You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘transubstantiation’ category.
In reading a post on Dr Gregory Jackson’s Ichabod, I ran across two related links elsewhere which deeply concerned me for reasons explained below.
Long march through the Church
Dr Jackson’s post featured an interview from the Harvard Gazette with Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, a professor of Roman Catholic theological studies at the Divinity School. If you click on the link with Fiorenza’s name, you’ll see his biography which lists such details as (emphases mine):
His writings on political theology engage recent theories of justice, especially those of John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, and have dealt with issues of work and welfare.
He was awarded the Henry Luce III Fellowship for 2005-06 for research in the history of twentieth-century Roman Catholic theology, namely, the direction known as la nouvelle théologie.
Habermas studied under Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, two professors of the prominent Frankfurt School, whose ideas have spread worldwide. His speciality is the concept of modernity, developing the ideas of Max Weber (also Frankfurt School) about rationalisation which
refers to the replacement of traditions, values, and emotions as motivators for behavior in society with rational, calculated ones. For example, the implementation of bureaucracies in government is a kind of rationalization, as is the construction of high-efficiency living spaces in architecture and urban planning.
Fiorenza says the Vatican is in flux. No news there. However, he did say that since the end of the Second World War in Germany and the United States, the percentage of Catholics marrying other Catholics declined from 9 in 10 marriages to 2 in 10 at present. That means that 80% are marrying Protestants (best case scenario), those of other world faiths or no faith at all.
From this Fiorenza concludes:
that type of switch is leading to a type of religious pluralism that the church is not used to. … So I think the question of religious pluralism is going to be really important, especially if you get a pope from Asia, where you have more awareness of other world religions.
His use of ‘awareness’ points to advocacy of a one-world religion. He could have said ‘openness’ but certain elitists do not want people to really understand the big picture.
Catholic and Protestants face similar issues
Catholics face the following issues:
– a seemingly conservative Pope has just abdicated.
– two recent Popes, if not more (I’d go back to John XXIII), have latched on to Modernist theology (kissing Korans, allowing paedophile scandals) whilst reinforcing tradition (the Rosary and Latin Mass).
– bishops and priests are more interested in a Modernist philosophy of ‘action’ in the socio-political sphere rather than preaching the Gospel of grace and salvation.
– laity have left the Church, not for Protestantism, but altogether.
That said, the last two points also pertain to mainline Protestants not just in the United States (Episcopalians, Lutherans [ELCA] and Presbyterians [PCUSA]) but also in countries with ‘established’ (national) churches, e.g. England (Anglican), Scotland (Presbyterian) and Germany (Lutheran).
We can trace how we got here from there by going back to the mid-19th century and into the early 20th. Protestant and Catholic theology were both affected. Faithful theologians were doing battle within their own denominations against ideas from the Enlightenment and/or Marxism, neither of which has a place in religious dogma. These are but a few who defended the faith against the heresy of Modernism:
– Charles Porterfield Krauth (Lutheran).
– Pius X (Catholic, later canonised) — read here and here.
– John Gresham Machen (Presbyterian) — read posts under his name on Christianity / Apologetics.
Why nouvelle théologie matters — a personal perspective
After reading Fiorenza’s Harvard University biography, I did a search on nouvelle théologie. What I read shocked me.
Unknowingly, I’d adopted and believed most (not all) of it since my days in Catholic high school — in fact, from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s. That’s over three decades. Furthermore, I was going to church regularly the whole time!
Thankfully, the Lord moved me out of that darkness into a scriptural Christianity. I’m still learning.
How is it that I’d never heard of nouvelle théologie yet was in thrall to much of it for 30 years?
A good resource page which summarises and discusses it is ‘Where is the New Theology leading us?’ (translated from the French) by a Dominican priest, the Revd Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
Again, although the essay is written from a Catholic perspective, new theology also has a stranglehold on mainline Protestant denominations. Therefore, I recommend this treatise to all my readers.
New theology’s main points include the following:
– it refutes the Councils of Trent and Orange. The latter council is important to Protestants because, from it, the Calvinists derived their doctrine of Original Sin and Total Depravity.
– Adam was not a man but a collective. This refutes the aforementioned councils and, worse, contradicts references to Adam in the New Testament. Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’s lineage back to Adam (Luke 3:38). St Paul referred to Adam several times in his epistles, teaching that mankind has two heads: Adam and Christ.
