clawrence9008
Puritan Board Freshman
“In this respect, Q&A 80 continues to confirm one feature of a genuine approach to Reformed ecumenicity. It is not sufficient to articulate the truth of the Scriptures. The confession of the truth must always include a rejection of error, of views that seriously undermine the integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Though it is not permissible to be uncharitable or to misrepresent the views of those with whom there is disagreement, it is also impermissible to avoid conflict when biblical teaching and practice are at stake.
One of the benefits of retaining Q&A 80 as part of the living concession of Reformed churches is that it expresses a neglected feature of true, ecumenical dialogue in our day: an honest and clear statement of faith that does not gloss over real differences in order to achieve unity. There is ample evidence in the documents of the Council of Trent that Q&A 80 properly described the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass in its sixteenth-century context. But there is also sufficient evidence that the contemporary Roman Catholic Church has not retracted in any significant way the errors that compelled the writings of Q&A 80 in the first place. Though the language of Q&A 80 may be strong, it reflects a fundamental evangelical passion to uphold the perfection and sufficiency of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross and to condemn idolatry in whatever form, even when born of the most pious intentions.
Real progress toward unity in the faith on the important doctrine of the Lord’s Supper will not come by removing strong, yet true statements like Q&A 80 from the Reformed confessions. By retaining Q&A 80, contemporary Reformed churches will maintain unity with their own confessional tradition and express their continuing commitment to the gospel of Christ alone.”
— Cornelis P. Venema, The Lord’s Supper and the Popish Mass: A Study of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 80 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2015), 91-92.
One of the benefits of retaining Q&A 80 as part of the living concession of Reformed churches is that it expresses a neglected feature of true, ecumenical dialogue in our day: an honest and clear statement of faith that does not gloss over real differences in order to achieve unity. There is ample evidence in the documents of the Council of Trent that Q&A 80 properly described the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass in its sixteenth-century context. But there is also sufficient evidence that the contemporary Roman Catholic Church has not retracted in any significant way the errors that compelled the writings of Q&A 80 in the first place. Though the language of Q&A 80 may be strong, it reflects a fundamental evangelical passion to uphold the perfection and sufficiency of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross and to condemn idolatry in whatever form, even when born of the most pious intentions.
Real progress toward unity in the faith on the important doctrine of the Lord’s Supper will not come by removing strong, yet true statements like Q&A 80 from the Reformed confessions. By retaining Q&A 80, contemporary Reformed churches will maintain unity with their own confessional tradition and express their continuing commitment to the gospel of Christ alone.”
— Cornelis P. Venema, The Lord’s Supper and the Popish Mass: A Study of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 80 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2015), 91-92.
