# CRC on Catholic Mass



## Scott (Sep 9, 2004)

The 2004 CRC synod has voted to change Q/A 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the popish mass?

A. The Lord's supper testifies to us that we have full pardon of all our sins by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself has once accomplished on the cross; and that by the Holy Spirit we are ingrafted into Christ, who according to His human nature is now not on earth but in heaven, at the right hand of God His Father, and wills there to be worshipped by us; but the mass teaches that the living and the dead have not the forgiveness of sins through the sufferings of Christ unless Christ is still daily offered for them by the priests; and that Christ is bodily present under the form of bread and wine and is therefore to be worshipped in them. And thus the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.

The Christian Reformed Church's Interchurch Relations Committee was recently charged with studying Q/A 80 and consulting with Roman Catholic theologians in order to assess the accuracy and viability of this particular Q/A. Ultimately, they came to Synod 2004 with the recommendation that the Q/A be dropped into a footnote. In the committee's assessment, "The Mass, when celebrated in accordance with official Roman Catholic teaching, neither denies the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ nor constitutes idolatry."

Ultimately, the Synod voted that at least in its current form, Q/A must be dropped from the confession. It has not yet been decided what precisely is to be done with it, however.

Is anyone on the board in the CRC? What are thoughts on this?

Scott


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 9, 2004)

Wow! How far the CRC has fallen!


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 9, 2004)

I love the Heidelberg Catechism. Why they gots to mess with it?


----------



## sastark (Sep 9, 2004)

[quote:cf38e7b15a="VirginiaHuguenot"]Wow! How far the CRC has fallen![/quote:cf38e7b15a]

My thoughts exactly. How can the adoration of a piece of bread NOT be considered idolatry?

Oh, right, because "Hocus Pocus" it is now the body of Christ!

This is really, really sad/scary. Pray for the CRC!


----------



## Scott (Sep 9, 2004)

They are definitely on a downward slide. As I recall, the OPC broker relations with the CRC over women pastors. That was a crucial failure in itself.


----------



## Scott (Sep 9, 2004)

[quote:fcfe5d1f1c]Oh, right, because "Hocus Pocus" it is now the body of Christ! 
[/quote:fcfe5d1f1c]

Be careful. I know what you are saying, but it sounds dangerously close to memorialism, which is the opposite error of transsubstation and is about as serious. Christ is truly present in the bread and wine. 

From Westminster Larger Catechism 170
[quote:fcfe5d1f1c]Q. 170. How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord"(tm)s supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?
A. As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord"(tm)s supper, and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord"(tm)s supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death. 
[/quote:fcfe5d1f1c]

Note also 174, which affirmatively requires us to "discern the Lord's body" in the sacrament.

[quote:fcfe5d1f1c]Q. 174. What is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord"(tm)s supper in the time of the administration of it?
A. It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord"(tm)s supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions, heedfully discern the Lord"(tm)s body, and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints. [/quote:fcfe5d1f1c]


----------



## Scott (Sep 9, 2004)

Craig: What is the deal with Smallville?


----------



## sastark (Sep 9, 2004)

[quote:67369a9d19="Scott"]
Be careful. I know what you are saying, but it sounds dangerously close to memorialism, which is the opposite error of transsubstation and is about as serious. Christ is truly present in the bread and wine. 
[/quote:67369a9d19]

Don't worry. We are on the same page when it comes to the Lord's Table. I was only pointing out the foolishness of the Mass somehow "magically" transforming bread into Christ's body.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Sep 9, 2004)

Except for the host turning into the literal body of Christ, is there any other idolatry during the Mass?


----------



## Craig (Sep 9, 2004)

[quote:aae85b6177]Except for the host turning into the literal body of Christ, is there any other idolatry during the Mass?[/quote:aae85b6177]
That's the central focus for the Eucharist...but is there any other idolatry during the Mass? Yes. Just look around their "sanctuary" surrounding the people with relics, icons, prayers are said for the dead, hymns are sung to Mary...I would say the whole thing is idolatrous.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Sep 10, 2004)

[quote:1d7b75a7c1="Craig"]hymns are sung to Mary...I would say the whole thing is idolatrous.[/quote:1d7b75a7c1] isnt that just a myth blown out of proportion. I do not doubt there have been Catholics who have done this but officially the worship of Mary is a deadly sin according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. I have never heard a Catholic respond with favour on such people and the one people I even hear these stories from are Reformed die-hards.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 10, 2004)

Not surprisingly, this board is comprised mainly of "Reformed die-hards" who are generally distressed with the amount of theological slide or drift in Protestantism generally in the last 150 years. If we sound like we are repeating the same accusations against RCCism that were leveled over 450 years ago, its because in key ways (doctrinal fundamentals and essentials of practice) the RCC is still the same. At Trent, they declared themselves irreformable, and that pronouncement is still the official creed of their communion. 

