Three Misnomers to Avoid
Chris Castaldo / Friday, January 27th, 2012 / 15 Comments »![eucaristia[1]](http://www.chriscastaldo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/eucaristia1.jpg "eucaristia[1]")
As a “mystery,” the Catholic Mass is by definition beyond human comprehension; yet, when Protestants explain what happens in the Mass, we often get it wrong, propagating misnomers that directly contradict the explicit teaching of the Catholic Church. Here are the big three. If effectiveness in gospel renewal is related to upholding truth and avoiding straw men, these lessons should be noted.
It has been said that it is a woman’s prerogative to change her mind, and it’s a theologians prerogative to make distinctions. It is how seminaries train us; it is the currency with which we trade. Among theologians, few excel in formulating and articulating these subtleties as much as our Catholic friends, and the mystery of the Mass is a place where this tendency is especially observed. Speaking to the issue intelligently and persuasively requires us to understand the following categories and terms.
Misnomer One: Catholics teach that Christ is “physically present” in the Mass.
When describing Jesus Christ as the Eucharist, Catholics will say that the Lord is “really,” “truly,” “wholly,” “continuously,” or “substantially” present, but not "physically.” To state the Jesus is “physically” present is to suggest that he is present “locally” (as he is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father). The Eucharistic presence of Christ, although understood as no less real, is sacramentally present in the transubstantiated host. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).
Misnomer Two: Christ is Re-sacrificed at the Mass.
This is perhaps the most common misconception. If I had a dime for every pastor friend whom I’ve heard say that the Mass is a repetition of the cross, I just might have enough money for a cappuccino at Starbucks. It is permissible to say that the Mass is a repetition of the Last Supper, but not of Jesus’ cross. Catholic doctrine teaches that the Mass “renews” or “re-presents” the cross; but it doesn’t “repeat” it. Catholics assert that in a mystical and sacramental sense, the Mass is the cross, the once and for all offering of God’s Son continued through time. For those of you who enjoy grammar, it’s like an ingressive aorist: an action that has been completed and is also ongoing. It is, if you will, like a golf put. Please pardon the comparison of the supremely glorious cross with the banality of golf, but his is how my simple mind gets around it. When I swing my putter at the ball, the initial contact is the “put.” At the same time, the action of the ball rolling toward the pin (and in my case, past the pin) is also the “put.” The put has happened and it’s happening. So the sacrifice of Jesus is completed (hence informed Catholics know how to explain Jesus’ words “it is finished”) and it is also ongoing. Personally, this is one of two or three tenets of Catholicism that I find most troubling; but it is what it is, and we evangelicals only benefit from getting it right. Again, from the Catechism:
1407 The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church.
Misnomer Three: Christ Doesn’t Die at the Mass.
This misunderstanding is a close second to the preceding. If one regards the Mass as a re-sacrifice, then, logically, he will view that sacrifice as constituting another death. However, according to the Catholic Church, Christ doesn’t “die” in the Mass, he is “immolated.” For some Protestants that will be a new term. “Immolation” comes from the Latin immolare, “to sacrifice.” Simply put, in the Mass, when the priest elevates the wafer and recites the words of consecration, Jesus is presented in a state of victimhood. In other words, he is presented in his death.
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
- [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
The implications of the above are numerous. For one, in light of numbers two and three, it explains why Catholics display the crucifix—the dead Jesus upon the cross. It also highlights how different is the Catholic and Protestant understanding of propitiation (the way to appease God’s wrath). One might argue that this issue of the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ is a more substantial difference between Catholics and Protestants than our disagreement over the relationship between faith and works.
I want to underscore the need for us Protestants to use the proper terms. You know that feeling you get when you hear an adversary of Protestantism reduce the doctrine of faith alone to mere cheap grace (i.e., walk an aisle, say a prayer, be an anti-nomian slug…)? It’s inaccurate, unfair, and your respect for such a person’s argument is naturally diminished. Well, this is essentially what happens when we misrepresent the Mass. Fruitful gospel conversations require us to get the facts straight.
