Steven,
That probably is not what Nicea meant by "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."
Also, the issue of being a elder is a red-herring. Church government belongs to this age, and is destined to perish with use. But the Eucharistic assembly is preserved. And equality does not refer to some interior unity, but to the Sacramental unity. In that passage from Galatians, St. Paul is explicitly drawing a parallel between circumcision which divided between Jew and God-fearer, and divided among the Jews between male and female; and Baptism, which is common to all worshipers of Christ. "As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Immediately follows (or precedes) that passage, and the passage is in Galatians, which is all about circumcision. There is no restriction between male and female, between Jew and Greek. All are baptized, and all receive communion. All have been sprinkled with the Blood of the New Covenant, which in Hebrews is very clearly the Eucharistic cup.
This issue is precisely the division between the Protestants and Catholics, for the Catholics maintained that the priest receives the Eucharist on behalf of the laity, and withheld the cup from the laity. If our unity is invisible, and not in the Mystic Supper--using the term as de Lubac does--the whole split with Rome is superfluous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Matthew,
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit off topic from you basic point here, which I think is a good one, but as a Catholic I would like to comment on what you say about the Catholic Eucharist.
The meaning of the priesthood for Catholics is not to withold anything from the laity or give priests any special privileges or power. Rather, the priesthood flows directly from the content of our belief about the Eucharist: namely, that each mass is an entering into the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, wherein this bread and this wine become the flesh and blood of Christ.
In our view, a real sacrifice requires a real sacrificing priesthood. The Protestant rejection of the priesthood is above all a rejection of this belief, and not simply the result of some folks who finally had the gumption to think for themselves and finally take what was due to them as Christians.
In short, although the conception has been transformed in crucial ways, we still beleive, as in the Old Testament,that a true sacrifice requires a valid priest to perform it. Of course one may dispute the truth of this. Yet let us not deny that this matter of belief is the far too often unstated, sine qua non, of the "whole split with Rome."
Michael
Michael,
ReplyDeleteAs I take it, the difference was (though battle lines have changed) whether it was precisely reception which worked forgiveness of sins, or the saying of the Mass itself. Thus Luther can say, very clearly, in his larger catechism that the wine is for the forgiveness of sins. But he means we receive that forgiveness by drinking. The Catholics, on the other hand, said the wine is for the forgiveness of sins, but it is through the offering of the Mass, not through the reception of the Sacrament that my sins are forgiven.
But battle lines have changed since then.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting! Alot of what you say is new to me. To clarify: are you saying that Luther believed that a Protestant recieves forgiveness for sins by drinking the wine at a Protestant service? Wouldn't this be a direct violation of the Faith Alone principle?
As far as Catholic belief goes, my understanding is that the Redemption of mankind occurred on the cross two thousand years ago. For forgiveness we have Baptism and then Confession (if we lose the life of grace which we recieved in baptism by mortal sin).
All of this is made possible, through grace, by the redemption of mankind by Christ on the cross, at which indeed we are mystically present again at mass. However, we do not directly receive forgiveness through the Eucharist (again, that is primarily for Confession).
The Sacrament of the Eucharist is primarily for communion with God through eating His flesh and drinking His blood as commanded by Jesus: "except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
So the question is whether we really are eating his flesh and drinking his blood. As Catholics take him literally here, this means that the bread and wine must really be changed into the flesh and blood of Christ. In order to change the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ it requires a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. This re-presentation of the sacrifie requires a priest, again, just as a priest was required for a sacrifice in the Old Testament.
My point in my earlier comment was that a priesthood is required by these beliefs about what happens at mass rtaher than just a way to retain power or keep the laity from full communion with God. The priest is God's chosen instrument for me to fulfill the injunction in John: "he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life." The point here is not directly the forgivenss of sins, which in a way is presumed (which is why one must be in a state of grace before receiving communion) but rather everlating life, which requires something more than forgiveness, and also requires God's use of a priest.
From a Catholic perspective, this is why, at the Reformation, in order to get rid of the priesthood, it was also necessary to jettison the doctrine of transubstantiation. In this way,it can be seen that the structire of the Church and the belief of the Church is intertwined, which again was my point above: the issue of a priesthood really hinges on one's belief about what the Eucharist really is.
