many churchgoers recited a script someone else wrote for them is an illicit argument from authority.

3. Historical continuity isn't a prerequisite to be an expression of Christ's church. Catholics operate with a priest-sacrament paradigm. Protestants operate with a Word-Spirit paradigm. 

4. Many Protestant denominations are far more orthodox than Roman Catholicism. 

5. In God's providence, denominations reflect historical contingencies. They develop in relation to the circumstances God puts Christians in, which vary in time and place. 

The sacrifice of the Mass

A friend asked me to comment on this post by a Catholic apologist:

https://erickybarra.wordpress.com/2018/09/11/why-every-bible-believing-christian-must-believe-in-the-holy-sacrifice-of-the-mass/

I'll confine my observations to what I take to be the meat of his argument. 

Christians throughout the world who are actively seeking to join the original “Church” which Christ founded are confronted with the myriad of communities and denominations which compete with each other.

That's a Catholic solution to something that's only a problem if you grant Catholic ecclesiology. In my 42 years as a Christian, I never sought to join the original “Church” which Christ founded. What about joining Christianity? That's a better starting-point.

I don't think there's a one-to-one matchup between "the original Church which Christ founded" and particular instantiations of the church. I'm not looking for a needle in a haystack, because I don't need to eliminate all the contenders. I don't view Christian denominations as a zero-sum game. It's not mortal combat, where you have to kill off all the competition. I don't subscribe to a Hunger Games ecclesiology. 

Black Mass

L'Osservatore Romano

In 2023, the Devil Incarnate became a priest. Then, using his unique powers of persuasion, he rose through the ranks at a meteoric rate until he was elected pope. Day and night he sacrificed babies on the high altar at St. Peter's basilica. He poured their blood into a chalice. Through the miracle of transubstantiation, their blood became the True Blood of Jesus. It still tasted like human blood. When subjected to chemical analysis, it was indistinguishable from human blood. It had the "accidental" properties of human blood, but the substance was the True Blood of Jesus.

Pope Lucifer extorted the faithful into devoting their babies to be exsanguinated because he had a monopoly the Sacrament. The only way to receive the Host was from his consecrated hands. The faithful had no where else to go. To turn one's back on the infernal papacy was tantamount to Judas betraying Jesus.  

Okay, that's fictional, but compare it to real tweets by pious Catholics:

Daily Catholic Blurb

Please remember that you didn’t come into the Catholic Church because of the men running it, you came because Jesus is her spouse and here alone can you receive Our Lord in the Eucharist.

JM Kraemer/The Lego Church Project 

We need more people to come to Mass so we can show our support for the #GoodPriests.

chat alvarado

I can't get this tweet out of my head -- 1st We are Catholics (cradle & otherwise) not because of men but because the Catholic Church is HIS CHURCH. If we abandon HIS Church because of men's failings, then it is like the apostles abandoning Jesus because of Judas.

David Dunn

The miracle of renewal in my heart, the trembling going to Adoration for the first time, the relief of confession, the reality of the presence of Christ Eucharist is why I am Catholic. If the devil is using priests to do evil, it is because he hates the one true apostolic church.

Leticia Velasquez

Beautifully stated! Reminds me of St Francis who kissed the hands of a sexually active priest, because those hands brought Jesus to him.

John Barry

Remember that the Church is not about priests, bishops, Cardinals or even popes but about Christ.  And what a miracle it is that even through the hands of lowly sinners can he give us His true presence in the Eucharist! #MaximilianKolbe #prayforus

CatholicHeartandMind

If the whole world fell away, I would remain Catholic. Not because I am strong or better than anyone else, but because I searched many years for the truth, I found Him, or He found me, & I’m not letting go. To Whom would I go? Christ is right here in His Church, no matter what.

DeusVult

John 6:68 "And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."

Troy Wynne

I was about to type in the same quote! Because it's true.

Nicholas C. Chancey

“Lord, whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.” John 6:68

DemonNinjaLlama

Where would I go?

Thomas Fuller

...(the Church)has the words of eternal life.

Fyodor Garibaldi

Even a million pedophile priests aren't worth having a mortal sin on your soul. You should go to Mass tonight and Confession as soon as possible.

