Banner
Reformed Catholicity PDF Print E-mail
Theology - Roman or Catholic?
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Monday, 18 August 2008 07:29

Our sister church here in Moscow (Trinity Reformed Church) adopted a superb statement on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Reformed Catholicity. You can read it here.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Monday, 18 August 2008 07:29
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Tim Prussic  Monday, August 18, 2008 8:46 am
I get the pull toward broad catholicity. I feel it myself. If one knows the Bible, oneself and one's own theological foundations, this sort of reaching out for discussion and understanding within a Trinitarian context is wonderful. If one lacks those foundations, peril is near, indeed. While Roman Catholics may be brethren, the RCC is no friend of the Gospel, nor has it ever been (officially from Trent onward). We should love them Catholics and EOs and seek to be friends and sharpen each other personally, but need to keep the reasons for our theological divisions firmly in mind, which leads me to the mind blower.


The thing that blows my mind is that the statement really mentions nothing of the major theological divide: the great solas of the Reformation (save sola scritpura, which was pointed out clearly). It only alludes to salvation, that major issue, thusly: "Likewise, we warn all the faithful to flee those doctrines or practices which, whether in doctrine or in practice, undermine the fundamental and sovereign graciousness of God in salvation." Now, I understand that this statement is merely a statement, but it seems weak to me on the major substantive issues of the Reformation, i.e., salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.

Matthew N. Petersen  Monday, August 18, 2008 9:10 am
I think it's trying to steer clear of doctrinal debates over whether this particular doctrine denies grace etc.. So the condemnation is: "With the Reformers, we insist that liturgical idolatry is a most dangerous temptation and sin for many within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. This includes the veneration of man-made images, statues, relics, Eucharistic elements, the invocation of the saints, as well as other practices and traditions which are not according to Scripture." Note that it clearly calls all those things idolatry.
Tim Prussic  Monday, August 18, 2008 9:35 am
Matthew, that's just the thing: the statement does mention specifics - those particular forms of idolatry. However, more substantive issues are not mentioned specifically. What's more important, relics or justification, hagiology or soteriology? I understand that a brief statement regarding unity is not the place to trot our all the old problems, but we need to keep the major issues on the table, which the statement seems to gloss, and leave side issues as side issues.
StevenWedgeworth  Monday, August 18, 2008 10:16 am
You don't think idolatry has to do with soteriology?
D Glover  Monday, August 18, 2008 10:21 am
Sorry to put this comment here but I thought you might be interested in this bit of global swarming news: http://westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2846 You had to know that there was money behind Mr. Gore's agenda.
David Hodges  Monday, August 18, 2008 10:36 am
Tim Prussic: "but it seems weak to me on the major substantive issues of the Reformation, i.e., salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone."


Those aren't the substantive issues of the Reformation at all. Not even close. Only one of those is even denied by the Roman Catholic Church: faith alone. And we all know why the Catholic Church denies it. Because the Bible denies it.


But the other things you listed are all plainly affirmed within the Council of Trent itself, quite unambiguously.


The real substantive issue of the Reformation had to do with authority (the Bible alone, as interpreted by each individual, versus the infallible authority of the Church to bind and loose). Other issues had to do with the canon, Apostolick Succession, the Sacraments, Iconography, &c. To frame the debate between Catholicism and Protestantism as being "Protestants believe in grace alone and Catholics don't" is inaccurate and horribly simplistic.


I didn't find the document in question very helpful at all, but I wasn't exactly its intended recipient either.

Matthew N. Petersen  Monday, August 18, 2008 10:41 am
Tim



I should immagine that whether we offer sacrifices to YHVH or Baal is significantly more important than our system that explains how YHVH has chosen us.
David Houf  Monday, August 18, 2008 11:20 pm
The document is helpful because its purpose is to promote Christian fellowship across denominational and RC/EO lines, through word, life and especially sacrament. We in the Reformed churches "appear" united on the solas, until people start raising questions about how they actually work...then the heresy-hunters come out. Given our Reformed tendency to slice and dice theological positions while simultaneously inflating most doctrinal dispute to the level of heresy, this document's broad and gentle tone is commendable. Presumably a man seeking eldership at Trinity will be questioned in detail on his understanding of the faith, and what it means to be saved by grace alone through faith alone (sorry Dave Hodges) in Christ alone. But this document is not about eldership or leadership qualifications. It's about community and fellowship. We need way more emphasis on these, IMHO. And this is not an argument for running off to Rome. ...My denomination (PCA) wrong or right...
Charles Long  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:39 am
David Hodges,

[br][br]You wrote: "The real substantive issue of the Reformation had to do with authority (the Bible alone, as interpreted by each individual..."