Changes made by Vatican II were in some ways quite radical, and many traditionalist (e.g. Latin Rite) Catholics are still hostile to many of the changes. "Liberal theology" is ascendant in the RCC leadership today as it is in Protestantism, except that apart from some odd sects with anti-popes, the RCC member/priest has no where else to go--according to their faith, there is no other true church. So they also live with "revolutions within the form." 

So what do we have to cry out against? All three--their official (traditional) doctrine, their practice, and their liberal (modern) unscriptural innovations and pronouncements as well.

The RCC has long since maintained the distinction--which is in truth a "distinction without a difference"--between [i:f85bcaf4cb]latria[/i:f85bcaf4cb] and [i:f85bcaf4cb]doulia,[/i:f85bcaf4cb] or two different kinds of obeisance. One they say is for God (worship), the other they say is acceptable "veneration" or "service" to saints, and especially to Mary, who are in fact prayed to as if they were capable of receiving said prayers and acting, or interceding to the Father and Son, on the petitioner's behalf. The Bible knows no such distinction, and in fact uses both the Greek cognates for describing God's exclusive rights to our reverence.

The Ave Maria (Hail Mary) is quite plainly a paean to Mary, regardless of the number and kind of dodges used by RCC laymen and apologists to avoid the charge. This may be the "outsiders" perspective, but it's hard to argue with the words themselves, even allowing for the fact that these words were spoken to Mary (in the flesh) by Gabriel and recorded for us in Scripture. To whom are the congregants, or choristers, or rosary mumblers addressing these lines?

Beside the biblcal prohibition of any attempt to speak with the dead, the act of so praying also attributes the divine attributes of omnipresence and omniscience to these spirits. These are incommunicble attributes, meaning that they are of the essence of God's divine nature and are not shared with any other being. To so ascribe them is idolatrous by definition.

The sacerdotal system of "mediated grace" denies the sufficiency of the high priesthood of Christ and of the "priesthood of believers." The sacramental system of efficacy [i:f85bcaf4cb]ex opere operato,[/i:f85bcaf4cb] is a denial of the necessity of faith and true belief prerequisite for the conferring of God's blessing. And the whole notion of a continuous sacrifice of Christ in the mass is a denial of the sufficiency of Jesus the Sacrifice, once and for all (Heb. 9:26-28). 

So, not only is the ridiculous practice of worshipping the wafer idolatrous by definition, but the whole act of "offering" the mass, the worth attributed to the simple activity (as if it contributed to a "treasury of merit" in heaven), and the special investiture of the priest, all combine to render the whole of the thing [b:f85bcaf4cb]most[/b:f85bcaf4cb] idolatrous.

These things mentioned will all no doubt be challenged by RCCers on many levels, not least of which is the right of someone outside to pass censure on them. But that is to argue in an historical vacuum. The only way that these points become invalid is if some fundamental change has taken place in the last 500 years. If not, then the "die-hard" arguments are as valid today as they were then. The truth cannot change.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Sep 10, 2004)

Please in no way think I am leaping to the Catholics aid and supporting them in everything BUT I believe which should not always jump so quickly to judgment and I do not believe Catholics worship Mary - which as i said is a deadly sin within the RCC. Even in the Hail Mary they are lifting words straight from scripture.

Which reminds me, how do protestants explain in Revelation (I have just searched for it but can not find it - those of you that know the answer probably know where it is) where it has the martyrs underneath the throne of God who pass up the prayers of the saints?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 10, 2004)

Bruce, 

Speaking as an ex-Roman Catholic by the grace of God, I can testify that your critique of the RCC is right on. Thank you, brother.


----------



## Craig (Sep 10, 2004)

Fraser[quote:7ceccaa5e0]isnt that just a myth blown out of proportion[/quote:7ceccaa5e0]
When I went to a Mass a few years ago (about 5 yrs), contained in the hymns were praises for Mary...not merely "she was a saint of God", it was worshipful. I can honestly say this is not a critique I formed while being a Calvinist...this was prior to my acceptance of Reformed theology. I was, at that point, an Arminian that was into the perfectionism of Wesley and was also into the charasmatic movement...at that time, I found the whole Mass idolotrous.

