Why Protestants Are Quick to Reject Catholicism – And What Can Be Done About It

Frank,

I don’t think the quote you provided proves the point you want to make. Ignatius simply says that Docetics don’t partake in the Eucharist because they do not believe it to be the flesh of Christ. In what way is it the flesh of Christ? Ignatius doesn’t say. Instead he simply relates that they don’t believe that Christ came in the flesh and therefore feel no need to partake in the Eucharist. That would be true whether the Eucharist was transubstantiated or consubstatiated or memorial. You’ve reversed the logic here and claimed that he is saying that those who do not partake in the Eucharist do so because they deny that Christ came in the flesh like the Docetics.
Furthermore, is it not a genetic fallacy to say that one who has the same view as another has the same root understanding and reasoning as the other?
If I say that Frank Beckwith rejects abortion, and heretics like Mormons reject abortion because they believe spirit babies need to be born and go through the earthly test to become gods, then Frank Beckwith is committing a Mormon fallacy, is that not an erroneous line of argumentation?
Finally, are you suggesting that Ignatius had the concept of transubstantiation worked out in Aquinas a thousand years later?
This is sort of like saying that Irenaeus was a Pelagian because he spoke often of free will. The all important question, of course, becomes, “What does he mean by “free-will”? Likewise, what does Ignatius mean by “the flesh of Christ” in reference to the Eucharist? Even memorialists use this language of the communion’s representation. One would not discover their referent simply from the language used. More context within the subject we are addressing is needed.

My comment/post #51. was to support my statement that the RCC considers the priest’s utterance of the Words of Institution/Consecration as effecting the transubstantiation of the elements of the Eucharist, whereas it is the EOC (Eastern Orthodox Church) which insists that it’s accomplished solely by the Holy Spirit in response to the Epiclesis, the change (EO’s don’t use the term “transubstantiation”) occurring at some indefinite time between the time of the Epiclesis and when the priest and communicants partake of the bread and wine (the bread is crumbled in the cup and both wine and bread are given to the communicant via a golden spoon). The priest’s power/authority to effect the change does not exist in EOC Eucharistology AFAIK.

Dr. Beckwith, God bless you for rejecting heresy in this, but by saying this you call the anathemas of the council of Trent on yourself.

Wrong. Read the Catechism…
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.”

This quote’s fine (and there are better ones on topic from the same source), but is the Catechism infallible? The Tridentine anathemas are supposed to be:

If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema (Council of Trent, session 22, canon 3).

Here’s another allegedly infallible source:

As often as the Sacrifice of the Cross in which ‘Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed’ (1 Corinthians. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar (i.e. during the mass), the work of our redemption is carried on (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).

I’m not sure whether this one’s infallible, but it seems Ex Cathedra:

The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross (Mediator Dei, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII)

“Finally, are you suggesting that Ignatius had the concept of transubstantiation worked out in Aquinas a thousand years later?”

No, just as I don’t believe the Chalcedonian formulation of the Incarnation can be found in Ignatius as well, even though he clearly believed in the incarnation.

“Transubstantiation,” as a philosophical theory of the Eucharist, is rarely found in Eastern Orthodoxy. But the Catholic Church accepts their priesthood as legitimate and its masses efficacious.

If the belief in Eucharistic realism were unique to Catholicism and depended exclusively on an Aristoteleanism, you would not find it elsewhere.

Wm: All the quotes from Trent you reproduce here are consistent with the Catechism. In fact, the Catechism quotes Trent 10 times in its explanation of the Eucharist: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm You have to read Trent with Catholic eyes, and this means you can’t read it as if it were a systematic theology book published by Zondervan. Catholics don’t write that way. So, for example, you quote passages from Mediator Dei and the Council of Trent, isolated from their historical context as well as the background beliefs of the Catholics who penned them. It turns out, then, if you had dug a bit deeper in Mediator Dei, you would have found this, a passage that quotes from Trent and is in line with the present catechism: “Christ the Lord, “Eternal Priest according to the order of Melchisedech,” “loving His own who were of the world,” “at the last supper, on the night He was betrayed, wishing to leave His beloved Spouse, the Church, a visible sacrifice such as the nature of men requires, that would re-present the bloody sacrifice offered once on the cross, and perpetuate its memory to the end of time, and whose salutary virtue might be applied in remitting those sins which we daily commit, . . .” (emphasis mine). Again, it is from Mediator Dei quoting Trent.

This all seems to…

“No, just as I don’t believe the Chalcedonian formulation of the Incarnation can be found in Ignatius as well, even though he clearly believed in the incarnation.”

But wouldn’t this mean that Ignatius’ concept is, therefore, ambiguous, and not necessarily referring to a concept that is expressed in Thomistic transubstantiation? And if so, isn’t this our point (i.e., he believes in the Eucharist. What the Eucharist is is another matter)?

A final word.