Michael
I'll put up more later when I have time, but this is from Luther's Large Catechism:
ReplyDeleteNow examine further the efficacy and benefits on account of which really the Sacrament was instituted; which is also its most necessary part, that we may know what we should seek and obtain there. 21] Now this is plain and clear from the words just mentioned: This is My body and blood, given and shed for you, for the remission of sins. 22] Briefly that is as much as to say: For this reason we go to the Sacrament because there we receive such a treasure by and in which we obtain forgiveness of sins. Why so? Because the words stand here and give us this; for on this account He bids me eat and drink, that it may be my own and may benefit me, as a sure pledge and token, yea, the very same treasure that is appointed for me against my sins, death, and every calamity.
...
But here our wise spirits contort themselves with their great art and wisdom, crying out and bawling: How can bread and wine forgive sins or strengthen faith? Although they hear and know that we do not say this of bread and wine, because in itself bread is bread, but of such bread and wine as is the body and blood of Christ, and has the words attached to it. That, we say, is verily the treasure, and nothing else, through which such forgiveness is obtained. 29] Now the only way in which it is conveyed and appropriated to us is in the words (Given and shed for you). For herein you have both truths, that it is the body and blood of Christ, and that it is yours as a treasure and gift. 30] Now the body of Christ can never be an unfruitful, vain thing, that effects or profits nothing. Yet, however great is the treasure in itself, it must be comprehended in the Word and administered to us, else we should never be able to know or seek it.
31] Therefore also it is vain talk when they say that the body and blood of Christ are not given and shed for us in the Lord's Supper, hence we could not have forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament. For although the work is accomplished and the forgiveness of sins acquired on the cross, yet it cannot come to us in any other way than through the Word. For what would we otherwise know about it, that such a thing was accomplished or was to be given us if it were not presented by preaching or the oral Word? Whence do they know of it, or how can they apprehend and appropriate to themselves the forgiveness, except they lay hold of and believe the Scriptures and the Gospel? 32] But now the entire Gospel and the article of the Creed: I believe a holy Christian Church, the forgiveness of sin, etc., are by the Word embodied in this Sacrament and presented to us. Why, then, should we allow this treasure to be torn from the Sacrament when they must confess that these are the very words which we hear every where in the Gospel, and they cannot say that these words in the Sacrament are of no use, as little as they dare say that the entire Gospel or Word of God, apart from the Sacrament, is of no use?
And from his Small Catechism:
What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.
(Both can be found at bookofconcord.org)
Ok, here goes.
ReplyDelete"Faith alone" means something completely different than it used to. Now it tends to mean that God saves us without any physical. It exists with a good deal of confusion about the Sacrifice of Christ and its application to me. Thus one who believes in the modern faith alone believes they only think the Cross is all sufficient, whereas someone who believes the Sacraments efficacious believes and the Cross plus more.
But this is simply a confusion. They believe the physical blood of Jesus saves, but that there is no physical application of that blood to me. The application is still there, but is aphysical. (This runs into problems with Hebrews which rather directly says the Cup forgives sins.)
However, the Reformers were concerned with the question: what must I do to be worthy to receive the Gospel. Must I be charitable or kind or virtuous to receive the gospel.
The answer is, no. The I need be nothing to receive the gospel. The gospel makes me good, the gospel does not require that I already be good. The sick need a physician, not the well.
God speaks a healing word to me, and all I need do is believe the word. The Word will make me good. Faith alone--that is trust in the Word--makes me whole. The Word will make me good, and make me produce good works, but I need not be good to receive the Word.
The question arises though, when does God speak a word to me? It says in the Scriptures that God forgave Peter. Where does it say God forgave Matthew N. Petersen?
Surprisingly, the Lutheran answer to this--and the answer that sparked the Reformation--was "in confession." Here, in confession the priest, speaking as Christ, forgives the sins of the penitent. Thus Luther's Catechism contains a formula for confession.
The Reformed answer is not significantly different. Though the Reformed do not, generally, retain individual confession, that is because confession, and pronouncement of pardon is an integral part of the Reformed worship service. Thus the Book of Common Prayer: "ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live; and hath given power and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel." And similar confessions pronouncements (this is part of what a minister says following the corporate confession at Matins) in other Reformed bodies.
But also, the individual receives the Gospel directly, for Him, in Baptism and the Eucharist. In Baptism wherein he is washed, and given the new life. (See Luther's Catechism, and the Book of Common Prayer, including the order of burial.)