[br][br]Now Dave, look at what's going on here. You want us reformed folks to believe you when you say that RCs don't deny all the solas, and you want us to believe you when you say that Trent makes this eveident, if we'd just read it carefully. And you would like for us to let you RC guys define your own terms -- IOW, you reserve the right as an RC to let your RC apologists explain what the RC writers of RC documents (like the products of Trent, for example) really meant. You expect this, and you frequently demand it of us. And, honetsly, that's fair.

But listen. If you're going to demand that, then you're going to have to get used to conceding it as well when the shoe is on the other foot. Honestly Dave, you're an intelligent enough guy to know that you can't necessarily attribute to the reformed tradition those things that you find spewing out of some modern American anabaptist spinoffs of protestantism. I say all that to say this: [i]your representation of sola scriptura is every bit as innacurate as you claimed our framing of the debate between Catholicism and Protestantism to be.
Charles Long  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:11 am
Ooops. [/i][/i][/i]There.
David Hodges  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:53 am
LongShot, you're missing the point. Sola gratia and soli Deo gloria are dogmas of the Catholic Church. Period. Only two of the five solas are rejected. One because it fails its own standard (sola Scriptura is not taught in the one place that is supposed to be the sole source of truth) and the other because it is flatly rejected in the Bible in the plainest of plain language.


If one single Augustinian monk can, on his very own authority, remove entire sections of the Bible, question all Christian dogmas prior to his birth, excommunicate the bishop of Rome, redefine nearly every aspect of Christianity, then nothing stops every single other Christian from doing the same exact thing whenever they want to. And indeed this is what has happened. Like it or not, you will never dream of excluding evangelicals who do this sort of thing all the time.


Since the Reformation, all doctrines are now reformable, and that includes even the very doctrines that the Reformers stood for. And since every individual can say, "Here I stand, I can do no other," and be hailed as a great saint for his stand, the only guaranteed end is chaos. You've got 500 million people, all stating (in ironic unison) "Here I stand, I can do no other," followed by 500 million different statements of belief.

David Hodges  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:53 am
So say whatever you want to about the "real" sola Scriptura. Nobody knows what it means but you, and nobody practises anything like what it is supposed to mean. If Luther could take a stand the way he did and believe in sola Scriptura, then so can I and so can every other person under the sun. And there is nobody to tell anybody else if he is wrong.
Charles Long  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:29 am
David,

[br][br]No, I didn't miss your point. And in your last comments you demonstrated my point for me. If I were to grant your underlying presuppositions, then I'd have to agree with you, because from that point you argue well.
Tim Prussic  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:28 am
Matthew P., Baal vs. Yahweh is fundamentally important. Yahweh with or without images is not the same thing. One is the first commandment and the other the second. Both are important, but they're not of equal importance. To worship Yahweh alone is more fundamentally important than *how* to worship Yahweh alone. The statement seems to assume the first and zero in on the second. My contention is that important aspects of how we're drawn into fellowship with Yahweh are left untouched while other less fundamental things are mentioned.

Mr. Hodges, those slogans of the Reformation were slogans precisely because the Reformed defined themselves by them over against the Roman church. The Romanists certainly do and always have believed in grace and in the glory of God, but not in the same way as the Reformers meant. I'm not trying to limit the issues of the Reformation to those I mentioned, I'm just saying that the statement doesn't focus in on what some historians call the material cause of the Reformation - how the sinner is reconciled to a holy God, which is what the solas all focus in on and which is related very closely to the issue of authority.

Tim Prussic  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:22 am
This situation reminds me a bit of that at the Academy at Saumur before the revocation of Edict of Nantes. The Reformed professors had impressively cordial relations with the local Roman Catholic doctors. Unfortunately, some of the Salmurian doctrines (Amyrauldianism) were terribly destructive, but the push for closer and cordial relations and good communication was, I think, quite wonderful. That especially so in an age of fairly rigid intolerance.

Incidentally, I'm not insinuating doctrinal similarities between Saumur and the FV, but the situational similarities seem rich.