Remember, for the Catholic (and perhaps from some Protestants), though Christ’s death occurred in time and space and thus occurred once and for all, its effects are eternal and not limited by time and space. Thus, all the graces we receive, whether through the sacraments, the prayers of the saints (both in heaven and here), or what we acquire through the works of our Protestant friends (yes, the Catechism maintains that Protestant practices may be a means of grace), all have their source in the self-same Christ and his death. This, we Catholics, call a mystery. It does not bother me if I can’t figure it out perfectly. In fact, if I could, it probably wouldn’t be worth believing.

One more note to Hodge: the genetic fallacy occurs when you say someone’s wrong because of the origin of their beliefs, which is not always a fallacy. If, for example, I believed in Zeus because my palm reader said I should, pointing out the unreliability of that source is not the genetic fallacy. For that reason, your Mormon illustration doesn’t work, since the claim is that Ignatius held to a rudimentary version of Aquinas’s more elaborate account, just as Chalcedon held to a more elaborate theory of the incarnation that was held in primitive form by the Early Church. It is an argument from development not similarity per se.

After I linked to Lisa’s post last night, she commented on my blog and asked me to participate in the discussion. I have done that. But I have to move on. I have to prepare for fall classes as well as a host of other things. Shameless plug. You can read about them here: http://web.me.com/francis.beckwith/FrancisBeckwith.com/Speaking.html

Thank for your queries. ‘Til we meet again…..

I didn’t see Hodge’s last comment, since I was typing at the time. So, let me say this (again, in closing, to be a little Brett Farvreish): Ignatius was not ambiguous about the Eucharist, just as he was not ambiguous about the Incarnation. Both doctrines developed over the centuries. The key conceptual tool is organism, not language. When I see pictures of myself as a 15-year-old I don’t say that that is an ambiguous version of Frank Beckwith. I say that it was an undeveloped version. I am identical to my earlier self, though more mature (and a bit heavier, I am sad to confess, though I still have all my hair).

Thanks for the discussion, Frank, as well as the clarification on the genetic fallacy. I’ll, of course, defer to you on that, since that is your expertise.

I think my issue was that, regardless of Ignatius’ view of the Eucharist, his argument was against docetics rejecting the physical incarnation. His statement then mentioned that they don’t partake in the Eucharist because they reject His physical incarnation. Hence, those who see the Eucharist as something different than Ignatius, even if one were to know what he believed in terms of our current divide over the subject, would not be docetics, since they still partake in the Eucharist. Further, even if they rejected the Eucharist, they may do so for different reasons than the docetics, and hence, not fall under Ignatius’ statement either (although we would all say that those who do so are schismatics and in great sin).

Thanks again for your participation, Frank. I looked forward to it, as I saw Lisa had asked you on your blog (which of course I always read because of the habit you have for making us all think). 😉 Take care.

I didn’t see Hodge’s penultimate comment, since I was typing at the time. So, let me say this (again, in closing, to be a little Brett Farvreish): Ignatius was not ambiguous about the Eucharist, just as he was not ambiguous about the Incarnation. Both doctrines developed over the centuries. The key conceptual tool is organism, not language. When I see pictures of myself as a 15-year-old I don’t say that that is an ambiguous version of Frank Beckwith. I say that it was an undeveloped version. I am identical to my earlier self, though more mature (and a bit heavier, I am sad to confess, though I still have all my hair).

Hodge, well spoken; I was trying to express your point about docetism, but you said it correctly.

There’s another point about patristics… The RCC position on the Church Fathers is inconsistent. They quote from them when their speech vaguely seems to support modern views, but they ignore the historical context (as with the two examples we see about); and then they selectively ignore the Fathers when their views fail to conform to modern RCC teaching. Yes, the Fathers are allowed to be wrong — but this is a Protestant view; according to the Catholic view it must be possible to tell when the Fathers are speaking as a Church and when they’re merely private individuals.

Yet in reality, the only way to tell when the Fathers are right, according to the RCC, is to ask the modern RCC. And how do you know when the modern RCC is right? There’s no way of knowing.

For example, the medieval church taught that purgatory was punishment with a duration, and even as recently as 1901 (Leo XIII) the “Sabbatine privilege” was explained to shorten the amount of time in purgatory (as did other indulgences) — and just recently the Pope “explained” that purgatory doesn’t have a duration, but is rather a change of states. A total contradiction!

There’s a single exception to this “no way of knowing”. The Roman Church has defined a category of knowledge called “dogma”. Contrary to Beckwith’s claim above, the word “dogma” is not an insult used only to refer to Roman Catholic teachings; rather, it’s a technical term defined within the Roman Catholic system. A dogma is an article of knowledge that is certainly true, revealed by God, and beyond doubt. To deny a dogma knowing it to be dogma is to deny God’s truth and to commit a very grave sin — a person actively denying dogma is actively proving what Calvinists might call unregeneration.