ReplyDeleteAnd most specially in the Sacrament of the Altar, which either physically contains (or is) Christ (for Lutherans) or communicates Christ (for the Reformed).
(Luther was more in favor of the physical presence of Christ than even Aquinas and Peter Lombard, at least on some readings.)
This is slightly different from the Catholic understanding (even today). (And actually puts more emphasis on the reception of the Bread and Wine than Catholic Theology does.)
Thus CCC: 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
Note that it is specifically not the reception of the Sacrament that saves me, but rather the mere existence of the transubstantiated elements here. This is probably mitigated somewhat by Vatican II, so that it is understood that it saves by being a sacrificial meal, but prior to Vatican II, this was not the usual theology. The faithful almost never received--maybe once or twice a year. And never received the cup.
Even now: How often do you receive the cup? How often do your friends receive the cup? And have they missed out if they do not?
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteOk, I think I see what is happening here. Perhaps the requirement of a priesthood by the content of the Catholic faith can actually be better seen if we look at the issue of sacrifice. The quote you cited above is actually helpful here in that it shows that the Eucharist for Catholics applies the "fruit" of the sacrifice of Jesus. In this way, it can be seen that the Catholic mass is a sacrifice in a way that it is not for Protestants. It is this active re-presentation of the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus that requires a sacrificing priesthood.
I found a couple of quotes from Luther on this where he rejects the eucharist being a sacrifice:
“It is, therefore, clearly erroneous and impious to offer or apply the merits of the Mass for sins, or the reparation thereof, or for the deceased. Mass is offered by God to man, and not by man to God”.
and
"The principal expression of their cult, the Mass, surpasses all impiety and abomination in that they make of it a sacrifice and a good work. Were this the only reason to leave habit and convent and abandon the vows, it would be amply sufficient."
For Catholics, becuase the mass is a sacrifice in this way, not just anyone can do it, not even a "representative" of the congregation. Again, as in the Old Testament, a certain class of people is set aside who are devoted to this function.
You say: "Note that it is specifically not the reception of the Sacrament that saves me, but rather the mere existence of the transubstantiated elements here."
Strictly speaking, as it says in John, eternal life requires eating the body and blood of Christ. But this presupposes his death and resurrestion, which is really what "saves" us through grace, which is a participation in the life of God. For Catholics, a person after Baptism has the life of saving grace within him and is "saved" so long as he has not sinned mortally. The mass, again, is the application of the merits of Christ's sacrifice in an abundance of ways, the primary way being eating his flesh and blood, miraculously made present and in which we commune with him (body, blood, soul and divinity) and His mystical body, the Church.
Are you saying that, for Luther, the reception of the Lutheran eucharist "saves" him? (i.e. he would not go to heaven without it?)
As you quote him above, he says:
"It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them [the "great things" of forgiveness], but the words which stand here."
This seems to reduce it back to a matter of Faith Alone.
Moving on:
The issue of the body and blood is critical but, as implied your citations of Luther (if we would copmpare his doctrine to other reformers) there has always been considerable diversity among Protestants on this question. Of course, in my understanding, Luther himself did not believe in transubstantiation, but rather that the body and blood were present in some way along with the bread and wine. Even with this teaching, it strikes me a problematic that there would not be some sacramental designation of a group of men to for this purpose.
Just curious:
In the quote above from the Book of Common Prayer and allusion to Protestant teaching generally on this point, would you say that anyone can forgive anyone elses sins or does it need to be a minister? If so, must I go to him for forgiveness of sins, or can I just confess to God by myself?
As far as your last question, everyone I know recieves the body and blood every time they go to mass, which for some folks means daily (this is how it was for me when I lived in big city and mass was more available- now I usually can only go once a week). Of course, I do go to adoration as well.
Do you mind me asking what church you attend?
I appreciate the conversation.
Michael
In random order:
ReplyDeleteI attend Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow Idaho. No need to explain Catholic doctrine to me--I've come very close to being Catholic myself, and it was this sort of issue--and the lack of Sacramentalism in the Catholic position--that turned me away.
I think the quotes provided do a good job of summarizing the difference between the Catholic position and the Protestant one, but I'm not entirely sure we agree on the meaning of the quotes.
