Weigle Room at Christianity Today

In a web-only interview with George Weigel, the not-quite-converted Chris Castaldo gives Weigel lots of wiggle-room to evangelize Evangelicals with his Roman Catholic message, but fails to alert people of the Borg-like nature of interaction with Rome. From the intro, “Chris Castaldo, director of the Ministry for Gospel Renewal at Wheaton College's Billy Graham Center, spoke with Weigel about obstacles facing Evangelical Catholicism, from secular hostility to challenges inside the church.”

In the process, the assumption that Castaldo allows to run free is that “Evangelical Catholicism” somehow holds “evangelical doctrines” – which it does not – in favor of the notion that it is “being evangelical” in its spread of Roman Catholicism.

Not only is that fact completely unspoken in this interview, but Castaldo permits Weigel to engage in the fiction that Roman Catholicism somehow encompasses and promotes some “biblical realism” [to use Weigel’s phrase] rather than simply “Roman Catholicism”.

* * *

Castaldo also leaves without comment the impact of the fact that there are “Catholic clergy and laity who are in a ‘diminished state’ of communion with the Church”. We’re not talking about “separated brethren” here. What we are talking about is the fact that “doctrinally wayward priests” actually represent “an abrogation of responsibility by pastors, be they priests or bishops.”

The fact that bishops (and there are many of them) may be not only “morally” but “doctrinally wayward” betrays the confusion that exists within “the Magisterium” itself.

Finally, Castaldo himself amplifies Weigel’s fiction that “Bishop of Rome is, above all, the Church's first witness—the witness whose own witness strengthens the witness of all the brethren”.

At a minimum, Castaldo and the editors of Christianity Today ought to be castigated for this in polite company, for exhibiting their ignorance of the non-Christianity of Rome when they allow this tripe to be published under their banner.

The hope is that calling this sort of thing to their attention will give them some opportunity to think through what they are doing.

Small Bible Study Groups Attract Roman Catholics

While a small number of Protestants are converting to Rome based on highly convoluted methods of reasoning, far more Roman Catholics are finding the reality of Christ in the fellowship of small Bible study groups in evangelical Protestant churches. Chris Castaldo points this out in a Gospel Coalition article entitled Small Groups that Attract Catholics. In the article, Castaldo says:

The [small Bible-study group] movement is probably bigger than you realize. More than 10 million men and women in the United States were raised Catholic and now worship in an evangelical Protestant church. A great deal can be said about the dynamics surrounding the movement, but our concern here is to understand their point of entry.

Noting that “Catholic small groups are uncommon”, he suggests that “the fundamental reason is the Catholic legacy of clericalism”. He cites one Roman Catholic author:

In a 1906 encyclical, Pius X said that the "one duty" of the laity “is to allow themselves to be led, and like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” In 1907 the American hierarchy followed suit with a similar directive: “The Church is not a republic or a democracy, but a monarchy . . . all her authority is from above and rests in her Hierarchy. . . [While] the faithful of the laity have divinely given rights to receive all the blessed ministrations of the Church, they have absolutely no right whatever to rule and govern.”

He continues, “To be sure, Vatican II (1962-1965) initiated a trajectory of equipping Catholic laity for service, as evidenced in current movements such as the "New Evangelization" of Pope John Paul II, but old patterns die hard, especially when they have been reinforced through centuries.”

Elsewhere, Castaldo reminds readers that many similar small groups were at the heart and soul of the Protestant Reformation:

Here is one example of a Bible study group which met in Naples, Italy, in between 1536-41. Led by the Spaniard, Juan De Valdés, this circle of friends often picnicked together in the countryside each Sunday. It comprised influential theologians and laypeople alike, including Bernardino Ochino, General of the Capuchins and the most famous preacher in Italy, Peter Martyr Vermigli, then abbot, soon to be Reformed theologian, Pietro Carnesecchi, a canon lawyer, and the Countess of Fondi, Giulia da Gonzaga. So what did this group do in their meetings?

Fortunately, we have some idea from extant writings, the most important of which is the work of Valdés titled One Hundred and Ten Divine Considerations , a volume that functioned as a basis of discussion and tool for discipleship among the group’s members. In their gatherings, they studied books of the Bible (starting with Romans followed by 1 Corinthians). The discussed theology, and especially wrestled through the doctrine of justification by faith alone. They read pseudonymous works from Northern Reformers, such as Luther, Bucer, and Zwingli. They prayed, debated, and conducted evangelistic outreach. Vermigli, for instance, shared the gospel with Galeazzo Caracciolo, a convert who became a Reformer and went on to found the Italian Church in Calvin’s Geneva. By most standards, this was a thriving small group.

Perhaps the most poignant summary of Valdés Neapolitan fellowship was expressed decades later by one of its members, Pietro Carnesecchi, before he was publically beheaded and burned for heresy by the Inquisition (1567). Describing the quality of friendship, theological interaction, and enthusiasm for biblical renewal, Carnesecchi described the Valdésian gatherings as a “regno di Dio,” “kingdom of God.”

Here is the theological pearl—when the rule of Christ is treasured as our preeminent value, now as it was then, we will find our small groups generating spiritual fruit which transforms today and endures through every tomorrow.

One key reason why the Roman Catholic Church survived the Protestant Reformation was because it had the power of the inquisition to have people “publically beheaded and burned for heresy”. Without that power now, how will Roman Catholic ideas survive when pressed by Protestant phenomena such as these small Bible Study groups?

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? 

Truly madly deeply

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”. 

Sources of Roman Catholic Dogma

Allowing for Chris Castaldo’s tickiness about Protestant “misnomers” about “official (de fide) Catholic dogma”, here are some places where you can find “official” Roman Catholic dogma. Of course, none of these is perspicuous, all of them require much “interpretation” from some other “official” Roman Catholic source. But they’re a place to start.

Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, first written in 1950 and updated through 1974.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church. This isn’t the official Vatican Website version, but it’s much more easily searchable.

Denzinger:  the 1957 edition of Denzinger is available online here, but you’ll also see an abbreviation like “DS”, which means Denzinger-Schonmetzer, updated by Adolph Schönmetzer up to 1965. Interestingly, the editions from 1957 and earlier use one numbering scheme for its paragraphs, while post-1957 editions use a different one. Ott follows the first numbering scheme with his references, The CCC follows the second.

You may also see the name Jacques Dupuis, The Christian Faith: In the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church. This edition contains much of what you’ll find in the most recent Denzinger; there is a cross-reference, but Dupuis seems to give more extensive citations and also some additional information.