StevenWedgeworth  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:13 am
Tim,


Honest confession time. How much of the Saumur doctors have you read?
Charles Long  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:36 pm
David,

[br][br]The Reformation was grounded in, and predicated upon, an historical understanding of ancient Christianity, and was born of a desire to be in subjection to something more objective than the whims of revisionist historians with agendas. You must remember, in all your comments of supposed inescapable protestant relativism, that it's the Romanists who keep finding themselves having to own up to document forgeries. Now why is that?
christian  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:12 pm
I found the statement to be properly ecumenical in tone but lacking in a critique of Rome's doctrine on the perpetual and repeated sacrifice of Christ. Their need to believe He needs to be physically sacrificed again and again through transubstantiation undermines an understanding of the one time sacrifice and propitiatory effect of the Cross. The Roman mass screams "Calvary was not enough". Reconcilation of the church must address, not omit, this misunderstanding.
David Hodges  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:26 pm
Christian, the Catholic Church does not teach that Christ is re-sacrificed. It does not teach that Calvary was not enough. The teaching is that the Mass is a re-presentation of that very same all-sufficient sacrifice. The misunderstanding is on your part.
David Hodges  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:32 pm
"The Reformation was grounded in, and predicated upon, an historical understanding of ancient Christianity, and was born of a desire to be in subjection to something more objective than the whims of revisionist historians with agendas."


And yet, Protestantism remains subject to these revisionist historians with agendas to this day. Pretending that ancient Christianity is anything like Protestantism is nothing short of hilarious. And the revisionist work necessary to paint the early Church as a motley of pluralist groups without dogma is about as agenda-oriented as you can get.


"You must remember, in all your comments of supposed inescapable protestant relativism, that it's the Romanists who keep finding themselves having to own up to document forgeries. Now why is that?"


Because some of the ancient documents of the Church were forged. But even ignoring all of those, I am not in any way led to the Protestant conclusion of relativism and pluralism. Protestants don't have to "own up" to any forgeries because what Protestants believe can and does change on a daily basis without affecting their religion. Why? Because it doesn't matter what you believe as a Protestant. Which is what makes the "Rome taught error" argument so ridiculous. Every Protestant believes that all Christian religions teach truth and error.

Charles Long  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:40 pm
Dave, Dave, Dave... [sigh]

[br][br]So the Catholic Church does not teach that Christ is re-sacrificed? And you're for a representative understanding of the nature of the eaucharist?

[br][br]From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
Under the heading "Sacrifice of the Mass":

[br][br][i]"Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion. That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): "If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908, n. 948).

[br][br]continued...
Charles Long  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:41 pm
When Leo XIII in the dogmatic Bull "Apostolicae Curae" of 13 Sept., 1896, based the invalidity of the Anglican form of consecration on the fact among others, that in the consecrating formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is nowhere an unambiguous declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Anglican archbishops answered with some irritation: "First, we offer the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . and, lastly, we offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures.

[br][br] continued...
Charles Long  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:41 pm
This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take part with the priest, we are accustomed to call the communion, the Eucharistic Sacrifice". In regard to this last contention, Bishop Hedley of Newport declared his belief that not one Anglican in a thousand is accustomed to call the communion the "Eucharistic Sacrifice." But even if they were all so accustomed, they would have to interpret the terms in the sense of the thirty-nine Articles, which deny both the Real Presence and the sacrifical power of the priest, and thus admit a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only. Leo XIII, on the other hand, in union with the whole Christian past, had in mind in the above-mentioned Bull nothing else than the Eucharistic "Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ" on the altar. This Sacrifice is certainly not identical with the Anglican form of celebration."[/i]

Tim Prussic  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:01 pm
Steven, precious little of the Salmurians have I read. Most of my reading in that area is along the lines of some of the roots of Saumur in Peter Ramus and the University of Glasgow and the opposition of Saumur (specifically Turretin, Heidegger, and the Helvetic Consensus). To my point, though, I think there are more than a few conspicuous connections between the FV and the academy at Saumur. Once again, the connections are not necessarily in doctrine, but in situation. Do you care to comment on that or quiz me further on my seminary reading?
David Hodges  Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:36 pm
LongShot,


"So the Catholic Church does not teach that Christ is re-sacrificed?"


Nope.


"And you're for a representative understanding of the nature of the eaucharist?"


Nope. I said re-presentation, not representation. That is a substantial difference. Go back and re-read my original post.


I said that the Mass is a sacrifice, and indeed it is. I said that it is not a new sacrifice, but that it is the same sacrifice, as your wonderful quote shows. Nowhere in any of the quote that you gave does it say anything about Christ being re-sacrificed. Anywhere. The official teaching is that the Mass and Calvary are one and the same, which makes the statement that "the Catholic Church says Calvary is not enough" simply false.


You should stop putting words in the Popes mouths that aren't there.