As I see it, the difference between the Lutheran and late Medieval understanding of the Mass is that though both believe the Mass is efficacious for the forgiveness of sins, they mean this very differently. The Catholic said the Mass itself, that is the saying of the Mass, is for the forgiveness of sins, whereas the Lutheran said the reception of the Mass is for the forgiveness of sins.
Or to say the same thing slightly differently, the Catholic believed my sins are forgiven because the priest says mass, whereas the Lutheran my sins are forgiven because I receive the Eucharist. Note the different subjects in the same sentence, and what saves. The Catholic believed the saying, directed by the priest toward God, saves. The Protestant, the Bread and Wine, directed from God toward me saves.
Both these perhaps have problems: The Liturgy really is a prayer, and really does do something (though Luther admits this)--though the Liturgy is the work of the people. But Christ does not say "Say this for the forgiveness of sins" but that the drinking is for the forgiveness of sins. (Hebrews 9:19-20)
Moreover, on the Catholic understanding--at least as it was--I receive forgiveness of sins because the priest enters into the presence of God for me, and offers the Mass for me. On the Protestant understanding, I receive forgiveness of sins because I enter the presence of God by receiving the Eucharist.
(This is what priesthood of all believers means and meant. The priest does not receive the sacrament for me, and the priest does not enter into the presence of God for me in the offering of the Mass. Rather, in the Mass God becomes present for me.)
Remember, no one received communion except maybe once or twice a year--the were riots in Wales because the people didn't want to receive communion so much as the Protestants said they should!--and no one ever received the cup.
I think this gets at what Luther was saying in those quotes. He wasn't objecting to his own doctrine that the Bread and Wine are for the forgiveness of sins--rather he was objecting that the Catholics did not teach the Wine is for the forgiveness of sins, but instead that the saying of the Mass is for the forgiveness, apart from any reception--or at least any reception by the laity. Again, remember, no one received communion but the priests. Yet the doctrine was just because mass was said their sins were forgiven.
Regarding "It is not my eating and drinking, indeed..." I think Luther is saying "It isn't my action which saves, but rather the Word, namely Christ, who is received, who saves." God doesn't say "Ah, Matt has received, I'll forgive him." Rather God causes me to be righteous by feeding me His Body and Blood.
The Reformed and Lutheran division, while important, (and I am on the Lutheran side) is not at issue here.
I think the teaching is it needs to be a minister--except perhaps in desperate situations, like baptism, but I'm not sure. Yes, I can, and should confess my sins to God directly. But I am not told I am forgiven unless a minister tells me I am. I can feel I am forgiven. But if I trust that, I'm trusting my feelings.
Really? Everyone receives the cup always? That's rather extraordinary. In many parishes they don't even offer the cup. And often people skip the cup because they see it as almost superfluous--they already received communion, why do so again.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI've been to mass at probably a hundred different Catholic churches on several continents and never have I seen only the body of Christ offered. But even so, the Catholic teaching is that the body and blood of Christ are both present in each form (which is why Jesus says "he that eateth me...") so, while it is desirable to recieve both, it is not absolutely necessary. Yes, for a time in the history of the Church, Catholics did not recieve the Eucharist often, as they are encouraged to do today. I'm not exactly sure what your point is here, doctinally speaking.
However, I think the larger issue we are not connecting on is what the Eucharist does:
If you have studied Catholic teaching, you know that the Council of Trent explicitly denied, against the Reformers, that the prinicipal fruit of the Eucharist is the forgiveness of sins. You comparison of the Catholic and Protestant positions above does not make sense from a Catholic perspective. You say "the Catholic believed my sins are forgiven because the priest says mass." This is simply not true. Again, it is expressly denied by Trent, for it is confession that absolves from sin, not the mass (strictly speaking, it is true however that a lesser effect of the Eucharist is that venial sins are taken away). In fact, it is considered sacrilege to recieve the Eucharist if you have commited mortal sin. So how could the teaching be that the Eucharist forgives sins?
On the contrary, the principle effect of the Eucharist is union with Christ: "he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him." The effect is spiritual nourishment, strength against sin, strength against temptation, the confirmation of the supernatural habit of grace and spiritual joy. This grace is poured out upon all who "assist" at mass (i.e. the laity) regardless of the intent of the priest. For the the effects of the mass are, like other sacraments, ex opere operato. So while the priest is an instrument of God who is necessary for the mass, the priest does not do anything "for" the laity in the sense that he "controls" or "dispenses" anything to the laity through his person choice, mindset, ot intention. The priest does not personally give any grace to the laity, but he does fulfill an indespensible function in the body of Christ.