– the Incarnation of the Word (Jesus) was but a mere blip in the evolution of the universe. According to new theology, time moves on and our link to Jesus becomes more abstract. New theology ignores His sacrifice on the Cross, His glorious Resurrection and His promise of salvation.
– sin is purely a personal issue; Original Sin is irrelevant and God doesn’t place much importance on it. This also refutes the aforementioned Councils. It also ignores God’s banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden for their sin.
– it is rationalist (see definition at the beginning of this post) in that it advocates for dogma which evolves with time and the world. This is why we see the push for homosexual bishops and same-sex marriage. It also accounts for the (quasi-)atheistic clergy in our pulpits who cannot preach the Gospel.
– God is not personally involved in our lives or our world; rather, God is an abstract ‘universal cosmic Centre’. This notion contradicts Holy Scripture from beginning to end.
– we can be saved only through pantheism — Gaia — and ‘uniting’ ourselves with the universe.
– a general convergence of world religions will bring about a universal faith which will satisfy humanity.
– faith can save only if the Church ‘progresses’ in step with the world.
– Christians must discard dogmas which are now irrelevant; it is unhealthy to consider doctrine as being true for all time.
– there is no such thing as the Real Presence (much less transubstantiation) in Holy Communion; Christ was present only during His lifetime on Earth.
– it distorts Thomas Aquinas’s ideas, twisting them into something the philosopher and theologian would never have considered.
But, wait — there’s more
Whilst reading these false teachings, I thought of the anonymous Catholic Agent AA-1025 who was a priest in the 1930s and already posited ideas we would see come to fruition during Vatican II.
There is also the Protestant side of the story, featuring Walter Rauschenbusch — a pietistic Lutheran and the father of the American social gospel. He had close associations with a member of the Fabians — the Revd Harry Ward. John D Rockefeller brought the two together and helped them to establish the Federal Council of Churches, which has since evolved to the World Council of Churches and has close links to the United Nations, also a Fabian creation.
As to the Popes, the preface to an audio lecture about new theology and Vatican II says:
Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, are products of the New Theology, and pledge first allegiance to this new system, rather than to the traditional anti-Modernism of Pope Saint Pius X.
Back now to Fr Garrigou-Lagrange, who wrote:
Some will no doubt say that we exaggerate, but even a small error regarding first ideas and first principles has incalculable consequences which are not foreseen by those who have likewise been fooled. The consequences of the new views, some of which we have already reviewed, have gone well beyond the forecasts of the authors we have cited. It is not difficult to see these consequences in certain typewritten papers, which have been sent (some since 1934) to clergy, seminaries, and Catholic intellectuals; one finds in them the most singular assertions and negations on original sin and the Real Presence.
At times, in these same circulated papers, before such novelties are proposed, the reader is conditioned by being told: This will appear crazy at first, however, if you look at it closely, it is not illogical. And many end up believing it. Those with superficial intelligence will adopt it, and the dictum, “A doctrine which is not current, is no longer true” will be out walking. Some are tempted to conclude: “It seems that the doctrine of the eternal pains of hell is no longer current, and so it is no longer true.” It is said in the Gospel that one day charity will be frozen in many hearts and they will be seduced by error.
It is a strict obligation of conscience for traditional theologians to respond. Otherwise, they gravely neglect their duty, and they will be made to account for this before God.
And the following quote, which is very true, although I would disagree on ‘average’ souls. I consider my own as average, but I do remember discussing assigned high school reading material (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin) with one of my classmates who has always had a highly developed intellectual mind. She had to explain it all to me and, even then, I didn’t understand it but thought I should accept it, anyway (stupid!):
A professor of theology wrote to me:
“In effect, the very notion of the truth has been put into debate, and without fully realizing it, thus revisiting modernism in thought as in action. The writings that you have spoken to me about are much read in France. It is true that they exercise a huge influence on the average type of soul. They have little effect on serious people. It is necessary to write for those who have the sincere desire to be enlightened.”
And the problem lies in ‘the sincere desire to be enlightened’, which goes all the way back to original sin when the serpent seduced Eve into heightened knowledge (Genesis 3:1-5):
1Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Christians must reject such a carnal urge, not least because a lifetime of enlightenment and scholarship lies in the Holy Bible and long-established confessions of faith. May we read, study and understand them then pass that eternal truth on to others.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. — Matthew 26:26-28
Over the next 24 hours, many Christians all over the world will be commemorating the Last Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Past Churchmouse Campanologist posts on this subject include ‘Maundy Thursday: One of you will betray Me’ and ‘What is the Triduum?’