StevenWedgeworth  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:56 am
Tim,


If you read Turretin and Heidegger for Seminary, then you are doing better than most. My point is not to dispute your overall education in the least. Indeed, I think you are one of the wiser e-interlocutors.


I am concerned NOT to repeat historical errors, even recent history. I don't like it when folks warn others about so-and-so's dangerous or destructive ideas if they do not actually have any firsthand acquaintance with so-and-so and his ideas. I think it violates some of the basics of Christian charity.


With that being said, I do believe there are Salmaurian distinctives, but I don't believe they are the ones usually mentioned. In fact, double election, including a conditional election alongside unconditional election, is to be found in many English Puritans, including Westminster divines (I'm thinking of Twisse). So too with "unlimited expiation." You'll find all of our favorite doctors in the 16th cent. espousing this, as well as many influential 17th cent. dudes.


In fact, if I had to locate problems with Saumur, I'd start with A) Federalism (which most folks like) and B) Rationalism (which most folks don't like, but a lot of nevertheless fall into).(cont.)
StevenWedgeworth  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:57 am
I don't think these had anything to do with RCC conversations though, and indeed, if the mere fact of seeking for unity with Rome made one "destructive," then Calvin, Bucer, as well as the later Aberdeen doctors in Scotland would fall under our censure.


So I do not think that this document, nor FV doctrines in general, have anything distinctively Salmurian going on in this regard. We could just as easily say that FV is "Bucerian" or "Regensburg-esque."
StevenWedgeworth  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:14 am
Tim,


Sorry, I see that you are for conversation, not against. I misread earlier.


But again, I don't think this is distinctively Salmurian, and I still wouldn't want to call the French doctors "terribly destructive."
Tim Prussic  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:57 am
Steven, the comparisons I have in mind are not doctrinal. Saumur was probably the most popular Reformed theological school of the 17th century, certainly in France. Between Cameron, Amyraut, de la Place, and Cappel, they had some ideas that varied with the reigning orthodoxy of high Calvinism - esp. that of Dort. These Salmurians were very popular with students, but opposed by a goodly percentage of both the Reformed pastors and professors of France and Switzerland. By way of comparison, the FV leaders are not all in Moscow, Idaho (that is, one place), but there is something of a movement and it's quite popular among students and opposed by the entrenched elite. Further, there's more of a visible pull toward relations with Roman Catholics in the FV than anywhere else in the Reformed world that I can see. So it was with the Salmurians - the cordiality between Saumur and Notre Dame was downright astounding! Finally, it's alleged that there was as "softening" of certain doctrinal rough edges for apologetic purposes at Saumur. I've found something quite similar in at least one very prominent FV advocate. All this caught my eye. *twinkle* *twinkle* *rrrrrrrrr*
StevenWedgeworth  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:30 pm
Well Tim,


The Saumur doctors all subscribed to Dort, and Richard Muller is one modern historian who thinks they were telling the truth. We also know that Pareus and the Heidelbergers were also not "high" Calvinists.


But, we can toss that debate if you'd like.


Now, as to "relations" with Roman Catholics, I guess that it is the case that FVers might be willing to have a discussion with RCCs to see if they can't overcome certain unnecessary verbal disagreements. I could see that happening.


However, insofar as FVers all think Rome is guilty of a regular violation of the 2nd Commandment, which means that they hate God (according to the explanation of the 2nd commandment), I don't see any lovefests between FVers and Rome. Perhaps you'd be interested in Jim Jordan's booklet The Liturgy Trap. The FV also reject the whole merit scheme which is kind of important to RCC.


I don't think anyone in FV is coming at all close to the cordial academic relations that Saumur struck up with the RCCs. I don't know which Roman Catholics any FVers are in conversation with.


I certainly don't think that Wilson has been trying to strike up agreement with RCCs.
christian  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:24 pm
David H: Whether Rome wants to call it a re-sacrifice or not is really not important. A intentional re-sacrifice is inescapable under their own doctrine by virtue of believing the bread is literally Christ's human body; violence to His body is unavoidable every mass under their belief since the bread (His body) is broken and chewed now, not just at Calvary.
SarahL  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:38 pm
Christian, only if the Jews re-sacrificed the Passover lamb when they ate it.
Charles Long  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:24 pm
SarahL,

[br][br]I don't think that follows. The Jews didn't insist as a matter of dogma that the lamb became the actual flesh of the One it represented, and that's the big difference. Transub is the force behind the RCC's argument against the validity of the Anglican Eucharist, as is explained in the quote above. The argument goes like this: even though Anglican believe they're representing the sacrifice of the cross, it's still no good because they don't believe in RC transub; and therefore the sacrifice isn't real enough by RC standards. At least that's how the RC's explained it in the article quoted above.