Terry Lawson

Would you have left Jesus when Judas proved to be less than he was called to be? Mother Church is still Christ’s Bride. Priests will always need our prayers. We are all fallen creatures. Come home.

Vincent StClair

If you don't believe Jesus and his sacrament is greater than the people performing them then you don't think too highly of the Lord. The truly sacred cannot be tainted.

Laura Meineke

Makes me wonder....he has consecrated hands and can turn bread into body of Christ.

The true body and blood of Christ

1. Historically, various denominations espouse some version of the real presence. Some denominations (Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy) are committed to it while others (Anglicanism) allow for it.  

Some theological traditions attempt to be more specific about how and what is. In Catholicism, Aquinas gave the classic formulation, which was codified at Trent. However, some 20C Catholic theologians (e.g. Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx) proposed alternatives. 

Although traditional Catholics regard them as heretical, their alternative views on the eucharist were never officially censured (to my knowledge).  

In Lutheranism, Martin Chemnitz provided the classic formulation in his monograph on The Lord's Supper. For a more up-to-date summary, see  David P. Scaer's contribution to Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper (Counterpoints: Church Life).

You also have theologians who take a more eclectic, mediating position, viz. Myk Habets, Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance.

Conversely, there are Christians who affirm the real presence, but resist detailing the mechanics. They relegate that to mystery and miracle. 

Whether that's successful I'll address momentarily. 

In this post I'm not going to evaluate historical positions. I just mention them for background. 

2. Just as a matter of logical options, it seems to me that the real presence reduces to one of two different claims: 

i) The (consecrated0 communion elements are the body of Jesus

ii) The (consecrated) communion elements contain the body of Jesus

Put another way:

i) The (consecrated) communion elements are other than bread and wine

ii) The (consecrated) communion elements are more than bread and wine

According to (i), the communion elements cease to be bread and wine. According to (ii), the communion elements remain intact, but there is now something over and above the communion elements.

I think models of the real presence come down to variations on either of these two claims.

3. There are roughly two components to the real presence:

i) A dichotomy between appearance and reality

ii) The underlying reality

According to the real presence, the appearance of the bread and wine is illusory, in part or in whole. By "appearance," I don't merely mean visually, or what we can see with the naked eye. 

I mean in reference to the primary and secondary properties generally. The true body is empirically indetectable, whether by sight, taste, chemical analysis, &c. 

As such, the theory of the real presence requires God to create an illusion. In principle, there are different ways this could be produced. Take science fiction scenarios about telepathic aliens who make people imagine things that aren't there, or fail to perceive things that are there.

BTW, I'm not being facetious. I'm taking the implications of the real presence seriously. This is what an adherent is committed to. It has an illusory dimension. 

I think this component of the real presence is coherent. It's possible for God to do that. That's because this aspect of the real presence concerns perception rather than reality. The more challenging aspect of the real presence concerns the stipulated reality. Which brings me to:

4. In reference to the real presence, what is the "true body" of Jesus? What do the communion elements either become or contain? 

Since the real presence stands in contrast to symbolic interpretations, since proponents accentuate literality, I think this must have reference to the physical body of Jesus. A complete human body. 

This means that when a communicant consumes the wafer or sips the wine, he's ingesting the brain, teeth, eyes, ribs, liver, bladder, intestines, penis, hair, toenails, &c., of Jesus.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. That's what their theory requires of them. There's not much wiggle room. It boils down to two alternatives: either a "true body" or symbolism. Since proponents deny that Jesus is "spiritually" present, since they reject the symbolic interpretation, the "true body" must be the physical body of Jesus. A complete human body. What else could it be–given the demands of the theory?

I think some proponents make the real presence more palatable (pardon the pun) by studied vagueness. 

5. This, in turn, determines what must happen at communion. What the theory amounts to. There are at least two metaphysical components:

i) Miniaturization

How can a wafer be the body of Jesus, or contain the body of Jesus? If we take the claim seriously (it's a true body), then that suggests a process of miniaturization. After all, the dimensions of a wafer are far smaller than a human body. And the shape is completely different. A wafer is a small, flat, round object. 

How can the wafer be the body of Jesus, or contain his body, unless his body is miniaturized?