Today, I shall continue this year’s Holy Week posts by featuring another sermon from the Reformed (Calvinist) pastor, the Revd P G Mathew of Grace Valley Christian Center in Davis, California, ‘Passover and the Lord’s Supper, Part Two’. Mr Mathew takes his text from Matthew 26:17-30. Emphases mine below.
The Lord’s Supper is taught in four places in the New Testament–Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11 … In this text we see how our Lord Jesus ended the old covenant and established the new covenant by abolishing the Passover celebration, which was based on the sacrifice of prescribed animals, and instituting the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
The Lord’s Supper is known by various names, the origin of which Mr Mathew explains:
In 1 Corinthians 11 we find the phrase kuriakon deipnon , meaning the Lord’s dinner or the Lord’s supper. God is the host and we are the guests, and when we come to his table, he feeds us that which nourishes our life. This sacrament is also called the breaking of bread, as we read in Acts 2, and holy communion, meaning a time when we commune with the triune God and his church. It is called the Lord’s table and the eucharist, which comes from a Greek word, eucharisteo , meaning to give thanks, as found in Matthew 26:27. When Jesus took the cup, he gave thanks.
As we know, this supper occurred during Passover week. Today’s Jews prepare for and celebrate this festival the way their ancestors did during Old Testament times and Christ’s lifetime. The women spend days cleaning their houses of leaven. Today, that may even mean moving certain home appliances to the garage, as I saw in a documentary a few years ago about the orthodox Jews in Manchester. It is a busy time and a prayerful one.
The main dinner is the seder, led by the male head of the household. Below, Mr Mathew describes it and how Jesus shaped His supper with the apostles for the people of the New Covenant:
certain elements were assembled, including an unblemished lamb, sacrificed and roasted, unleavened bread, wine, green vegetables, bitter herbs, and a bowl of salt water.
When the meal was ready, the father or master would pronounce a blessing upon the festival and on the first cup of wine. All would drink from the first cup, and then the youngest person would ask “What does this ceremony mean to you?” The father would explain how the Passover commemorated the Israelites’ redemption from Egyptian bondage by the Lord through a blood sacrifice. Next, all would drink the second cup of wine, and sing Psalms 113-115, the first part of the Hallel psalms (Psalms 113-118).
When the meal was served, the leader would bless the bread by blessing God: “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.” The third cup of wine would be drunk after the leader pronounced a blessing through a prayer of thanksgiving which went something like this: “Blessed are thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, Creator of the fruit of the vine.” This is where we see the word eucharist, or thanksgiving, used. Then the participants would sing the rest of the Hallel psalms, Psalms 116-118, and drink the fourth cup of wine.
The idea of drinking four cups of wine is based on the fourfold blessings found in Exodus 6:6-7. There we read, “Therefore, say, to the Israelites, ‘I am the Lord,'” and then we read the first blessing, “‘and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. . .'” The second blessing was, “‘I will free you from being slaves to them. . .'” The third blessing was “‘I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with acts of judgment.'” We must note here that the third cup represented redemption, and this was the cup in the Lord’s Supper that Jesus Christ blessed and gave to his disciples. The fourth blessing was, “‘I will take you as my own people and I will be your God.'” This speaks of the presence of God with his church. Of this cup Jesus said, “I will not drink of it until I drink it anew in the kingdom,” meaning when he comes again. When Christ comes again, the fourth blessing of having God with us will be realized fully.
Mr Mathew describes exactly how the Last Supper unfolded between Jesus and His apostles. This also explains the priest’s or minister’s prayer of consecration which he recites during today’s services:
In Matthew 26:26 we are told that Jesus acted “while they were eating,” meaning during the Passover meal. Jesus took a piece of bread, probably a thin sheet of bread like that commonly found in the Middle East. Having blessed God, he broke it, and as we already noted, the usual prayer of blessing for the bread was “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.” Here we see that blessing the bread did not mean blessing the inanimate substance of bread, but rather, blessing God who gave the bread.