Dogma is a wonderful thing…

Today, James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries has posted Part I of an in depth examination of Lisa’s article here, with Part Two to follow.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4113

Highly recommended.

It looks like I missed the party.

I have had a pretty hectic day and am now only able to reply.

Hi Frank,

It is good to talk with you even if it is via comments here at the blog. And yes the Dylan issue is something we will always find agreement on.

I will address a few things here.

You said for me to “… back off the use of purposely rough language. The word “dogma,” for example, though a perfectly fine word, is only employed by you when you refer to Catholic beliefs. Why is that?”

I think perhaps you are mistaking my bluntness for “rough language”. As for my use of the word dogma I only used it once and it wasn’t in the pejorative. It was simply meant to speak to an aspect of Roman Catholic teaching (I think it fair to use the word teaching and dogma interchangeably provided the context allows for it.)

I have no issue using the word dogma as it pertains to my beliefs. But nothing I have said would have necessitated the use of the word. So I am at a loss as to why you are taking exception to my using it in relation to official RCC teaching?

As far as the Christological heresy …

In the RCC view of the Eucharist you have the body of Christ literally being present at the mass. At any and all masses simultaneously. With this being the case it brings into question the type of body Christ has? Transubstantiation makes for a ubiquitous Christ and I don’t see how that can’t be problematic.

This view necessitates that Christ have some sort of non-human body in order for Him to be in so many places simultaneously. That would be a heresy of the Eutychian variety. I would say with further qualification (that I simply don’t have time for right now) that Trent’s position on the Eucharist is in direct contrast to Chalcedon.

If Christ does not have the same body that we do, then we are in a heap of trouble. Either He fully represents us or He does not. Being of a different substance than the rest of humanity would make it difficult for him to be truly and wholly “one of us.” And believing he is of a different substance, conflicts with Chalcedon.

I am well familiar with the catechism pertaining to grace, and justification and merit, which is why I object to it. I know you are familiar enough with the Protestant understanding of sola Fide and going with that, you will understand my objections to the Catholic counterpoint.

That is all I have time for at present as we are right in the middle of our Monday night Romans class.

And no need to reply Frank because I see that you said you had to move on. I just wanted to make sure I addressed your comments seeing as how you took the time to contribute to the discussion here (and moreover address me directly).

Cheers!

Carrie

…but dogma should pertain to things which, if rejected, should directly reject salvation. And what has the Roman Catholic church granted the status of dogma?

Here’s a beautiful summary (I mean it, by the way): http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm.

The first thing they teach is that the main reason to believe anything true is that the Church said it. After that, we see a beautiful list of concepts; but what’s in there?

Read it… The primacy of Mary is no small thing, it’s not a side issue. It’s a dogma.

-Wm

Some things on Carrie’s remarks that I don’t think anyone addressed:

On sola fide being “the heart of the Gospel” – well, it is according to the evangelical-Protestant understanding. It’s in fact a dogma from that particular tradition that belief-that-one-is-saved is all that it takes to demonstrate/accomplish salvation. (Parenthetical: Nowhere in the Bible can one find this doctrine, a novelty of Luther’s that is nowhere to be found in any Christian writing before the 16th century. He actually added the word “only” to his German translation of the Bible even though it’s absent from the Greek.) It’s only if one understands “faith” as actively excluding any possibility of active response or participation, that then, of course, “works” must then be construed as some kind of “add-on”.

The way not to be threatened by the coinstantiation of faith and “works” is to at least entertain the Catholic understanding for what it is, which is that faith changes one so that one can then go on to do fruitful works (cf. Ephesians 2:8-10). I doubt that any Protestant but the most hard-nosed Calvinist would disagree with this; it just needs to be understood for what it is. And it does seem that this is the NT’s operative concept of faith as well.

It’s important to note that the notion of sola fide is sufficient to stave off Pelagianism – it will indeed make sure that no one who understands and believes it is a Pelagian. Sufficient, but not necessary – if one thinks that Catholic doctrine is ipso facto Pelagian, then that’s simply because the standard for “Pelagianism” in use is the evangelical-Protestant one that insists that faith has nothing to with works – but then most of us should agree that that isn’t even the Biblical understanding of faith at all.