In a way, it's even more daunting to ask how a liquid (communion wine in the chalice) can be, or contain, the body of Jesus. Are bodies of Jesus, in miniature, in the wine–like complex molecules? 

I'm not making fun of the claim. I'm unpacking the claim. If it doesn't mean that, then in what respect is it the true body of Jesus?

I'm the moment I'm not discussing how that's possible. Rather, I'm discussing what is said to happen.

ii) Replication

If a priest distributes communion to 200 worshipers, doesn't that entail 200 bodies of Jesus? Each wafer is (or contains) the body of Jesus. 

Likewise, if one communicant after another sips the wine, is a body Jesus replicated anew each time the next communicant sips the wine? Are there an infinite number of true bodies swimming around inside the chalice? Might you inadvertently imbibe more than one? 

Or is the true body duplicated one at a time for each communicant? 

Once again, I'm not being flippant. The theory of the real presence simultaneously affirms something and denies something. What is the claim?

It seems as though the real presence entails the reincarnation of Christ. The repeated reincarnation of Christ. His body is multiplied every time the Eucharist is celebrated. If two communicants receive his body, then it can't be the numerically same body in each case, can it? Rather, it has to be copies. 

6. From what I've read, adherents of the real presence ground it in one of two events:

i) Made possible by virtue of the Incarnation

ii) Made possible by virtue of the Resurrection

According to (i), the human nature acquires the divine attribute of ubiquity via the hypostatic union.

That's subject to two objections:

a) Divine omniscience doesn't mean God has literal spatial extension. It doesn't mean he's diffused through space. That he exists in every part of space. Rather, it's a picturesque metaphor for divine omniscience and omnipotence. 

b) To say divine attributes are transferrable to the human nature is pantheistic. It erases the categorical distinction between the creature and the Creator. 

According to (ii), the glorified body of Christ is hyperdimensional. 

That's subject to three objections:

i) It rests on exegetically dubious inferences

ii) Adding spacial dimensions fails to solve the problem it posed for itself. The problem is not that his body has too few dimensions, but too many. It's a problem of scale. A 3D human body is too big for another human to swallow whole. To say the glorified body has even more dimensions aggravates rather than alleviates the problem.

iii) A hyperdimensional body isn't recognizably human. That's not what Scripture means by a human body. 

7. At this point, adherents retreat into pious appeals to mystery and miracle. And that appeal has a legitimate place in Christian theology. But it's not unqualified.

i) On a classic definition of miracle, God can produce naturally impossible results by circumventing nature. If, however, God is working through a natural medium, then that limits the divine field of action. If God uses a natural medium, then he can only do what's naturally possible. He can do what's naturally impossible by simply bypassing the natural medium. But so long as the natural medium is instrumental to the result, that imposes a restriction on what he can do with it. Nature is finite. It has in-built constraints. 

ii) According to the real presence, the communicant is receiving something essentially natural. The body of Jesus is a natural object. A physical organism. If it were supernatural, it wouldn't be a true body. 

So you can't invoke a miracle to make the real presence go through.

iii) In theory, you could invoke a miracle of replication (see above). But that wouldn't solve the problem of scale.

In theory, you could invoke a miracle of miniaturization. But that's problematic on several grounds:

a) Consuming tiny bodies of Jesus is cannibalistic. Adherents of the real presence deny that communion is cannibalism.

b) To miniaturize a human body, you must shrink everything down. Everything must be scaled up or down to match everything else, viz. the heart in relation to cells, &c. You'd have to miniaturize cells.  

But body systems designed to function at one scale can't naturally function at a very different scale. Consider the difference between insects and humans. Because insects are so much smaller, they have systems which work at their scale that couldn't work for a much larger organism, or vice versa. Take the circulatory system or oxygenation. The scale of an organism affects what is feasible, from an engineering standpoint. 

You end up with a makeshift explanation that isn't consistently natural or supernatural. 

Folk Mass

Because royalty are just ordinary people with extraordinary perks, they've felt the need to have something that makes them seem special, more special than they really are. Something that sets them apart from the hoi polloi. Typically, this involves finery. Gold crowns. Jewelry. Ostentatious attire. There's nothing about a naked king to distinguish him from a naked peasant. The externals must make the difference. The externals confer artificial importance on royalty. The illusion of that these are a breed apart from ordinary mortals. They dress like demigods to disguise how average they are underneath. 