Michael
Michael,
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Church has changed, significantly, since Vatican II. Have you ever been to an extraordinary form of the Roman rite? Did anyone beside the celebrating priest receive the cup? Prior to Vatican II, since at least the time of Trent--which only reestablished standard practice--only the celebrating priest could receive the cup.
I don't think the rest of your response is on point.
Does a the Sacrifice of the Mass assist those in Purgatory? Does it do so because those in Purgatory receive the Eucharist?
(I'm not objecting to Purgatory. I'm trying to draw your attention to the fact that there is a distinction between the Mass being said, and Communion being received.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia says "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""
Protestants say the Mass effects forgiveness of sins because we receive it. Here Christ touches me, and so I am saved. All my sins are forgiven. Catholics say reception of the Eucharist is good for me. But moreover, the priest offers the Mass, and this is for my salvation, whether or not I receive.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI asked my wife about her experience with the cup and she said that in certain areas she has seen more of just the cup being offered. In her experience, she said that about 20% of the Churches she's been to have just the bread. I actually don't recieve the cup even when it is offered since I do not drink any alcohol (even the accidents of it) so I may not have noticed at times.
But the point here is that for Catholics, as I said above, both species contain the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. So I am not sure what your point is, unless it is that you don't agree with this teaching.
I absolutely agree that the mass and Eucharist are not identical. The Eucharist is an individual sacrament in which we participate at mass. On the other hand, mass is a true sacrifice for Catholics, and it naturally follows that those who are prepared to do so would receive the Eucharist for the fullest union with Chirst, as he has enjoined us to do.
But what does this mean to you? If I understand you correctly, your seem to have said that you have chosen to be Protestant because you believe that in your denomination when you recieve the Eucharist you sins are forgiven at that time, and the Catholic Eucharist doesn't do that.
I can at least understand your reasoning up until this point. But then you seem to say that this means that the Catholic Church is less "sacramental" or that the priest is somehow witholding things from the laity.
What I am saying is that your attributions to the motives and character of the Catholic Church are mistaken, since the docrtine of the Eucharist for Catholics is fundamentally different from the start.
If one wants a sacramental forgiveness of sins, one finds this fully in Confession.
If one wants union with Christ by recieving his body and blood then one should recieve the Catholic Eucharist (one species will do, as Christ is fully in both).
The Sacrifice of the mass is meritorious in itself and the grace made available through it can be applied to you or the souls in purgatory even if the body and blood is not recieved in the Eucharist (although if you can, you have an obligation to do so, since it is, under normal conditions, necessary for everlasting life).
I'm not quite sure what your beef is. I think it is that you want the Eucharist to be for the forgiveness of sins. Why do you feel so strongly about this being the effect of the Eucharist? Why not go to confession?
Michael
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThe original point was as follows: You said "Are you saying that Luther believed that a Protestant recieves [sic] forgiveness for sins by drinking the wine at a Protestant service? Wouldn't this be a direct violation of the Faith Alone principle?"
My point is that faith alone is not in any a violation of a strong Eucharistic theology, but actually, originally, rested on one.
When a Catholic says "Strictly speaking, as it says in John, eternal life requires eating the body and blood of Christ. But this presupposes his death and resurrestion, which is really what "saves" us through grace, which is a participation in the life of God. For Catholics, a person after Baptism has the life of saving grace within him and is "saved" so long as he has not sinned mortally. The mass, again, is the application of the merits of Christ's sacrifice in an abundance of ways, the primary way being eating his flesh and blood, miraculously made present and in which we commune with him (body, blood, soul and divinity) and His mystical body, the Church." A Protestant can, more or less agree. This isn't where the divide is, and there is no objection to this point. Rather, faith alone presupposes this point. (Or one very similar to it--the two concerns being "body, blood, soul and divinity" and "abundance of ways".)
The Protestant objection is to the sacrifice of the Mass. The objection here is actually that as a Christian I enter into the presence of Christ, as it says in Hebrews. I do not need another to enter for me, I myself can, and must, enter into the presence of God. It is only by being in the presence of God that I am saved--indeed salvation precisely is living in the presence of God.