I wrote a pretty substantial comment that I’m not 100% sure got submitted correctly, but in any case, here’s the continuation (pls excuse any redundancy):

Lisa’s post also asked “What can be done about it?” I actually just blogged about what I would take to be the answer to this question (shameless plug, I know, but it seems to be awfully apropos). Many attempts to understand “the other side” end up committing what can be called “the fallacy of incomplete analysis” – in trying to analyze an aspect of the other side’s system of thought, the analysis is left incomplete because it is one’s own version of a concept that one attempts to plug into where it seems to go in the opposing viewpoint, whereupon that viewpoint is guaranteed to come out looking grotesque. So the lesson is that one should try to understand the whole system of thought for what it’s supposed to be in the first place – one may still find it wanting, but one will at least have properly understood it. Blog post: http://www.upsaid.com/catholicity/index.php?action=viewcom&id=464

For example, there’s the different operative notions of “faith” – for the Protestant, when one talks about faith in regard to salvation, “works” is actively excluded from consideration. (This will indeed be sufficient – but not necessary – to stave off Pelagianism.) But the Catholic notion doesn’t dichotomize in this way, but includes the works done in faith (cf. Ephesians 2:8-10, in case my previous comment didn’t go through). So it’s not meant to be “either/or”, but “both/and”. What God has put together, let no man put asunder. But if one takes the sola fide notion of faith (Parenthetical: Nowhere to be found in the Bible, it is in fact an innovation of Luther’s and more like a “lens” through which the Bible is read) and plugs it into Catholic doctrine, then of course it will look like you have “faith-plus-works,” as though “works” can only be…

wm in the context I made use of the word it simply spoke to the official teaching of the church.

I could say the teaching that believers and believers alone should be baptized is Baptist dogma. In doing so I am simply stating this is what is officially taught and believed by Baptists.

I don’t even know why something like this has to even be argued at this point.

This is the reason I rarely engage here (or anywhere in the blogosphere).

Lisa said:

I believe Protestants can be more accepting and understanding of Catholic doctrine and practice.

Why should we be more accepting or understanding of a false gospel?

“For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted…For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.” 2Cr 11:4,13-15

Carrie, I suspect Frank mixed your posts and my posts up regarding “dogma”. Mine could more easily be taken to disparage “dogma”, although I actually have a high opinion of dogma. My problem is with dogma that’s not actually revealed by God, but rather is counterfeited as such by men in order to avoid God’s truth and gain glory for themselves.

-Wm

Carrie:

So where in your post did you reveal that you were a Bob Dylan fan? I must have missed that. Or maybe it was a simple twist of fate.

Haha Eric.

Dr. Beckwith and I have discussed Dylan a few times.

First in Atlanta at a lecture, then at ETS, then the times he did Converse with Scholars with us.

Bob Dylan came up each time I think.

As of course he does if you get two Dylan fans together!:D

I see wm.

I mistook your post for arguing the definition of dogma. When a discussion gets to arguing over things like that it wears me out. I reacted poorly to your post due to my mistaking it for something it wasn’t. My apologies.

And I have a high respect for dogma as well.

I am most certainly dogmatic about the person of Christ, the attributes of the Triune God, and the nature of justification.

Thanks Carrie. I’m sitting here at Starbucks in Waco (sounds like the beginning of a Dylan song?), and it occurred to me that I was a bit too sensitive about your use of the term “dogma.” I apologize for that.

I think if we were talking in the 19th century, “dogma” would carry with it all the respectable freight it ought to carry. But today, sadly, our enemies, like Hitchens, Dawkins, etc., use it as a term of derision. When a fellow Christian uses it in the cultural context of that misuse, I see it as a version of “poisoning the wells.” But I am delighted that you have dogmas too. Perhaps one day wecan walk our dogmas together. 🙂

In any event, your comments of the nature of the Eucharist reminded me of Aquinas’ insights on the matter in Summa Theologica. He maintained, quite correctly, that “substantial change” does entail spatial presence, since the things that take up space are the accidents and not the substance. Because substances remain identical to themselves (in contrast to accidents that a substance can lose and gain), the doctrine of transubstantiation does not run afoul of Chalcedon. Here’s Thomas on it in the Summa (specially articles 4, 5, 6): http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article1

I promise that’s it for me. Gotta get back to writing syllabi for the Fall.

Quartodeciman.
Perpetual virginity of Mary.
How/why/if the bread and wine change.
Filioque.

I’ll meet your anathema and raise you two excommunications.

Is Christ divided? Apparently so.

Jesus wept.

When a discussion gets to arguing over things like that it wears me out.

I completely sympathize, and admit that I’ve done exactly that many times in the past (I’m WAY too nitpicky). Yes, you’re right that my “dogma” post wasn’t addressed to you (I hadn’t even noticed you saying “dogma” at the time I wrote it), nor was I intending to contradict your usage. I was actually trying to explain my own usage of it, since I was pretty sure that Beckwith was reacting to my post about dogma.

More later. This is a reasonably interesting discussion.

-Wm

Stuck inside of Starbucks with the caffeine blues again.

James White (there was a link to his blog earlier) wrote this as his conclusion,

“Tradition is a wonderfully nebulous term with an amazing array of definitions, depending on context and usage. Examining history does reveal all sorts of developments over time—and some of us believe that examination constantly drives us back to asking the question, “What does Scripture say?” Any student of church history will have a wider appreciation of the breadth of expression of true Christian faith. Any student of Scripture will have the proper boundaries to keep him or her from wandering out of the realm of revealed truth and into the mire of man’s traditions and concepts.”

Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this kind of dodge the issue of who gets to interpret Scripture which is in many ways at the heart of this debate? While it is certainly true that the RCC has many times strayed into what, from the perspective of a Protestant like myself, is speculative tradition, they have always maintained that Scripture is the ultimate authority and their traditions do not conflict with their interpretation of Scripture.

I can and do believe that their traditions conflict with Scripture (hence why I am not RCC) yet even the most educated among us who have spent their entire lives studying the Scripture cannot agree on what it means on many points. The theological positions of James White himself are not shared by the majority of Evangelical theologians many who are equally or more educated then him. Thus unless their interpretations of Scripture can be shown to be completely impossible (which I haven’t seen yet – certainly some that are implausible, but not impossible) we are kinda at an impasse. You have your interpretation and I have mine and because you don’t agree with ME you are an apostate heretic (this goes from Protestant Denomination to Protestant Denomination and from Protestant to Catholic, and from Catholic to Protestant, etc.).

Yes, and some people who don’t like the impasse or the tension or finally get tired of it all join a communion that has made and makes and will make all the decisions on the big things for them. I recall Malcolm Muggeridge saying as much when he joined the Catholic Church. I.e., he was happy that he didn’t have to wrestle any more with the questions (at least that’s how some news stories reported or quoted him).

Some chuck it all and leave the faith or enter a semi-agnostic stage.

James White’s sister, Patty Bonds, converted to Catholicism.

Wow, so many comments and issues to tackle. Thanks all keeping this discussion civil. And a special thanks to Dr. Beckwith for your contributions here.

Michael T wrote

Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this kind of dodge the issue of who gets to interpret Scripture which is in many ways at the heart of this debate? While it is certainly true that the RCC has many times strayed into what, from the perspective of a Protestant like myself, is speculative tradition, they have always maintained that Scripture is the ultimate authority and their traditions do not conflict with their interpretation of Scripture.

Yes, that is at the heart of the debate and what I was attempting to communicate regarding the authority of the church. As long as Protestants view the RCC through the lens of sola scriptura, the practices of the RCC will necessarily be deemed egregious and inconsistent with scripture because that is where we derive our authority. But if authority rests in the church, it is the churches responsibility to assure that faith and practice is not only consistent with scriptural authority but with apostolic tradition, even for practices that evolved over time and implemented later. That is where I find White’s comment regarding tradition dismissive of the emphasis and authority that the RCC places on the church.

It is this emphasis that I have grown to appreciate with increasing study, although I am not in total agreement. The RCC places a much higher value on the body of Christ as a visible representation of Christ than us Protestants concede both in faith and practice. And it is a representation that seeks to be faithful to the apostolic tradition, or at least their interpretation of it. There is something to be gleaned there if we’re willing to listen.

Now there are certain practices that we would deem completely out of step with not only scripture but the interpretation of the apostolic tradition, such as the doctrine of Mariology. Yet, if we consider the development of the doctrine in context of the RCC doctrine of the church, we will at least have to consider the faithfulness to the historic Christian faith that the RCC seeks to uphold. That is what Luther was aggrieved by, that practices had become corrupted and not faithful at all to the witness of scripture or the apostolic tradition.

And I thought the Reformation was a good thing. When I see Martin Luther in heaven I’ll have to remember to tell him that his labors and sacrifices were for naught. I guess I should forget about the 5 solas too.

Scott, not sure how you draw that conclusion based on what I’ve written. I in no way contend that the Reformation was not worth it or that Luther’s sacrifices were in vain.

Hi Frank,

Any activity in Waco makes good subject matter for a Dylan tune, as the word “Waco” is simply poetic. 🙂

I am familiar with the Thomistic position on the Eucharist. Which again, due to the fact I do understand it, is why I object to it.

Aquinas falls short (to put it mildly) in suggesting that Christ’s body changes in any way (which regardless of how it is argued that is exactly what he is doing). I don’t see how this “new substance” that the Thomist model demands does not conflict with Chalcedon. And when I say “new substance: I am speaking to this magical body that Christ is required to have in order for him to be present in the wafer and the wine at just one mass, let alone thousands.

In short, Jesus will always be our representative. That will never change. If there is some substantial change in his human substance, we lose our representative and are stuck back where we started. He ceases to be the “New Adam”.

Thinking this through I can say with some hesitation that this again speaks to the stark contrast between the RCC and Protestant views surrounding the role of Christ in our justification.

Because we as Protestants rely solely upon the person of Christ being our representative (vicariously taking our penalty on the cross, intervening with the Father on our behalf, his righteousness being imputed to us etc) it makes sense that we would balk at the Thomist understanding of The Lord’s Table.