I'm not trying to say I was completely objective, but going to Mass was part of my "understanding Roman Catholicism" course at school...a very ecumenical class, I might add...I even thought RC as more of a denom than a cult at that point...then I learned what they taught (remember, this was an ecumenical course to 'help us' accept that they're Christians too)...then I actually went to Mass...that changed my opinion. It'd be interesting to see how I'd respond NOW if in that situation again!


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 10, 2004)

Fraser,

I guess you are not aware of RCC position on Mary as Mediatrix of all graces. Here is a link to the EWTN site on this issue. It is from this idea that Mary as Co-Redemtrix has come.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 10, 2004)

Here is an interesting article on Mariolatry by a former Roman Catholic nun: http://www.catholicconcerns.com/MaryWorship.html


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 10, 2004)

Here is an interesting article on Mariolatry by a former Roman Catholic nun: http://www.catholicconcerns.com/MaryWorship.html


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 10, 2004)

[quote:659cef3c32="Scott"]Craig: What is the deal with Smallville?[/quote:659cef3c32]

What do you mean? Are you asking what it is?


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Sep 11, 2004)

[quote:8b8432c4a3="wsw201"]Fraser,

I guess you are not aware of RCC position on Mary as Mediatrix of all graces. Here is a link to the EWTN site on this issue. It is from this idea that Mary as Co-Redemtrix has come.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm[/quote:8b8432c4a3]I had not heard of that before, you are right. The Catholics I have spoken to might not believe it, I do not know. All I know is they were very strictly against the worship of Mary. The RCC is so large and within it there are so many factions it is hard to generalise.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 11, 2004)

Fraser,

EWTN is the official RCC television network here in the US. I watch it sometimes. Quite interesting. They provide official info for the RCC so you can take the info from this site as the official position of the RCC. You are probably right about some RC's not buying into this, but that is true on a number of issues such as birth control.

You are right about the factions in the RCC. Protestants call them "denominations".


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Sep 11, 2004)

[quote:2eeefba2cc="wsw201"]You are right about the factions in the RCC. Protestants call them "denominations".[/quote:2eeefba2cc]Yeah but "denominations" didnt really sound right in context. The Catholics who are split on the issue still think themselves to be within the same denomination, they just have different views on things.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 11, 2004)

Fraser if you find a Catholic who does not believe that Mary is to be venerated let us know. And tell them to inform their priests.


----------



## Scott (Sep 13, 2004)

[quote:ade18b0955]The sacerdotal system of "mediated grace" denies the sufficiency of the high priesthood of Christ and of the "priesthood of believers." [/quote:ade18b0955]

What is your concern with mediated grace? Classical Protestantism, as expressed for example in the Westminster Confession, teaches that God confers grace through the sacraments and the only duly ordained clergy may properly adminster the sacraments. The priesthood of the believer has nothing to do with dethroning a clerical class. And I am speaking of a Protestant clerical class, not the RC preisthood.

Scott


----------



## Scott (Sep 13, 2004)

Craig: What gave you such a high interest in Smallville?


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 13, 2004)

[quote:5fbc9faf79="Scott"][quote:5fbc9faf79]The sacerdotal system of "mediated grace" denies the sufficiency of the high priesthood of Christ and of the "priesthood of believers." [/quote:5fbc9faf79]

What is your concern with mediated grace? Classical Protestantism, as expressed for example in the Westminster Confession, teaches that God confers grace through the sacraments and the only duly ordained clergy may properly adminster the sacraments. The priesthood of the believer has nothing to do with dethroning a clerical class. And I am speaking of a Protestant clerical class, not the RC preisthood.