At its root, the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass says that the priest enters into the presence of God, and re-presents the Sacrifice of Calvary. And through the priest's entering into the presence of God the laity are saved. It may be that the laity are brought up into the presence of God with the priest, and it may not be. It is not necessary that the laity enter into the presence of God for them to receive salvation--at least some salvation.
Precisely this is objectionable. I have access beyond the holy of holies, and do not need another man, save Jesus to enter for me and bring me in; and it definitely isn't any good for me if another enters in in my place.
Thus the Protestants, at least the early ones, are more Eucharistic than the Catholics.
Matt
Dear Matt,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but based on my knowledge of my faith, you simply mischaracterize the Catholic view.
We are all in the "presence" of God at all times. In fact, he communicates our very existence to us at every moment from eternity.
As I have pointed out a number of times, the preist is needed since it is a real sacrifice- it's the same logic as in the OT, only transformed. It is not so that the priest gets to "go somewhere" that we don't. When the sacrifice is re-presented, we are all at the foot of the Cross again. You make it sound like the priest leaves the room at mass. Moreover, we all receive the same body and blood, priest and laity. The priest does what priests have always, biblically, done: sacrifice. His function binds the Christian community together- we need each other. It's not just about you, or the priest, it's about "us."
Just curious: waht does Faith Alone mean to you? As opposed to simply Faith as a necessary element, along with works, as in the Catholic view?
Michael
Michael,
ReplyDeleteCatholics say lots of good things. I'm not speaking about those. I mean in this case. Also, remember, things have changed significantly since Vatican II.
Faith alone means the Eucharist causes me to be good, but I don't need to be good to be made righteous in the Eucharist. I must only believe what God says. There are two possible errors then--presumption, an disbelief as it is commonly understood. Presumption assumes I am good enough without believing that my salvation is in God alone--that is without confession. And common disbelief would be rejecting the promise of the gospel as false.
Also, there is a difference between being in God's presence, and being in the presence of God. If I am in God's presence, God knows me, and is present where I am. Everything is in God's presence. But not everything is in God's presence--this image is taken from the ancient temple/tabernacle. If I am in the presence of God, I have entered into the where-God-is, and not only am I present before God, God is present before me.
ReplyDeleteMatthew,
ReplyDeleteThree things:
You say: Also, remember, things have changed significantly since Vatican II.
I’d be interested as to what you think has changed here, especially as regards our conversation. For example, is there anything I’ve said about the substance of the Catholic doctrine that would have applied pre-Vatican II and now does not apply? Is having the mass in the vernacular (only as an option, mind you) or the priest facing the congregation (still only an option- our priest faces away) or an exhortation of the laity to fulfill their own traditional “priestly” roles really all that significant? Has there been a change in doctrine to which you can point?
In my understanding, the real “change” that many attribute to Vatican II really did not arise from the content of Vatican II. Rather the “change” arose some time after Vatican II when pope Paul VI released Humanae Vitae, which most pointedly did not (contrary to many expectations) change the Church’s position of birth control. That is when a great rebellion occurred among liberal theologians and large numbers of Catholics against the authority of the Church. (Check out Ralph McInerny’s “What went Wrong with Vatican II).
At any rate, the “reform of the reform” has been underway for some time now and is well established in the Church (especially among the youth) based on the Work of JP II and Benedict XVI.
A related curiosity here is why some Protestants (mostly those wanting a more “traditional” Protestantism) are so invested in the idea of there being such big changes in the Catholic Church since Vatican II?
You also say: Also, there is a difference between being in God's presence, and being in the presence of God. If I am in God's presence, God knows me, and is present where I am. Everything is in God's presence. But not everything is in God's presence--this image is taken from the ancient temple/tabernacle. If I am in the presence of God, I have entered into the where-God-is, and not only am I present before God, God is present before me.
I hear what you are saying on this point and I agree. I only reiterate my assertion that at mass, we are all at the foot of the cross again, in the presence of Christ in this special sense you speak of.
Most interestingly, you say: “…I don't need to be good to be made righteous in the Eucharist.”
But my question to you is: do you need the Eucharist in order to be made righteous? (i.e. justified?)