We do not want a Christ with a body that transforms into something other than a human one (which is what Aquinas’ “substantial change” entails). We can’t have a Christ that does that. Our entire basis of justification depends upon him being 100% human (and 100% divine) at all times in every way.

Interesting that justification comes into play here. I really am regretting the hasty comments I made yesterday which downplayed the significance of the RCC position on the Eucharist. Thinking it through I can see how it really factors in to the entire debate regarding justification and ultimately the Gospel itself.

OK back to Boot Camp. Funny enough we are discussing Apollonarianism and Euthycianism at the very moment I type this!

Thanks for the exchange Frank.

Hope you can make it up here to Credo for a visit soon. I’ll make you a Luther Latte! 😉

Scott #80-

I think you are actually confirming Lisa’s point in the post.

If we look and consider some of the good in RCC (or EO), that does not mean we are dissing the Reformation.

In comments #65 and #66 above, I pointed to a way for Protestants to avoid misunderstanding Catholic doctrines as though they were obviously contrary to Scripture (then it was buried in a flurry of rejoinders to previous posts, so some may have missed it).

Anyway, things that Carrie is saying continue to provide apt material on which the principle of interpretation I spelled out can be used. For example, if it seems that having sacraments entails relying on something other than Christ for our justification, then you’ve imported your own non-sacramental view of imputed justification and tried to plug it into Catholic doctrine, which is guaranteed to come out looking grotesque. What has to be understood is that for the Catholic, Christ being our justification involves something more than simply believing that He is: it is the receiving of the sacraments by which we receive that justification. So according to that view, the sacraments, far from being “works” that we “add” to Christ’s work, are just the channel by which we literally receive Him.

In other words, the way to understand St. Thomas’s views on the sacraments is that he doesn’t think that they add something foreign to Christ’s work – far from it. Unless you can show that he’s internally inconsistent in his understanding – i.e., without assuming in advance the Protestant view of how justification is imputed/infused – then you simply haven’t understood it.

The difference between Catholics and Protestants is not in Christ’s role in our justification – this is a very common misconception itself. Both in fact agree that Christ is our justification and we can’t add any unregenerate works to it (the only thing we “contribute” is the works that come from faith, which is ultimately due to God’s work in us – these are the “works” that St. Paul keeps referring to in positive terms). To understand this, one must simply steer clear of the fallacy of…

(These comment length restrictions are a bit of a pain – but Carrie evinces so many fundamental misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine, that they need to be addressed, particularly given the intent of the original post. Frank seems to have been too busy to do so, but as it happens, I’m not!)

Carrie seems only able to understand St. Thomas Aquinas’ explanation of the Eucharist in such a way that it conflicts with Chalcedonian Christology. Here’s a suggestion (not meant to be ad hominem) – one could keep in mind that there’s been perhaps no other mind with such broad and deep greater theological understanding as St. Thomas. Now, which seems objectively more likely – that he actually promulgated a doctrine that is inconsistent with orthodox Christology, and didn’t notice it, and neither did any subsequent Catholic theologians, or that you’re just missing something important in your own understanding of it? To put it more starkly, imagine yourself going back in time and pointing out to St. Thomas Aquinas the error of his ways. Which do you think is more likely, that he is in fact wrong and should say “goodness, I never noticed that! I’ve obviously been wrong all this time!”, or that you are simply confused and that he will give you a right schooling?

Again, this isn’t meant to be ad hominem, it’s just a way to point to the importance of interpreting charitably, even if it might mean that you have to acknowledge that you might be missing something. Unfortunately, many Protestants will just “prooftext” things that they think show a Catholic doctrine contradictory to scripture or whatnot, and then close the book on it (not realizing that they’re already bringing their own preconceptions to the table to begin with). An implication of this standpoint: if it really was that simple, then it would seem that the RCC has perpetuated a vast conspiracy to suppress what the Bible “clearly” teaches. Again, is this more likely than that you’ve simply…

I know the “change in the bread and wine” viewpoint entered the church(es) somewhat early, but I can’t help but think that it arose as a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what Jesus said and did, including His words in John 6, the “gotcha” verses that RCC apologists are quick to chide Evangelical Protestants for not taking “literally” when they (Evangelical Protestants) otherwise insist that the Bible is to be taken literally where possible.

But it’s absent from the earliest liturgies (e.g., Addai and Mari), and is not present in The Didache. The idea is foreign to the Passover setting of the Last Supper. I don’t know how or when or why it arose, as well as the idea that the bread and wine are to be offered up on an altar (which is present in Addai and Mari) and the later idea that a priest class had to do and oversee this. Nor do I know where or when they got the idea that “remembrance” (anamnêsis) somehow means more than “remembrance/memorial” in the sense that Jesus actually becomes present in the elements, a (re)calling of the past into present existence, so to speak.