Traditionally, the Mass employs the same psychology. Allegedly, the consecrated communion elements are the True Body and Blood of Christ. The trick is how to make something essentially mundane seem magical. So you fancy it up with ritual and glittery trappings. Archbishop Sheen once teamed up with  Yousuf Karsh to produce an illustrated guide to the Tridentine Mass. It's an elaborate exercise in how to make something intrinsically unimpressive impressive. How to elevate something made from water and flour, or fermented grape juice, to an object of reverence and adoration. High Mass at St. Peter's is another example. The choir. The visuals. The incense. Same thing with a Russian Orthodox service. Glorious Hocus Pocus. A priest strumming a guitar just doesn't have the same effect. 

This is why the folk mass was so disastrous. It's like stripping royalty of their gold, ermine, gemstones, and putting them in overalls. There's the sudden shock of recognition. When you peel back the layers, what's left is banal. The Tridentine Mass is a Christmas present with fancy wrappings. But what's inside the box doesn't compare with what's outside the box. Removing the wrappings, peek inside, and it's just an empty box. Jesus isn't there. The folk mass was very deflating. 

It's interesting to compare the Mass with Solomon's temple. By design, that was a very impressive building. Impressive interior. Some top-quality furnishings.

The floor plan is concentric. Space within space. Progressively holier, progressively smaller. 

Imagine when Jerusalem finally fell to Nebuchadnezzar. I assume he was curious to see the temple. See inside the temple. Walking into the sanctuary must have taken his breath away. The inner sanctum would be the high point. Yet, when he pulled the curtain aside, it must have been a bit unprepossessing. Just a box. Albeit a gilt box. 

I imagine he was trembling with suspense. There must be something pretty important inside the box to justify the build-up. What could be that important in such a small space? 

He lifts the lid. What a letdown! The Decalogue. Aaron's rod. A pot of manna. And that's it!

Solomon's temple is deliberately anticlimactic, because it's only an emblem of God's presence. God didn't live there. When you peer around the veil, you don't see God on the other side. Nebuchadnezzar was lucky that God wasn't waiting for him. Had it been the Shekinah or the Angel of the Lord, that would be a fatal encounter for the impudent king. 

Unlike the Mass, Solomon's temple never pretended to be more than it was. A symbolic structure. A pointer. A memorial. God wasn't really there. At least, no more or less than God is anywhere or everywhere. That's not where you find God, because that's not how you find God.

The Church Prior to the Reformation: The Mass

Medieval conception of Purgatory

As Protestants, we all seem to know that the Roman Church was very bad during the middle ages, but in what ways? What, precisely, was being protested?

In his work “The Reformation: A History”, Diarmiad MacCulloch gives a brief overview of the Roman Church prior to the Reformation. He introduces that overview with this passage:

Nicholas Ridley, one of the talented scholarly clergy who rebelled in England against the old [Roman] Church, wrote about this to one of his fellow rebels John Bradford in 1554, while they both lay in prisons waiting for the old Church to burn them for heresy. As Bishop Ridley reflected on the strength of their deadly enemy, which now he saw as the power of the devil himself, he said that Satan’s old world of false religion stood on two ‘most massy posts and mighty pillars … these two, sir, are they in my judgement: the one his false doctrine and idolatrical use of the Lord’s supper; and the other, the wicked and abominable usurpation of the primacy of the see of Rome … the whole system of the medieval western Church was built on the Mass and on the central role of the Pope. Without the Mass, indeed, the Pope in Rome and the clergy of the Western Church would have had no power for the Protestant reformers to challenge, for the Mass was the centerpiece around which all the complex devotional life of the Church revolved (Diarmiad MacCulloch, “The Reformation: A History” (New York, NY: Penguin Books, ©2004, pg 10).

These are the things that the Reformation was all about: the “Mass” and the Papacy. These were the two real bulwarks of Roman strength. But in what way did they exercise power in the 16th century? In what ways did they hold captive the entire continent of Europe?

James White and Pope Benedict XVI Agree!