[br][br]If you read the rest of the article (not quoted), there is discussion about violence being done to the body during the Eucharistic sacrifice, and that this violence is a necessary part without which the thing isn't legitimate. Now we can call it a re-presentation, but that's what the Anglicans call it, and the RC beef with the Anglicans' version of representation is that it doesn't really do the sacrifice over again. At some point the semantic dismissal has to give way to the reality of the apologetic distinction.

[br][br]If this means anything for the passover feast at all, it means that the passover wouldn't pass RC muster, since the Jews didn't belive the lamb became the flesh of the Christ on their tables.
Charles Long  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:28 pm
But back to my earlier point -- I'm sure David H and SarahL, being RCs, would love to be allowed to interpret RC writings for themselves. (Ironic, but fair enough.) After all, what would a protestant passer-by really know about the subtleties and nuances? And that's reasonable to a point.

[br][br]In return, it would be nice not to be told by a modern RC what sola scriptura really means.
Charles Long  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:04 pm
But since the RCC went and put it in print, one would asume that it was meant to be read:

[br][br]Trent, XXII, Canon III: If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is... a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice... let him be anathema.

[br][br]Now if the SOTM is a propitiatory sacrifice, this means that it has an efficacy all its own. Obviously Christ's original sacrifice on the real cross was efficacious, but this section of Trent really looks like it's saying that there remains efficacy to be had by the SOTM that isn't had by Christ's sacrifice. When this is coupled with the newadvent quotes above requiring transub and violence done to the flesh, it is not unreasonable to charactarize the SOTM as a separate sacrifice.

Charles Long  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:04 pm
or, rather, "distinct" sacrifice.
Charles Long  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:06 pm
[br][br]I'm all for allowing for subtleties and nuances to be explained by sympathetic apologists, just as long as those nuances aren't the exact opposite of the thing they're sopposed to be expounding upon. I mean, after all, Trent itself was supposed to be essentially an apologetic expounding of nuances, right? So we have the suppsoed ancient tradition, expounded upon by contemporary apologists at Trent, and then Trent expounded upon by modern apologists. But the wierd things is that in both cases of apologetics, the bystanders accused the apologists of flip-flopping. Just look at David Hodges' almost-passible-as-Reformed modern explanation of Trent. Back in the day, I dare say David would have been on the receiving end.


SarahL  Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:14 pm
Longshot, since the Jews didn't yet understand the fullness of the Passover's meaning, it would be silly to expect them to have claimed that the lamb became something else, especially in the complete absence of any such teaching from their prophets or rabbis. And of course, a Jewish Passover would not qualify as a Christian Eucharistic supper. But as a Jewish Passover, it was exactly what it should have been. I am unaware of any Scripture passage that implies the original Passover lamb was changed into anything other than cooked meat. However we have John 6, in which Jesus was quite explicit about the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and we have every Gospel account of the Last Supper in which he simply said, "This is..."



I'm sorry if you feel that RC apologists have been "telling" you what sola scriptura really means. They're not trying to tell you what it means, but to point out what you're actually doing with it, regardless of what you claim to be doing. Your (universal, Protestant "you") actions speak louder than your protests.
David Hodges  Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:27 am
"David H: Whether Rome wants to call it a re-sacrifice or not is really not important. A intentional re-sacrifice is inescapable under their own doctrine by virtue of believing the bread is literally Christ's human body; violence to His body is unavoidable every mass under their belief since the bread (His body) is broken and chewed now, not just at Calvary."


Christian, it does matter what the Catholic Church teaches if we're talking about what the Catholic Church teaches. You cannot condemn them for teaching a very specific error, and then turn around and say that it doesn't matter what they teach because you know what they really teach. The teaching is that the Mass is the same as the Sacrifice of Calvary, re-presented for us. You claim that the Catholic Church teaches that "Calvary is not enough" is false. For us, the Mass is Calvary. Jesus does not suffer anew at the Mass. He is not killed again at the Mass. Your statement about what Catholics teach contradicts Catholic teaching quite plainly.

Philip  Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:45 am
Longshot,
You nailed it. Almost. Yes, the Mass is a propitiary sacrifice, but it does not have an efficacy all its own. If Christ had not made the ultimate sacrifice, the Mass would be useless. But, a sacrifice does actually occur at mass because our sins are truly presented to God and forgiven at that moment in time. They are represented every Mass because we continually sin. Remember, without Christ's sacrifice, nothing would happen at Mass, but it is a re-presentation and sacrifice in its own right because we continually offer up our sins. That is the heart of the difference between the RCC and the reformers. One sentence summary: Christ's sacrifice was one-time sufficient, but since we continually sin, we re-present our sin to God for forgiveness, hence the re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Mass.