All I know is that the words and actions of the Last Supper as well as 1 Corinthians 10-11 and John 6 can be understood and explained perfectly well without resorting to insisting that the bread and wine become Jesus Christ body, blood, soul and divinity, a belief and practice that turns Christianity into a Mystery Cult with its anointed and ordained clergy/priestly class standing above the people and between them and God, a place(s)/position(s) that is and belongs to Jesus alone, and which He alone holds.

And finally, down to brass tacks, I think that specific points that Carrie made in her attempt to understand the Thomistic explanation of the Eucharist need to be addressed. (Again, Carrie, not to be ad hominem, but it just needs to be pointed out that no, you don’t in fact understand St. Thomas on the Eucharist.)

You said: “We do not want a Christ with a body that transforms into something other than a human one (which is what Aquinas’ “substantial change” entails).” I don’t know what context specifically you’re taking the quotes from, but what St. Thomas does say is that there’s a substantial change in the bread and wine so that it becomes identical with the body and blood of Christ. This does not entail that the body and blood of Christ that are now in heaven become something other than what they are. You might finagle some kind of interpretation like that, but only out of ignorance of what a “substance” is supposed to be. (Again, it would be wise to entertain the thought, if only for the sake of charitable interpretation, that St. Thomas’ understanding of Aristotelian substance, which is the notion he’s explicitly working with here, is more solid than yours.)

Again to the point of the fallacy of incomplete analysis, if you’re only willing to understand the Eucharist to begin with in Protestant terms according to which it can’t actually literally be the body and blood of Christ, then of course it’s going to seem like an extraneous addition to Christ’s work. All that amounts to is a restatement of the fact that you disagree with the idea, not an argument against it.

“I know the “change in the bread and wine” viewpoint entered the church(es) somewhat early, but I can’t help but think that it arose as a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what Jesus said and did,”

Well, the Holy Spirit must’ve been sleeping on the job, then, to allow such a pernicious error to become “orthodoxy” for so long, until finally Luther came along to set us straight, right? It’s only since then, that apparent legitimacy has been given to each person being their own final arbiter of what Scripture really says, that such a thing could be thought remotely plausible.

If you can overlook the sarcasm, this isn’t meant to be just a potshot or something – it’s a plea to think through the logical consequences of what you’re suggesting, weigh everything together, and think through which bullets you’re willing to bite.

But the Roman Catholic Council of Trent anathematizes us who hold to a true Biblical gospel. And Paul anathematizes (Galatians 1) false gospels.

CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

CANON 12: “If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed”

Canon 14: “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.”

I could go on (see also Canon 23, 24, 30 & 33)

So, it is a nice thought (unity) but it can’t be reconciled with Scripture. We can love them and they can be lovely people, but that doesn’t make them Christians.

I think looking to the cats in the first few centuries of the church as though they had it all figured out is a mistake.

There was some out and out loopy stuff floating around.

Considering a large part of the church was under heavy persecution and subsequently unable to get together and talk shop lent itself to weird doctrinal development.

I think it wise to consider this.

They didn’t have it all figured out anymore than we do.

It certainly doesn’t mean that we have not developed a clearer understanding of truth through the past two millennium. Quite the contrary! Our understanding of that which is true continues to strengthen and deepen as God continues to illuminate our hearts and minds with the power of His Holy Spirit.

If God functions this way in the individual believers life why would we not think He does the same on a collective level (as in with the Body of Christ).

OK back to work.

Ciao.

Carrie

How are Protestants supposed to accept an institution that says our churches aren’t true churches and do not have the means of salvation?

Why is it so often Protestants who are trying to make way for the acceptance of Rome without calling for Catholics to reject such positions?

Just some thoughts that came to my mind as I walked past the statue of Jan van Werth this afternoon.
Was the Reformation all good? I do not know.
Maybe Luther really was politically naive. Maybe he really only was interested in theology and philosophy. Maybe he learned too late that faith not only moves the hearts of believers, but also armies. Maybe the princes of Europe would have found another reason to wage their wars. Maybe they took the reformation just as an excuse to slaughter two-thirds of the population in southern Germany.
Maybe…
But what if not? Does Luther’s „Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders!“ really sound all-good and liberating, when it is echo by the battle cries of warlords?
Are the Solas worth two or three million lifes?
What if Luther had found an agreement with Cajetan and joined the catholic reformation? What would Europe look like today? And what would the church would look like today?
You all write with an ease about the faith that I lack some way. As if the faith would be something private, an opinion or a mental exercise. As if the unity of faith would be a matter of taste. I often ask myself, if -and if -when Europe has ceased to believe. Sometimes, only sometimes I think it was the day on which my ancestors celebated Jan van Werth as a liberator.

The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist and the priesthood, which is the center of Catholic faith and practice, is wrong, and more wrong than even Luther was able to recognize. It’s not that Luther went too far. He didn’t go far enough.