Finally, does the Eucharist actually make you righteous, or rather is it only that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to you?
Michael
When I say things have changed since Vatican II, I mean lots of disciplinary problems were fixed. The old criticisms no longer apply, or at the least, are not so necessary. New problems have entered since Vatican II, but Vatican II was a good and necessary council which fixed lots of problems.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, if I understand correctly, prior to Vatican II it was assumed the priest says Mass, and the people are merely present. Now, perhaps, the priest and laity together contribute to the Mass. (Though that may be an Eastern understanding that was not adopted. Though the Melkites, probably believe it.) Also, the language of the sacrifice of the Mass was changed to reflect more a sacrificial meal, in which all participate, rather than a sacrifice which only the priest participates in. (At least that's what an old priest here in town told me.)
The exhortation to the laity to fulfill their priestly roles, along with the exhortation to know scripture, and to receive the sacrament is very important. Also, giving the cup to the laity is important. The Mass in the vernacular is also important.
I am actually opposed to the destruction of the high altar, and to ad populum celebration. The priest should celebrate to Christ, with us, not to us. I find that having the high altar emphasizes liturgically that this food is food from the True East.
I don't like to ascribe motives. It also find it odd that change for the better is taken as a point against Rome.
You said that at Mass we are in the presence of God in this sense: This is good, and I believe it is what the Church teaches now. But that isn't what she taught (though not dogmatically) before, at least as I understand it. Perhaps something close to that, but not quite that.
Finally, before I answer your questions about me:
These objections are not exactly to Catholicism. I'm not sure what language I have used before, but they are objections to Roman Catholicism, not to Catholicism proper. Though I have some problems with, say, the Melkites, I have far fewer, and most, if not all, these criticisms do not apply.
In response to your question:
I would like to say yes we need the Eucharist to be justified, but I don't think I can. many of the desert fathers, for instance, rarely received the Eucharist. But I wouldn't want to exclude them from Christ. But the ordinary means God has established to communicate Himself to us is the Eucharist. Yet he is not bound to the Eucharist.
The Eucharist actually makes me righteous.
Matt
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteYou say: "I would like to say yes we need the Eucharist to be justified, but I don't think I can. many of the desert fathers, for instance, rarely received the Eucharist. But I wouldn't want to exclude them from Christ."
Now here it seems that you have gone through a reasoning process in which you have concluded that, for empirical reasons (the example of many desert fathers) you cannot say that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. Or perhaps you have decided this for reasons of fairness or just what strikes you as "right" (you say you wouldn't "want" to exclude them).
Your conclusion does not seem to be for the same reason that, e.g. Luther and Calvin would have come to the same conclusion.
What do you say would be their reasons for coming to your conclusion?
Do you accept thier theology on this point?
Also, do you think these Reformers would disagree with you statment that: "the Eucharist actually makes me righteous"?
What do you say about their views on this point?
If you do not accpet the Reformers' views on these points, then on what basis do you hold to your belief?
Is it:
1) The Holy Spirit guiding you?
2) Your own reasoning and biblical interpretation?
3) A different authority altogether that the Reformers? If so what or who?
Michael
On the first point, I think they would more or less agree. They wouldn't point to the desert fathers, but they would say the Eucharist is God's means of coming to us, though God is not bound by the Eucharist. It surely isn't an issue of faith alone, faith alone means or very nearly means, sacraments alone.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell the Reformers would say Eucharist actually makes me righteous. Though I'm not an expert on the reformers.
On the last point: here's a quote from the Helvetic Confession, one of the Reformed Confessions. It doesn't speak to whether the Eucharist makes me righteous, but it does speak to whether in Christ I am actually righteous.
ReplyDelete"OF WHAT KIND ARE THE POWERS OF THE REGENERATE, AND IN WHAT WAY THEIR WILLS ARE FREE. Finally, we must see whether the regenerate have free wills, and to what extent. In regeneration the understanding is illumined by the Holy Spirit in order that it many understand both the mysteries and the will of God. And the will itself is not only changed by the Spirit, but it is also equipped with faculties so that it wills and is able to do the good of its own accord (Rom. 8:1ff.). Unless we grant this, we will deny Christian liberty and introduce a legal bondage. But the prophet has God saying: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts" (Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:26f.). The Lord also says in the Gospel: "If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36). Paul also writes to the Philippians: "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). Again: "I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (v. 6). Also: "God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (ch. 2:13).