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (2002), now Pope Benedict XVI

The Eucharist does not grant any quasi-magical assurance of salvation. It always demands and involves our freedom. And therefore the risk of losing our salvation always remains; our gaze remains fixed on the judgment to come. (From “Eucharist and Mission”, in “Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion”, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press ©2005, German Original Title, “Weg Gemeinschaft des Glaubens: Kirche als Communio” ©2002by Sankd Ulrich Verglag GmbH, Augsburg, pgs 104-105).

James White

The contrast could not be stated in any stronger terms. The high priest offered sacrifices that could “never take away sins” (Hebrews 8:10-14). He stood in the Holy Place, never sitting down, never resting, because his work was never completed. The offerings he made were inadequate to perfect those for whom he made them. But Christ’s sacrifice accomplishes its goal. He does not stand, repeatedly offering His work. His work of atonement is completed. Instead, He is seated, His work finished, the one offering needed to perfect for all time. There is no need for repetition or for “re-presentation,” as the writer points out in verse 18: “Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.” If an offering is still being made, forgiveness remains incomplete. If the offerings cease, forgiveness is a reality.

The relevance of this passage to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a “propitiatory sacrifice” is clear. Rome insists that the Mass is the very same sacrifice as that of Calvary, differing only in manner (bloody versus unbloody). Yet it is admitted that the effect of the Mass is limited, and that a person can draw near to the Mass over and over again and still die “impure.” According to their doctrine, it is quite possible for a person to attend Mass every day of his life, commit a mortal sin the hour before his death, and be lost for eternity, despite having approached the Mass as a sacrifice thousands of times. The Roman Catholic response would be that such a person is unlikely to commit such a serious sin because so much grace had already been given him through attendance at so many Masses. The fact remains that God’s grace is said to be channeled through the Sacraments, especially through the Mass. Yet that grace cannot accomplish its goal outside of the cooperation of the person drawing near to worship, and so the possibility of being lost for eternity remains (“The Roman Catholic Controversy”, Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, ©1996, pg 179).

Roman Catholic view of Eucharist not only contradicts, but violates Hebrews “ἐφάπαξ”

While I was looking up something else, I came across this passage from Oscar Cullmann’s “The Christology of the New Testament” and I thought I’d pass it along, as it really is central to the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics:

Before we examine more closely this correspondence between the perfection of the High Priest and the perfection of the brothers, we must first consider an aspect of Jesus’ high priestly work which … indicates the chasm between the theology of Hebrews and all Gnosticism and mythology. We think of the once-for-all character (ἐφάπαξ) of the high priestly work. It stands in express opposition to the necessity of the continual repetition of the Old Testament priest’s work. We see again in this respect how Jesus not only fulfils the Old Testament priesthood, but also overcomes all its inadequacies.

The writer of Hebrews emphasizes the ἐφάπαξ so strongly in order to demonstrate this opposition. He describes a final and decisive act which in its very uniqueness brings salvation to men. This uniqueness points primarily to the idea that the act of salvation will not be repeated by Jesus the High Priest himself, but it also suggests that the brothers cannot repeat the act, despite the solidarity of the High Priest with their humanity. This ‘one time’ means ‘once for all time’: ‘…he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption’ (Heb. 9:12); ‘…he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’ (9:26); ‘…we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (10:10). Corresponding to ‘once for all’ we read in 10:14, ‘for all time’ (εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς). The saving character of this historically unrepeatable fact is decisive and unending. What the High Priest Jesus completed on the human level is therefore the centre of all events, the decisive midpoint of time. Every cultic event from now on is concentrated on the historical event of this High Priest’s human life, lived at one single time, with its one crowning climax in his atoning death.

Christian worship is therefore possible only on the basis of unreserved respect for this ἐφάπαξ. As I have previously pointed out, Protestants are incorrect in describing the Catholic mass as a ‘repetition’ of the sacrificial act of Jesus. Catholic theologians have always rejected this interpretation. They speak rather of ‘making present’ Christ’s act. But does not also this description of the mass violate the ἐφάπαξ of Hebrews—above all when one designates the mass a ‘sacrifice’? It is just the sacrifice as such which cannot be made present in the way it is supposed to happen in the Catholic mass.