Christ died and rose again to bring forth a New (Hu)man, a New Creation. He established His many-membered body, not another human priesthood that has to stand and intercede on earth for the people. WE are the Temple and Tabernacle and altar. We die daily as Christ lives in us; we don’t re-offer His death continually. We were joined to His death in baptism, but we are joined to His life by His Spirit, which lives in and among us.

If our Gospel is or has been obscured, it is not because we are hiding it.

There are so many misconceptions about Catholic doctrine being posted on here that one simply cannot keep up. I wrote several comments that attempted to address them, but after several hours they still haven’t shown up. Perhaps I violated the letter of the law in the “Rules of Engagement” about not “spamming” a post with multiple comments?

Responding to EricW’s second paragraph in #89 – the Catholic understanding is not that it’s either/or between Christ and a priesthood, it’s both/and. Why do we need a priesthood? Because, as we say, there has to be a church. A mereological sum of individuals with a certain belief is not a church. Now, you might think it does come down to the individual, but understand at least that it is this that marks out the Catholic difference: the emphasis is on the Church, not because we think there’s something over and above Christ that we need.

“WE are Christ’s body and temple” – indeed, we. But who does “we” refer to? The Protestant reads the word “we” in St. Paul’s epistles and assumes it refers to “anyone who believes these words.” The Catholic assumption (which was the assumption of everyone before the 16th century) is that “we” refers to the Church. Now as I’ve said, a kind of abstract object that refers to the sum total of “believers” is not a Church, on the Catholic view. Yes, the whole Church is in essence a “holy priesthood.” But there’s a difference between that and Priesthood with a capital-P. Without Priests, there’s no church. Without a church, there’s no Church. Without a Church, there are no priests. That’s the Catholic view, in any case, and if one disagrees, one should at least understand what it is one disagrees with. (See also Christ’s words to his apostles that gave them authority: on the Catholic view, that initiated the Church, not just applied to those individuals, after which said authority died out.)

FWIW, it’s post #93., not #89., that Micah is responding to.

I’ll let someone else respond to him, because the fact that he states and believes that there is and can be no “church” without a specially-ordained class of (male-only) persons called “Priests” (capital P) means that we are at odds with each other re: the meaning of “church” and the place and need for intermediating human priests (or, rather, “Priests”) in Christ’s Body.

Christ is our Priest, our High Priest, who having once offered Himself for the putting away of sins has sat down at the right hand of God. Fini.

Nevermind ….

About four comments that I wrote earlier, mainly responding to statements that Carrie made, have now shown up; thus, the comments being renumbered (earlier comments of mine being ##s 84, 85, 87, and 88).

So it sounds like the Protestant line being given here to Lisa Robinson’s original query is just basically, “Well, they’re obviously wrong, here’s chapter and verse, so they aren’t really Christians – that’s why!” Is that pretty much it?

What I’ve tried to offer is a way of understanding Catholic doctrine that at least doesn’t misrepresent it – you can disagree with the internal principles at work, but at least understand what it is that you’re disagreeing with. The upshot is that is simply false that the RCC has a fundamentally different view of justification (rather, it teaches that it has a concrete realization in the sacraments), teaches that we need to “add works” to faith (rather, it teaches that the works that come from God’s gift of faith are part of the salvation process; i.e., sanctification – to think that works are irrelevant is just plain unBiblical), that we need “additional” mediators because Jesus isn’t enough (rather, it teaches that the Church is just the way we come to Jesus, as opposed to on an individual, subjective basis), etc.

First off I don’t know how or anyone has time to write these lengthy replies.

So I will try to do this in short questions and answer as that is all my schedule will permit…

Micha what kind of body does Christ have that items of food can be transformed into it?

Micah, thank you for that cogent response and clarification. However, please be respectful of the blog rules regarding posting several comments right after another. Summarizing the salient points can be a challenging yet fruitful exercise 😉

And I especially want to thank you for the clarification on the Thomist view of the Eucharist. I was wrestling a bit with Carrie’s contention that justification was somehow impacted if the host is believed to be a different substance than Christ’s body. While I see her point regarding Euthycianism, it does not appear that you all would believe that is applicable to the hypostatic union as existed during Christ’s earthly ministry whereby a final sacrifice was appropriated on the cross according to Hebrews 10:12. Is that correct? However, I am a bit fuzzy on how that works with transubstitiation unless it is solely for the purpose of participation of the union with Christ on the basis of his final sacrifice and not a dispensation of divine substance needed for an effective Christian life.

Re: #88.:

Yes, Micah, I’ve thought through the logical consequences, and they’re not pleasant. They’ve caused me many restless nights and days, because it can raise serious and disturbing questions.

Was the Holy Spirit sleeping?

Or were people not listening?

Or does the Spirit graciously meet people where they are despite their errors of belief and practice, whether Protestant or Catholic?

God is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth.

Or maybe I should just join Carrie and say “Nevermind….” 🙂

Pax