David Hodges  Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:58 am
"I don't think that follows. The Jews didn't insist as a matter of dogma that the lamb became the actual flesh of the One it represented, and that's the big difference."


That's because no change occurred. The Passover lamb for the Hebrews was a type and a shadow. We don't have types and shadows any more; we have the real thing: Jesus' flesh and blood. Most Protestants, by their own admission are still toying with symbols.


"Transub is the force behind the RCC's argument against the validity of the Anglican Eucharist, as is explained in the quote above. The argument goes like this: even though Anglican believe they're representing the sacrifice of the cross, it's still no good because they don't believe in RC transub; and therefore the sacrifice isn't real enough by RC standards. At least that's how the RC's explained it in the article quoted above."


You are just plain wrong. The validity of the Anglican Eucharist is null because they lack proper orders first and foremost. A belief in transubstantiation is not required for the validity of a Eucharist, as the Eastern Churches have valid Eucharists without this belief.

David Hodges  Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:58 am
"If you read the rest of the article (not quoted), there is discussion about violence being done to the body during the Eucharistic sacrifice, and that this violence is a necessary part without which the thing isn't legitimate.


Huh? Are you talking about where the priest breaks the Host? There is no discussion of violence in the article you posted. I know Protestants have somewhat of a tradition of adding extra words to texts and claiming they were there all along, but you're really mystifying me with this one.


"Now we can call it a re-presentation, but that's what the Anglicans call it"


No they don't.
"...and the RC beef with the Anglicans' version of representation is that it doesn't really do the sacrifice over again. At some point the semantic dismissal has to give way to the reality of the apologetic distinction.


What are you talking about? If you had actually read Apostolicæ Curæ you would know that Leo XIII's main argument was about the nullity of Anglican orders. That was the main deal. On top of that there was the issue that so many evangelical Anglicans denied all the "catholicised" Tractarian teachings of the late nineteenth century Anglican church. Many of them still viewed the 39 Articles as authoritative and the 39 articles rejected the Mass in all its forms and denied that any true Sacrifice was taking place.

David Hodges  Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:58 am
"If this means anything for the passover feast at all, it means that the passover wouldn't pass RC muster, since the Jews didn't belive the lamb became the flesh of the Christ on their tables."


The Passover isn't the Eucharist. The Hebrews did not eat Christ's flesh, as Christ was not Incarnated yet. It was a type, a shadow. You can hang on to the jewish Passover all you want. I'd rather have the real thing, thank you. If you're so insistent that types and shadows are better than the real thing, then go call up your local rabbi. I'm sure they'd love to have a convert.


"But back to my earlier point -- I'm sure David H and SarahL, being RCs, would love to be allowed to interpret RC writings for themselves. (Ironic, but fair enough.) After all, what would a protestant passer-by really know about the subtleties and nuances? And that's reasonable to a point."


By and large, the Church interprets its own teachings in cases where there is ambiguity. Nothing I have said anywhere in this thread is "nuanced" or comprised of "subtleties". I have said nothing that you cannot find in the catechism.

David Hodges  Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:59 am
"In return, it would be nice not to be told by a modern RC what sola scriptura really means."


It would be nice actually to know what in the heck sola Scriptura actually is. Apparently, 99% of the Protestant world doesn't even know and no Catholics know, and every time I try to understand the epistemological absurdity of the Bible being torn from the Church that produced it, I am told that I too do not know. Should I be surprised. Sola Scriptura appears to be the most esoteric teaching in the entire world, with only fourteen people who actually know what it means.


But nobody can define it. Nobody can say what it is. They can only say what it isn't. You can attack its moving target all day long, but you'll never know where it is or what it looks like. The only thing you know is that it's not that. Jolly good then.


"Trent, XXII, Canon III: If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is... a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice... let him be anathema."


Amen and amen. Not a bare commemoration; even you agree with that, as per our last conversation, no?

David Hodges  Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:59 am
"Now if the SOTM is a propitiatory sacrifice, this means that it has an efficacy all its own. Obviously Christ's original sacrifice on the real cross was efficacious, but this section of Trent really looks like it's saying that there remains efficacy to be had by the SOTM that isn't had by Christ's sacrifice."