Scott[/quote:5fbc9faf79]

But the distinction is, isn't it, that for the Romanists grace is mediated by the sacrament, and the Biblical view is that grace is mediated by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Scott (Sep 14, 2004)

Reformed views of the sacraments certainly have differences from Catholicism. Still, the Holy Spirit mediates grace through the elements of the sacrament. This is different from anabaptistic and evangelical views that all grace is only immediate by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 15, 2004)

[quote:7e7d819446]The sacerdotal system of "mediated grace" denies the sufficiency of the high priesthood of Christ and of the "priesthood of believers."[/quote:7e7d819446] I stand by this, my original statement. RCC is a sacerdotal [i:7e7d819446]system.[/i:7e7d819446] RCC has [i:7e7d819446]priests[/i:7e7d819446] who [b:7e7d819446]are[/b:7e7d819446] the mediators between God, and [i:7e7d819446]everybody else.[/i:7e7d819446] If you want to be blessed by God, i.e. be the beneficiary of his grace, you [i:7e7d819446]have to have[/i:7e7d819446] the sacraments. And to get them you must go to a RCC priest. 

In the RCC: do you want to have original sin removed? You have to be baptized. Who can baptize you? The priest. Who hears your confession and grants you forgiveness? The priest. Who nourishes you in the Eucharistic meal? The priest. 

Listen to the RCC Catechism: [quote:7e7d819446][b:7e7d819446]1548[/b:7e7d819446] In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts [i:7e7d819446]in persona Christi Capitis:[/i:7e7d819446] [quote:7e7d819446]It is the same priest ,Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration he has recieved, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself ([i:7e7d819446]virtute ac persona ipsius Christi[/i:7e7d819446])....[/quote:7e7d819446] 
[b:7e7d819446]1549[/b:7e7d819446] Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as the head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers.... He is like the living image of God the Father.

[b:7e7d819446]1550[/b:7e7d819446] This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weakness, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, [u:7e7d819446]so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace[/u:7e7d819446] [emphasis mine], in many other ways the minster leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church.

----------

[b:7e7d819446]1552[/b:7e7d819446] The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ--Head of the Church--before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice.

[b:7e7d819446]1553[/b:7e7d819446] "In the name of the [i:7e7d819446]whole[/i:7e7d819446] Church" does not mean that priests are the delegates of the whole community. The prayer and offering of the Church are inseparable from the prayer and offering of Christ, her head; it is always the case that Christ worships in and through his Church. The whole Church, the Body of Christ, prays and offers herself "through him, with him, in him," in the unity of the Holy Spirit to God the Father. The whole Body, [i:7e7d819446]caput et membra[/i:7e7d819446] [head and members] prays and offers itself, and therefore those who in the Body are especially his ministers are called ministers not only of Christ, but also of the Church. It is beause the minsterial priesthood represents Christ that it can represent the Church.[/quote:7e7d819446]

That is almost too much to handle, I realize. But this lengthy quote shows in several ways the RCC understanding of the service of her priests. To elaborate the final point: the pope is the earthly fount of all the grace on earth, because he embodies on the earth, [i:7e7d819446]in one man,[/i:7e7d819446] both Christ and the Church. Then he dispenses that grace especially to bishops, who in turn dispense it especially to priests, thus "diffusing" this ministry over the globe. Do you see how God stands on one side, and the masses on the other side, and in between are the priests? This is the RCC religion.

[b:7e7d819446]THIS IS NOT THE PROTESTANT, REFORMED VIEW OF THE MINISTRY,[/b:7e7d819446] or its mediation of God's grace.


----------



## Scott (Sep 15, 2004)

Contra Mundum:

I agree that the RCC system is different from the Protestant system. However, some of your criticisms of RCC are broad enough to condemn historical Protestant (biblical) practices (as affirmed by the Westminster Confession, for example). For example, Protestants recognize the mediatorial work of her clergy. Indeed, the sacraments that only they may adminster actually confer God's grace. Many of these doctrines are now out of vogue in evangelicalism, which is basically the victory of anabaptism. 

Protestant theology teaches that the sacraments nourish us with actual grace. Indeed, our confessional standards indicate that they are effectual to salvation.

[quote:d2ed6f7aee]LC Q. 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted. [/quote:d2ed6f7aee]

They are not merely symbolic; they confer the grace they promise. Protestant theology also teaches that only lawfully ordained ministers may adminster the sacraments. For example, WCF 27.4 reads: "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." This creates a clergy class. 

The clergy class also have the keys of the kingdom, which includes the power to retain and remit the sins of others through censure and absolution. See WCF 30.2. 

Now, hopefully you agree with all this. Perhaps I am misreading your posts. But they seem to me to comdemn basic practices of historical Protestants (not baptists / anabaptists).