The danger of falling back to the level of Old Testament priesthood arises when the high priest must always present the sacrifice anew. Christian worship in light of that ‘one time’ which means ‘once for all time’ is possible only when even the slightest temptation to ‘reproduce’ that central event itself is avoided. Instead, the event must be allowed to remain the divine act of the past time where God the Lord of time placed it—at that exact historical moment [when it occurred]. It is the saving consequences of this atoning act, not the act itself, which become a present event in our worship. The Lord present in worship is the exalted Kyrios of the Church and the world, raised to the right hand of God. He is the risen Lord who continues his mediating work on the basis of his unique, completed work of atonement. The words εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (in remembrance of me, 1 Cor 11:24. 25) describe the connection between his crucifixion and the celebration of the Lord’s supper. This means ‘in remembrance of that which I have completed, on the basis of which I now dwell among you as the resurrected Lord’.

This was one of the things that struck me most, when I read through the New Testament at age 19. Roman Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, arguably its most central doctrine, is at odds with what the writer to the Hebrews is not only saying clearly, but emphasizing. This is a clear case of biblical perspicuity vs Roman Catholic obfuscation.

Look at this contradiction through the Bryan Cross paradigm, through the Roman Catholic Hermeneutic:

From a Catholic point of view, we never assume as part of our theological methodology that a prima facie contradiction within the Tradition is an actual contradiction. Out of humility toward the Tradition, we instead assume as a working hypothesis that the appearance of a contradiction is due to our own ignorance or misunderstanding. So from a Catholic point of view, if we have at hand an explanation that integrates the apparently conflicting pieces of evidence, we already have a good reason to accept it rather than conclude that there is an actual contradiction…

 Jesus had a word for this, too: “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that” (Mark 7:13).

Pope Gregory the Great: “(Christ) in the mystery of the holy sacrifice is offered for us again (iterum)”.

While we’re talking about the “Eucharist”, it’s striking that most individuals who turn (or return) to Roman Catholicism say they do so because of the Eucharist. Thinking that Rome somehow teaches what Christ taught and what the earliest church taught, they neglect the convoluted history and practice of this “sacrifice”, which, contra Chris Castaldo, has a long history of being viewed as “Christ is re-sacrificed at the Mass”. 

Chris Castaldo says: “Misnomer Two: Catholics teach that Christ is Re-sacrificed at the Mass”

This is perhaps the most common misconception. If I had a dime for every pastor friend whom I’ve heard say that the Mass is a repetition of the cross, I just might have enough money for a cappuccino at Starbucks. … Catholic doctrine teaches that the Mass “renews” or “re-presents” the cross; but it doesn’t “repeat” it. Catholics assert that in a mystical and sacramental sense, the Mass is the cross, the once and for all offering of God’s Son continued through time. For those of you who enjoy grammar, it’s like an ingressive aorist: an action that has been completed and is also ongoing. It is, if you will, like a golf put [sic]… When I swing my putter at the ball, the initial contact is the “put.” At the same time, the action of the ball rolling toward the pin (and in my case, past the pin) is also the “put.” [sic] The put has happened and it’s happening. So the sacrifice of Jesus is completed (hence informed Catholics know how to explain Jesus’ words “it is finished”) and it is also ongoing. Personally, this is one of two or three tenets of Catholicism that I find most troubling; but it is what it is, and we evangelicals only benefit from getting it right.

Castaldo should stick to “puting” and drinking Starbucks. And as I mentioned in a previous post, he should also approach Rome’s doctrines more critically, and be less willing to chastise Protestants for not understanding things for which Rome itself has been all over the map.

This notion that Christ is re-sacrificed at the Mass is an old one, and it is a western, eventually supremely Roman position. Edward J. Kilmartin The Eucharist in the West (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press ©1998, 2004), describing Ambrose of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.) notes:

On the question of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Ambrose provides an example of the difference of the orientation between the Eastern and Western traditions. The Greek fathers of the fourth-century Antiochene tradition based the sacrificial character of the Eucharist on the concept of anamnesis: the commemorative actual presence of the one and unique sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The third-century bishop of Carthage [Cyprian], as was noted above, did not follow this interpretation. Ambrose also omits the Greek concept of commemorative sacrifice… (18)

Ambrose’s theology of eucharistic sacrifice which stresses the active presence of Christ as High Priest as well as the active co-offering of the liturgical assembly under the leadership of the presiding priest adheres to the Western theological tradition. An individualistic concept of eucharistic sacrifice is discernible not only for the ecclesial aspect [“it is precisely the liturgical assembly that is the subject of the offering of the eucharistic sacrifice”] but also for the Christological dimension of the sacrificial act. The idea that each individual Mass has a value in itself as a kind of new act of Christ performed in and through the sacrificial offering of the Church derives from the experience of the mystery of the Eucharist. It is nourished by the typical Western way of thinking which is focused on the individual and concrete event, and disinclined to speculate about the relationship of the once-for-all historical sacrifice of Christ to the eucharistic sacrifice.