One cannot, by the power of his own will, will himself to be saved (as in Protestantism). God wills that our salvation be accomplished by the Sacraments. Christ's death is sufficient for all, but its benefits are not immediately available to every single person in the entire universe just because. Our salvation is found in eating Christ's flesh and blood in the Mass. And the teaching is that the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary. Hence, Calvary is our salvation. This is basic Baltimore Catechism stuff, LongShot.

David Hodges  Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:59 am
"When this is coupled with the newadvent quotes above requiring transub and violence done to the flesh, it is not unreasonable to charactarize the SOTM as a separate sacrifice...or, rather, 'distinct' sacrifice."


Huh? Violence done to what flesh? Please provide the quote. The article says nothing about "violence done to the flesh". The only time violence appears in the article is in this sentence: "It is rather strange on the other hand that, in spite of his belief in the literal meaning of the words of consecration, Luther, after a violent 'nocturnal disputation with the devil', in 1521, should have repudiated the Mass. But it is exactly these measures of violence that best show to what a depth the institution of the Mass had taken root by that time in Church and people. How long had it been taking root?"


"I'm all for allowing for subtleties and nuances to be explained by sympathetic apologists, just as long as those nuances aren't the exact opposite of the thing they're sopposed to be expounding upon."


Right, like James supposedly teaching that we are justified by faith alone, when he says we are not justified by faith alone. That's always a funny one.

David Hodges  Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:59 am
"I mean, after all, Trent itself was supposed to be essentially an apologetic expounding of nuances, right? So we have the suppsoed ancient tradition, expounded upon by contemporary apologists at Trent, and then Trent expounded upon by modern apologists. But the wierd things is that in both cases of apologetics, the bystanders accused the apologists of flip-flopping. Just look at David Hodges' almost-passible-as-Reformed modern explanation of Trent."


Almost passable as Reformed? Reformed is sola fide. Where have I ever espoused anything like that anywhere in any of my posts at any time? Try to find a single place where I have done so. The error that bothers me most is when I hear Protestants who listen to Protestants say, "Rome denies that grace is necessary to be saved," or, "Rome teaches that man's unaided works merit his salvation. The Protestant teaches stands in sharp contrast to this." Those claims are simply false, and even the most cursory reading of the Council of Trent would reveal this. It is not "Reformed" to claim that God's grace is necessary for salvation. It is not "Reformed" to say that man can do nothing of his own will to please God apart from God's grace alone. Both of those are plainly affirmed by the Catholic Church.


"Back in the day, I dare say David would have been on the receiving end."


Huh?

Dan Phillips (Pyromaniacs)  Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:49 am
"Superb"?

So, that whole Reformation thing, just a waste of time? Justification, no biggie, so long as their clueless little heads were dampened by Galatian apostates when they were babies?

Now we're back into the "I do not for the life of me get your point" phase.

So I keep reading (and enjoying) the serial novel, confident it is The Key to Everything.

Ruben Zartman  Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:29 pm
How grateful are they for the condemnation of antichrist in the Westminster Confession of Faith?
christian  Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:35 pm
David and Sarah: If someone were to shoot a Brit today and call it a "re-presentation" of Bunker Hill and not violence to the one shot, he would be considered a loon or a liar. Rome can continue to say "re-presentation" for centuries to come and deny the violence that must necessarily occur if one accepts transubstantiation. However, in doing this, instead of reconciliation, the Church will continue to be divided over this looney and false doctrine.
David Hodges  Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:57 pm
"If someone were to shoot a Brit today and call it a "re-presentation" of Bunker Hill and not violence to the one shot, he would be considered a loon or a liar."


And rightly so, but we're not killing Jesus over and over again, so your comparison still rings as hollow as it did the first time.


"Rome can continue to say 're-presentation' for centuries to come and deny the violence that must necessarily occur if one accepts transubstantiation."


Transubstantiation is not violence. You may not like John VI, and that's fine, but quit claiming to be a "Bible Christian" if you think His teaching is "too hard". Maybe you should, in typical Protestant fashion, remove the books from the Bible that you don't like. The Gospel according to St. John would be a good place to start. All that "looney [sic]" stuff would be a lot more easily refuted without those passages about the Eucharist being necessary for salvation.