Next, Jesus broke the bread into pieces. We assume here that Judas, the son of perdition, had already left. Some scholars say he was still present, and if that is true, he was incurring judgment on himself as he partook of the Holy Communion. After breaking the bread, Jesus gave it to his disciples. In this action we see salvation coming from Jesus Christ. In the act of his giving the bread, we see the idea of grace, and in giving it to each one, we see particular salvation, that Jesus loves and died for each one of us.
Therefore, Holy Communion is not to be taken lightly, nor is it to be given to everyone who attends as a sign of hospitality. Holy Communion is not akin to snacks and soda. The minimum requirements should be Baptism and being of the age of reason (Catholics would say this was age 7, but many Protestants would counter that a child should be older in order to fully understand the importance of the Sacrament). However, many churches rightly restrict Communion to members of their own denomination. You can read more on the reasons why in ‘A case against universal Communion’. People who receive the Sacrament when they should not — because of unbelief or serious sin — are putting themselves at risk.
St Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:27-34:
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment.
Christians have heard many times Jesus’s words pronounced over the bread: ‘This is My body’. But what was Jesus telling the apostles and how do we interpret Him through Holy Communion today?
What Jesus Christ was really saying was that the Passover was fulfilled in him. This was a surprising statement for the disciples, because this statement was not part of the Passover ritual. But in saying this Jesus was announcing that the Old Testament was ended, that the old covenant was coming to a close, and that the new had begun.
What did Jesus mean when he said, “This is my body”? The Roman Catholic church would say that because of the use of the copula estin , meaning “is,” Jesus was identifying his body with the bread. They say that when he spoke of the bread, he was speaking about his literal body. This is the doctrine of transubstantiation. It means that when Jesus said “This is my body,” the bread became his literal physical body. So today the church teaches that when a priest says, “This is my body,” during the Mass, the bread converts into the literal, physical body of Jesus Christ …
However:
Jesus made similar statements in the Bible. In John 10:9 he said, “I am the gate.” Now it would make no sense to insist that there is identity here. Jesus is not saying that he is a literal, physical gate. In John 15 he said, “I am the true vine.” Again, we do not insist there has to be identity that Jesus Christ is vine. He is not a literal, physical gate or a literal, physical vine. In John 6:35 he said, “I am the bread of life,” but he is not literal bread. In Revelation 22:16 we read, “I am the root and offspring of David,” but we do not literally believe that Jesus Christ is a root. So you see, it makes no sense to interpret Jesus’ words to mean that the bread becomes his literal body. There is no magic, yet the Roman Catholic church has maintained this idea of transubstantiation for many years.
In Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:23 it says, “Do this in remembrance of me.” This phrase also ought to tell us something. Would Jesus say to do this in remembrance of him if he was physically, literally being consumed by the worshipers? No, the reason we ought to remember him is that the Son of God took upon himself a physical body, and in that physical body Jesus Christ is now on the right hand of God the Father. He is not with us physically; he is away, and that is why we remember him. Not only that, when you read other passages we are told to continue observing this sacrament of holy communion “until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). That should tell us that Jesus Christ is not physically present …
The Holy Spirit causes us who are believers by faith to commune with the risen Christ, and there is real presence of Christ that we experience through the ministry of the Spirit–by faith.
What, then, of the cup — the wine he gave to the apostles? Historically:
It was called the cup of redemption, the cup of salvation, the cup of blessing, the cup of the new covenant. Jesus gave thanks to God for the cup, gave it to each disciple and said, “Drink from it, all of you.”
Then Jesus said, “This is my blood of the covenant. . .” What does that “blood of the covenant” mean? We find this expression in Exodus 24:6-8: “Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people.” He told people that they should obey God and keep the terms of the covenant. What did the people say? “They responded, ‘We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.’ Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, ‘This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.'”
The blood of the covenant was sprinkled on the people. We find this idea of sprinkling with blood also in the book of Leviticus. When the priests were consecrated, they were sprinkled with blood. When lepers were cleansed, they were to be sprinkled with blood. So the idea of sprinkling with the blood of the covenant means cleansing and consecration to the service of God. When Moses sprinkled the blood on the people, he was consecrating and cleansing them on the basis of their affirmation that they would obey the covenant.
Jesus came to institute a New Covenant with the people of God:
In the parallel passage in Luke 22 we read in verse 20, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” What is the new covenant? In Jeremiah 31:31-34 we read, “‘The time is coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,'” and we see that happening in the institution of the Lord’s Supper in Matthew 26 …
God said he would make a new covenant in which his own Son would obey God’s law perfectly. He would accomplish redemption for us and give it to us freely. This is called the covenant of grace, the new covenant, as we read in Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11. The new covenant was accomplished by Christ himself who fully obeyed God’s law. And in anticipation of his death on the cross, Jesus Christ offered his disciples the bread and the wine, symbolizing salvation.