Scott


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 16, 2004)

Scott,
Dear brother, I can't (nobody can) take every heresy on, and defend every orthodoxy in a single bb post, or even a series of them. That's why there is all this proliferation of fora on this board. Don't take me to task for not defending something, when it wasn't my intent to defend anything, but to attack an error.

Your purpose has been (so it has seemed to me) to defend a Protestant theology of the ministry, but you have used my criticisms of RCC theology as if I had also attacked Protestant theology (by a blunderbuss tactic). Did I? Can you demonstrate that? Are you mainly concerned with what [i:7b422293aa]might be[/i:7b422293aa] infered from my presentation by careless readers who lack an independently formed theology of the ministry, and of the sacraments? My responsibilities to these people are limited. I can't be responsible to shield every person from errors of deduction.

Look what happens when I say something similar about one of your statments: [quote:7b422293aa]The clergy class also have the keys of the kingdom, which includes the power to retain and remit the sins of others through censure and absolution. See WCF 30.2.[/quote:7b422293aa] Hopefully you agree that the RCC perception of this power (as exercised through the magisterium, auricular confession, priestly absolution, and the sacrament of Penance) is so far removed from the Protestant one as that, when compared, the two are seen to be utterly distinct things. But it was your purpose to state positively the Protestant belief on the power of church government (as evidenced by your appeal to the WCF). Before the question is raised, are you obliged to double the length of your statement in order to answer it, and a hundred others?

I think my choice of language was aptly suited to the job I set for myself, but if you can do a better job of laying out the errors of RCC sacerdotalism and sacramentalism, then by all means do it. If your posts have helped a confused person to see any inherent weaknesses in my presentation, or averted common misapprehensions [i:7b422293aa]of Protestant theolgy,[/i:7b422293aa] I applaud you. For those with genuine questions, who desire me to go further and explain Protestant distinctives and how we differ from RCC, I too can step up and deliver.

Simply put, "..the sacerdotal system of 'mediated grace' ..." describes in a short phrase the RCC theology of the ministry. I know of no sense, nor do I know of any a single systematic or historical theologian's use, in which that phrase could [i:7b422293aa]ever[/i:7b422293aa] be properly predicated of a Protestant theology of the ministry.
[quote:7b422293aa]some of your criticisms of RCC are broad enough to condemn historical Protestant (biblical) practices[/quote:7b422293aa] OK. If you will kindly [u:7b422293aa]quote me[/u:7b422293aa] further and in context, and demonstrate how my words in fact do what you say; I will clarify, amend, or retract my criticisms. 

For the record, I believe in a "clergy." I accept this as a necessary inference of the [b:7b422293aa]three-office position[/b:7b422293aa] on church government, which the OPC self-consciously holds to.


----------



## Scott (Sep 17, 2004)

Bruce: I am not trying to be argumentative. It is just to me that some of your criticisms were so broad that they denied beliefs expressed, for example, in the WCF. 

BTW, auricular confession was historically used in many Reformed churches and is consistent with the WCF. 

Scott


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 18, 2004)

Scott,
I don't want to fuss publicly here either. I think we are concerned about different things. I was being polemic. You were concerned about the size of my target, and the potential for "collateral damage." Maybe you've seen too many careless shots. I think your concerns are unfounded in my case, but I understand them.

Case in point, the back-and-forth above re. auricular confession. My reference to such a thing [i:b14f83f962]cannot[/i:b14f83f962] be extracted from my whole sentence that purports to describe [u:b14f83f962]the RCC doctrine[/u:b14f83f962] of absolution. My use of the term is [i:b14f83f962]conditioned[/i:b14f83f962] by the context in which I used it. For my criticisms to have sweeping application also to a Reformed doctrine or practice requires that an identity be established--one generally accepted, or asserted by me--between both Reformed or Protestant use or definition of a term and the use or definition of the same by the RCC. I neither made nor implied such an identity. The fact that misunderstandings abound does not mean that I have necesarily made them myself or fostered them.

I believe I have addressed the specific issue raised (RCC theology of the ministry) where additional explanation was requested. I will be glad to attempt other clarifications or explanations [u:b14f83f962]of my explicit statements[/u:b14f83f962] if so requested by anyone.


----------



## Scott (Sep 20, 2004)

Bruce: It is ok, I disagree with RCC views too. On confession I was just making a general observation, not really directed at you. I have never seen a Reformed church have confession (in spite of the advoicacy of the practice by Reformers). Anglican churches do, to the extent theyr are considered Protestant.


----------