THE REGENERATE WORK NOT ONLY PASSIVELY BUT ACTIVELY. However, in this connection we teach that there are two things to be observed: First, that the regenerate, in choosing and doing good, work not only passively but actively. For they are moved by God that they may do themselves what they do. For Augustine rightly adduces the saying that "God is said to be our helper. But no one can be helped unless he does something." The Manichaeans robbed man of all activity and made him like a stone or a block of wood.
THE FREE WILL IS WEAK IN THE REGENERATE. Secondly, in the regenerate a weakness remains. For since sin dwells in us, and in the regenerate the flesh struggles against the Spirit till the end of our lives, they do not easily accomplish in all things what they had planned. These things are confirmed by the apostle in Rom., ch. 7, and Gal., ch. 5. Therefore that free will is weak in us on account of the remnants of the old Adam and of innate human corruption remaining in us until the end of our lives. Meanwhile, since the powers of the flesh and the remnants of the old man are not so efficacious that they wholly extinguish the work of the Spirit, for that reason the faithful are said to be free, yet so that they acknowledge their infirmity and do not glory at all in their free will. For believers ought always to keep in mind what St. Augustine so many times inculcated according to the apostle: "What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?" To this he adds that what we have planned does not immediately come to pass. For the issue of things lies in the hand of God. This is the reason Paul prayed to the Lord to prosper his journey (Rom. 1:10). And this also is the reason the free will is weak."
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteHow are you? I ran across the following account (below) of the frequency of communion issue. I hadn't realized that the Council of Trent had addressed this.
It's from New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia).
"Strange to say, it was in the Middle Ages, "the Ages of Faith", that Communion was less frequent than at any other period of the Church's history. The Fourth Lateran Council compelled the faithful, under pain of excommunication, to receive at least once a year (c. Omnis utriusque sexus). The Poor Clares, by rule, communicated six times a year; the Dominicanesses, fifteen times; the Third Order of St. Dominic, four times. Even saints received rarely: St. Louis six times a year, St. Elizabeth only three times. The teaching of the great theologians, however, was all on the side of frequent, and to some extent daily, Communion [Peter Lombard, IV Sent., dist. xii, n. 8; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III, Q. lxxx, a. 10; St. Bonaventure, In IV Sent., dist. xii, punct. ii, a. 2, q. 2; see Dalgairns, "The Holy Communion" (Dublin) part III, chap. i]. Various reformers, Tauler, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Vincent Ferrer, and Savonarola, advocated, and in many instances brought about, a return to frequent reception. The Council of Trent expressed a wish "that at each Mass the faithful who are present, should communicate" (Sess. XXII, chap. vi). And the Catechism of the council says: "Let not the faithful deem it enough to receive the Body of the Lord once a year only; but let them judge that Communion ought to be more frequent; but whether it be more expedient that it should be monthly, weekly, or daily, can be decided by no fixed universal rule" (pt. II, c. iv, n. 58). As might be expected, the disciples of St. Ignatius and St. Philip carried on the work of advocating frequent Communion. With the revival of this practice came the renewal of the discussion as to the advisability of daily Communion. While all in theory admitted that daily reception was good they differed as to the conditions required.
The Congregation of the Council (1587) forbade any general restriction, and ordered that no one should be repelled from the Sacred Banquet, even if he approached daily. In 1643, Arnauld's "Frequent Communion" appeared, in which he required, for worthy reception, severe penance for past sins and most pure love of God. The Congregation of the Council was once more appealed to, and decided (1679) that though universal daily Communion was not advisable, no one should be repelled, even if he approached daily; parish priests and confessors should decide how often, but they should take care that all scandal and irreverence should be avoided (see Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., n. 1148). In 1690, Arnauld's conditions were condemned. In spite of these decisions, the reception of Holy Communion became less and less frequent, owing to the spread of rigid Jansenistic opinions, and this rigour lasted almost into our own day. The older and better tradition was, however, preserved by some writers and preachers, notably Fénelon and St. Alphonsus, and, with the spread of devotion to the Sacred Heart, it gradually became once more the rule. Difficulty, however, was raised regarding daily Communion. This practice, too, was warmly recommended by Pius IX and Leo XIII, and finally received official approval from Pius X."