Christ came to save sinners. He offered His body and blood as the perfect atonement. Mr Mathew explains why the Reformed do not believe it to be a universal one. This does not, incidentally, imply it is insufficient, but that it is not efficacious for all:
Jesus said the blood of the covenant would be “poured out.” He was speaking about the violent death that he was about to experience. Within twenty-four hours of saying this, Jesus Christ was buried. After he was arrested, beaten and crucified, there came a mighty flow of blood poured out in behalf of many. He was speaking about substitutionary atonement, which is at the heart of Passover–salvation through the death of an animal whose blood is sprinkled upon the doorposts. Jesus said his blood would be poured out “for many.” This refers to particular redemption. In other words, Jesus Christ did not die to save everyone. Universal redemption is a popular idea but it is not a biblical idea. Christ loved the church and gave himself for her, meaning there is particular redemption for many, but not all. That does not mean the number of people saved will be small. No, Jesus said many. All the elect of God shall be saved. From all tribes and nations, the redeemed of the Lord shall come.
Mr Mathew closes with practical reflections on Holy Communion. Sometimes, in the rush of daily life, we find it difficult to focus fully on what we are about to receive at the Lord’s Table. Below are good points which are easy-to-remember reflections in the moments before we partake of His Body and Blood:
First, Christ is the host—this Christ to whom is given all authority in heaven and on earth, as we read in Matthew 28:18. It is his table. Now, if that is true, aren’t we glad that he invited us? It is he who invited us individually … We can come to his table and eat with him.
Second, Christ is the mediator of the new covenant. If that is the case, he has made us partners to whom his blessings flow. In John 15:5 he said, “I am the vine; you are the branches” … First we are invited by him, and then he makes us partners with him. What confidence this gives us!
Third, Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain on Golgotha, and his outpoured blood cleanses us from all our sin and makes us whiter than snow. Think about that. In Isaiah 1:18 we read, “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.'” Jesus died and shed his blood, which has cleansed us.
Fourth, this King of the universe is also our brother and friend. He said, “I call you my friends.” As our brother and friend, he daily shows us how to live for his glory. He is our older brother.
Finally, as the source of all spiritual blessings, it is in Jesus Christ that we have been blessed with all spiritual blessings. Even now he fills us, not with grief, but with joy and gladness by his presence. Did he die to make us miserable? No, he died to make us happy. In Psalm 51 David asked God to blot out all his transgressions and cleanse him, that the bones which God had crushed would rejoice and be glad. We need to understand that Christ died to remove our sadness and misery and to put an end to all our grief. No wonder St. Paul could write from prison to the Philippians: “Rejoice; I say again, rejoice.”
May we look on this holy Sacrament in a new light, not only on Maundy Thursday but each time we have the honour of receiving it. It is our life and sustenance in Him through grace by faith.
John Calvin had definite ideas about the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
He first ran into opposition in Geneva in 1537 when he and his mentor, William Farel, disagreed with the city council on the correct form that the Supper should take. At that time, Geneva co-operated with the city of Bern on setting standards of Reformed worship. Bern proposed using only unleavened bread. Calvin and Farel were unwilling to use unleavened bread until a synod in Zurich could be convened to settle the matter. Geneva’s city counsellors were unhappy with the opposition, particularly since Bern was an ecclesiastical ally. They were also becoming increasingly suspicious of Calvin and Farel, who were both French. The city council ordered the two to use unleavened bread on Easter Sunday 1538. The two Reformers refused to distribute the Sacrament that day. This resulted in a riot during the service. On Easter Monday, the city councillors asked Calvin and Farel to leave Geneva. Farel never returned. Geneva invited Calvin back in 1541.
It’s difficult to imagine a riot in church over the Lord’s Supper, especially today. However, what this disagreement illustrates is Calvin’s determination to shape Reformed theology just the way he thought it should be. Calvinism must be the most legalistic form of Christianity today. It’s more than faith and worship — it’s a way of life. The best illustration of Calvinism, for better or worse, are the Puritans and the Pilgrims. Everything for them was regulated. Some Calvinists pursue a similar lifestyle today. A five-point (sola) Calvinist believes that no part of life exists separately from Christ. Christ is part of everything we do. Therefore, everything we do relates to Him.