christian  Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:01 pm
"but we're not killing Jesus over and over again"
No, RC's don't want to kill, RC's just want to literally maim, break, and chew Him again and again and again, and again,...
We too believe the Supper spiritually feeds and nourishes us. But we don't throw Scripture and reason out in order to believe this. Try out "who does not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices... as He did once for all when He offered up Himself." Heb. 7:27. Or, "But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sin forever, sat down at the right hand of God..." Heb. 10:12. It does not say "one repeated" or that He sat down so He can be literally broken and chewed upon until the Second Coming. C'mon man, He has a body that already suffered and was healed (ie. not bleeding still). Why do the RC's still want to violate and break His body TODAY but then attempt to excuse this as only a "representation". You can't have transubstantiation and no violence. They are mutually exclusive and "representation" does nothing to cover this ill reasoning and does not reconcile RC's doctrine with Hebrews.
David Hodges  Friday, August 22, 2008 12:24 am
Christian, I am sorry that John VI is such a hard teaching for you. Maybe you should pray about it.
Charles Long  Friday, August 22, 2008 12:29 am
SarahL,

[br][br]"They're not trying to tell you what it means, but to point out what you're actually doing with it, regardless of what you claim to be doing. Your (universal, Protestant "you") actions speak louder than your protests."

[br][br]Okay, but if this is the extent of the courtesy each side is to give the other in the discussion, then Catholics are a bunch of idolaters who worship dead people and exhumed artifacts. And pray to statues. Oh, and sacrifice chickens. And believe they're saved by a complex system of repetitive, merit-producing works. And believe that if only they can curry favor with Mary, they're in. Away with your pesky distinctions -- all that matters is what we see you do.
David Hodges  Friday, August 22, 2008 1:03 am
You've seen Catholics do those things? Wow!
StevenWedgeworth  Friday, August 22, 2008 5:04 am
Dave,


I actually think Christian is making solid points and that you are bailing out with rhetoric and bad prot-fundie proof-texting.
David Hodges  Friday, August 22, 2008 5:18 am
Steve, he is arguing against transubstantiation the same way that:


1. Atheists argue against God based on the problem of evil.


2. The way Jehovah's Witnesses argue against the Trinity.


3. The way that materialists argue against miracles.


All he's doing is saying the following: "I don't care what your church teaches about the mystery of the Eucharist, it must conform to my rational understanding of location in time and space."


Jesus is in Heaven. He is not killed again. He does not suffer anew. Nevertheless, the Scriptures teach that we must eat His Flesh to have eternal life. Christian rejects these Scriptures because he cannot understand how it is possible. But you're not supposed to be able to understand these things. They're mysteries. And we do not subject God to our rational limitations.


Again, maybe he should re-read John VI and other passages whose teachings he finds hard and pray about it. I think that's actually pretty sound advice. He says, "But we don't throw Scripture and reason out in order to believe this." No, he does throw Scripture out until he has texts that conform to his reason. That's the sum of his argument: I don't get it; it must not be true.

christian  Friday, August 22, 2008 1:49 pm
Wow, Dave, I guess the gloves should come off after being compared to atheists, JW's and materialists. But, let me try one last time: I stand with the Reformers who are able to read John 6 and Hebrews in harmony by holding the Supper to be a spiritual, not physical, communion with Christ. I even accept those who say there is a spiritual feeding upon Christ that takes place during the Supper as John 6 states. That is where the mystery lies. You on the other hand interpret John 6 in a way that is irreconcilable with Hebrews and with reason. Recognizing this, you annoint the Scriptual conflict as "mystery" and the violence to Christ as "re-presentation". Friend, when you transgress Scripture (here Hebrews) you cannot sanctify it with the mystery card. Instead, you allow Scripture to interpret and inform Scripture. Try it, you'll like it. Peace,
David Hodges  Saturday, August 23, 2008 12:33 am
"You on the other hand interpret John 6 in a way that is irreconcilable with Hebrews and with reason."


Christian, what you keep ignoring, almost intentionally, is the specific teachings of the Catholic Church that reconcile our position with the epistle to the Hebrews. When I reiterate the Church's teaching that Jesus is in Heaven, He does not suffer anew, and He is not killed again, you simply retort that that's impossible. It's contrary to reason you say. No, it's called a mystery. I could call the Trinity contrary to reason (which it is) and you would be right to say, "No, it is a mystery."


Out of curiosity, since we know that John VI is a hard teaching, what is so hard about believing that a cracker is a cracker and a cup of grape juice is a cup of grape juice? Is that really a hard teaching? Sounds pretty straight-forward to me.


"Instead, you allow Scripture to interpret and inform Scripture. Try it, you'll like it."


Oh, that's a great idea. You don't suppose if I tried that I'd end up with 30,000 religions all of whom claim to teach the Scriptures alone and yet disagree on what the Scriptures principally teach regarding even elementary doctrines like baptism, do you?