Ambrose’s doctrine of the somatic presence of Christ under forms of bread and wine was borrowed from the fourth-century Antiochene tradition. But, as we have noted above, it was not “received” within the Platonic horizon of thought of the Greek theologians. However, his teaching on this subject, thus separated from its natural Platonic horizon, became the viable—and eventually triumphant—option in the Latin Church of the early Middle Ages over against the “spiritualized” interpretation of the content of the sacraments of the body and blood linked to the Augustinian tradition. Likewise Ambrose’s teaching about the Christological aspect of the eucharistic sacrifice shows no signs of the influence of the Greek notion of commemorative sacrifice. This fact, which proves that Ambrose’s “reception” of Greek eucharistic theology was only partial, is indicative of the difficulty which the Western theological mindset has traditionally experienced in its attempts to grasp the Greek notion of commemorative sacrifice.

By the end of the sixth century this Greek concept, which could have served the interests of a more balanced theology of the eucharistic sacrifice, was no longer present to the Western tradition. At the same time the tendency of the Western theology of eucharistic sacrifice toward postulating a complete disjunction between the historical sacrifice of the cross and the eucharistic sacrifice received additional support from Pope Gregory the Great’s saying that “(Christ) in the mystery of the holy sacrifice is offered for us again (iterum)”. This text is one of the earliest that refers to Christ being “newly” offered. Supported by the authority of Gregory [the Great!] it became an important proof text for the notion that the sacrifice of Christ is repeated in each Mass in an “unbloody way.”

At the same time this perception of the eucharistic sacrifice as first and foremost a liturgical repetition of the once-for-all sacrifice of the cross also had the unfortunate effect of obscuring the notion of the active participation of the faithful in the sacrificial activity. The earlier Latin theology, as noted above, viewed the eucharistic liturgy as a constellation of gestures and prayers in which the liturgical activity of the faithful constituted an essential ingredient for the realization of the eucharistic sacrifice. In the later development, however, the eucharistic sacrifice was more narrowly defined as the offering of the one victim through the ministry of the priest. Therefore the laity were understood to participate, not in their own right, but through the ministerial service of the presiding minister.

This new theology of the eucharistic sacrifice provided a building block for the practice of the private Mass which came about due to a number of pastoral and devotional concerns. The transference of the system of stational churches from Rome to the regions beyond the Alps necessitated the confinement of altars honoring martyrs to just one church. The Eucharist was celebrated on these altars in accord with the axiom: martyrs are honored by being buried under altars; altars are places for celebrating the eucharistic sacrifice. Initially the simultaneous celebration of Masses on these altars together with the Mass at the high altar was practiced. But in view of the eucharistic sacrifice as a new offering of Christ, the celebration of such Masses became more frequent. Also, the practice of Irish missionaries of privately celebrating Mass on their missionary excursions in the Frankish lands exercised considerable influence on the development of the private Mass. It was justified on the ground that where the priest is there Mass can be celebrated. Also, in the Frankish milieu the question of exchange of material goods for spiritual goods, monastery lands and other foundations for spiritual blessing, led to the employment of the Mass as the most favored spiritual good to be involved in the “holy commerce.” (21-23, emphasis added)

So can you deny that this is some sort of “explicit de fide teaching” of the Roman Catholic Church? Probably they can and will deny that. But can you deny that it was the overwhelming practice of the Western (i.e. Roman) church through the vastest portion of church history? Nah.

What should Chris Castaldo’s role be? Chastising Protestants because they don’t care to understand this whole convoluted history? Or explaining how Rome’s preoccupation with itself and its own glories caused corruptions galore through the history of the church?