Calvin strongly disagreed with the Catholic teaching that the consecration came about as the result of the sacrifice of the Mass: Communion is ‘the Sacrament not a sacrifice’. He maintained that Christ died once — therefore, His sacrifice occurred only once. As such, ‘its efficacy endures forever’. To believe otherwise, he said, was ‘an abomination’. He also disagreed that Mass needed to be said in order to ‘merit grace and righteousness before God’. Nor did he like the idea that the priest should ‘keep himself apart’ from the congregation. Remember, in those days, a rood screen separated the priest from the people by a considerable physical distance. It was only in later centuries that openings had been carved into them allowing the congregation to catch a distant glimpse of what the priest was doing. Many of the prayers of the Mass were also silent, as anyone who attends the Tridentine Rite will know. One man’s contemplative beauty is another’s contemptible abomination.
We have only to receive in faith the grace which is there presented to us, and which resides not in the sacrament, but refers us to the cross of Jesus Christ as proceeding therefrom. Hence there is nothing more contrary to the true meaning of the Supper, than to make a sacrifice of it. The effect of so doing is to lead us off from recognising the death of Christ as the only sacrifice, whose virtue endures for ever … The Lord did not order that a single priest, after making his sacrifice, should keep himself apart, but that the sacrament should be distributed in the assembly after the manner of the first Supper, which he made with his apostles.
He also disagreed with the Catholic belief of transubstantiation, finding no basis for it either in Scripture or the teachings of the early Church:
Now to maintain that, it must be confessed either that the body of Christ is without limit, or that it may be in different places. In saying this we are brought at last to the point, that it is a mere phantom … For Scripture everywhere teaches us,’ that as the Lord on earth took our humanity, so he has exalted it to heaven, withdrawing it from mortal condition, but not changing its nature …
But he was at odds with Martin Luther on the idea of sacramental union — consubstantiation — where Christ is ‘in, with and under’ the elements of bread and wine.
I only wished to observe, in passing, that to fancy Jesus Christ enclosed under the bread and wine, or so to conjoin him with it as to amuse our understanding there without looking up to heaven, is a diabolical reverie.
On the other end of the spectrum, he disputed the notion of Ulrich Zwingli, the great Swiss Reformer, that the Supper was purely symbolic:
Hence when we see the visible sign we must consider what it represents, and by whom it has been given us. The bread is given us to figure the body of Jesus Christ, with command to eat it, and it is given us of God, who is certain and immutable truth. If God cannot deceive or lie, it follows that it accomplishes all which it signifies. We must then truly receive in the Supper the body and blood of Jesus Christ, since the Lord there represents to us the communion of both. Were it otherwise, what could be meant by saying, that we eat the bread and drink the wine as a sign that his body is our meat and his blood our drink? If he gaveus only bread and wine, leaving the spiritual reality behind, would it not be under false colours that this ordinance’ had been instituted?
Calvin said that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the Sacrament of the Last Supper was ‘a secret too sublime for my mind to understand or express. I experience it rather than understand it.’ That seems so unlike John Calvin — who normally framed a reasoned argument for all things Reformed. However, he also wrote:
Our Lord, wishing to give a visible appearance to his Spirit at the baptism of Christ, presented him under the form of a dove. St. John the Baptist, narrating the fact, says, that he saw the Spirit of God descending. If we look more closely, we shall find that he saw nothing but the dove, in respect that the Holy Spirit is in his essence invisible.
Therefore, to a Calvinist, the bread and wine are symbols. Yet, when partaking of the Sacrament, Christ comes to the communicant and is truly present in them thanks to the gift of faith.
We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be made partakers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the Supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all his blessings.
As far as the Adoration or Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament was concerned, Calvin said Catholics were making ‘an idol’ of it rather than a Sacrament:
The command given us is not to adore, but to take and eat … From the same source have proceeded other superstitious practices, as carrying the sacrament in procession through the streets once a year; at another time making a tabernacle for it, and keeping it to the year’s end in a cupboard to amuse the people with it, as if it were a god. As all that has not only been invented without authority from the word of God, but is also directly opposed to the institution of the Supper, it ought to be rejected by Christians.
He strongly objected to Catholics receiving only bread and not wine:
Our Lord having commanded his disciples to eat the bread sanctified in his body, when he comes to the cup, does not say simply, ‘drink’, but he adds expressly, that all are to drink. Would we have any thing clearer than this? He says that we are to eat the bread without using an universal term. He says that we are all to drink of the cup … Moreover, he objects to dangers which might happen if the cup were given in common to all. Some drop of it might occasionally be spilt; as if our Lord had not foreseen that. Is not this to accuse God quite openly of having confounded the order which he ought to have observed, and exposed his people to danger without cause?
Finally, he urged frequent Communion — more frequent than that of the Catholics of the day, some of whom received it only once a year. (They did not believe they needed to receive it often.) Calvin wrote:
However, if we duly consider the end which our Lord has in view, we shall perceive that the use should be more frequent than many make it: for the more infirmity presses, the more necessary is it frequently to have recourse to what may and will serve to confirm our faith, and advance us in purity of life; and, therefore, the practice of all well ordered churches should be to celebrate the Supper frequently, so far as the capacity of the people will admit.
In order to receive the Supper properly, the communicant must:
- Have ‘a desire and an ardent longing to be fed’
- Conform his life to ‘the example of Jesus Christ’
- Be united with one’s neighbour in ‘indissoluable friendship’
- Recognise that our imperfections should encourage him to frequent Communion.
For more information, please read ‘A Short Treatise on the Supper of Our Lord’. (WARNING: Not for the faint of heart!)
This is just appalling. Every apologist for Vatican II must read this and see how the Diocese of Linz (Austria) remembered the Feast of Corpus Christi this year.
The Host is a loaf of foccacia and the monstrance is a set of giant barbecue tongs. Watch the very short video here (Gloria.tv).
Chris Gillibrand, author of Catholic Church Conservation, where the aforementioned post appears, explains the Mass and includes pictures. He says:
The scandal took place in front of the recently reopened Ars Electronica Centre, a high tech IT centre. They have a superb top floor bar and restaurant overlooking the Danube – they also serve foccacia bread!
H/T to Damian Thompson at the Telegraph (UK). His blog post has worthwhile comments from readers about the nature of the Host, specifically what constitutes valid and invalid matter for the Eucharist.
Until last week, I hadn’t thought about this in years. When I was 12, a boy my age came to visit his aunt and uncle, who were neighbours of ours.
The aunt and uncle introduced him to the rest of us kids that summer and he became part of our group for the next few weeks. I forgot his name a long time ago, so I’ll call him Dwayne. One day, my girlfriend next door and I were playing badminton. Dwayne asked if he and my friend’s brother could make it a foursome. Naturally, it was boys against girls. Mixed doubles would have been out of the question, as the lads wanted to win.
Anyway, I forget how it started, but we talked about church that day. I was the lone Catholic with two Lutherans and Dwayne, a Baptist. From a casual discussion, we ventured on to Communion.
Dwayne could be funny, exasperating and honest in equal measure.
‘So, since you’re the Catholic,’ he said, pointing at me, ‘what’s Communion to you?’
‘We eat Christ’s body and blood.’
He started laughing. ‘Really and truthfully?’
‘Yes,’ I said. ‘It’s called transubstantiation.’
‘Ha haaaaaa!’ He doubled over on the lawn. ‘That’s too funny! So you’re a cannibal, then?’
My girlfriend pulled a face. ‘Is that really what you believe? Ewwww. That’s weird.’
For the next few weeks I became known as ‘the cannibal’. Invitations to get together inevitably featured Dwayne saying, ‘Hey, cannibal, y’wanna play badminton with us?’
One morning a month later, he, his aunt and uncle stopped by. ‘Dwayne’s going back home today. He just wanted to say goodbye and thank you for being so nice to him.’ Dwayne looked me in the eye. The corners of his mouth twitched a little. I knew what he was thinking: ‘Cannibal! Ha haaaaaaaaaa!’ Maybe it was because adults were around, but he simply held out his hand to shake mine. ‘Bye. See y’around.’ And that was the last we ever saw of Dwayne.
That happened a long time ago. Nonetheless, I wish that adults had the candour we kids had that summer in talking about our church experiences. Once we grow up it descends into rancour and, in extreme cases, violence. But in discussing our differences sometimes we find a way of moving forward together as friends.
Churchmouse Campanologist 