I affirm that the communication is not clear. However, many of the main protestant arguments remain intact despite some lack of clarity. The catechism, in contrasting the offering on the cross and the offering of the Eucharist does say “the manner of offering is different”.If there is a different manner of offering, that implies multiple offerings, not simply a re-presentation of the offering. The sacrifice can be said to be”re-presented”, as foreign to the Scriptures as that is, that is different from the offering being re-presented. The issue is that multiple offerings implies mulitple sacrfices in biblical framework for sacrifices. That would mean a non-singular sacrifice. This is contrary to the theology of the book of Hebrews for starters. This is a consistent protestant objection. There are other related objections of course pertaining to issues of preisthood. I see the point regarding strawman arguments, but really the inaccurate descriptions are not totally unequivalent with the catechetical descriptions.
For clarity sake, appreciate the article and affirm its intentions to promote clarity and accuracy.
Very informative.
Thank you.
See Mr. Wilcoxson, your post is an example of you should NOT begin a dialogue with Catholics. A Catholic says, I believe that a and b have a connection with c. The Protestant answers: If a and b have a connection with c, then you say that d is a, and that is unbiblical, because the book of Hebrews says… .
First, believe it or not, the book of Hebrews is read out loud at Holy Mass. The idea that we read at Holy Mass, something that is completely contrary to our believe is quite ….hmm… dumb. We have not only copied this text for centuries, we read it, too. So you’ll hardly see that a Catholic after yout told him that in your opinion Hebrews contradict Catholic teaching: Hebrews? How could I have missed that? Of course, you’re right! The Catholic Church is wrong.
For me there are no surprises in this biblical text that could shake my faith. Certainly not the faith in the mystery of the Eucharist.
Secondly, what is in the book of Hebrews can – depending on interpretation – be held against the sacrificial character of a mass. However, you then have the problem that this interpretation also contradicts other parts of scripture. I mean, is that’s what Protestants always do with scripture. So much so that they can’t agree on what the bible says about baptism, marriage, Last Supper, leadership, what ever.
But this is not the Catholic way to approach the word of God. When Jesus says: “This is my body.”, then we believe that. When the Bible says,that the Church is the Body of Christ, we believe that too. When Paul says, that we should give ourselves as living sacrifices, (ups! obviously more than one sacrifice) then we also believe this.
If your really want to know how this fits together with the sacrificial character of the Mass you can read “What happens at Mass” by Fr. Jeremy Driscoll OSB.
If you think you could make biblically-founded statements on the Eucharist, do yourself a favor teach it to the Protestants b/c obviously, they are pretty confused not only on this issue.
Hey bee,
I do believe that its read in Mass, since I am a former Catholic and have heard it read. However, a perpetuating sacrififce is contrary to the finished nature of the sacrififce Hebrews 7-11. If there is perpetuating Hebrews is very unhelpful to say e least. Though you might be right about me, I may not be ready to have Internet dialogues with Catholics. My previous post probably didn’t clarify anything. I’ve asked the former post to be removed if unhelpful.
I will think over what you have said bee. Thank you.
When it happened long,long ago somewhere in the east, how can it effect your life now? So somehow this event must have some perpetual in itself. And Pauls writes that it has somehow a dimension that the sacrifices at the temple did not have. So let’s look at it from a different angle.
You’re in space and time and do not manage it beyond that. How will you ever be witness to the crucifixion and resurrection? The question is not whether it happened at one time in space and thus once and for all. The question is, how do we get there and be witnesses of what happened? Think about it. John saw a Mass in heaven. How does one get there? Faith is one way to get there. The sacraments are the other way. Like every sacrament of the Eucharist goes beyond the dimenison of time and space. We are at the Last Supper with the disciples, we are with Mary and John beneath the Cross, with the women at the empty grave, but we also see the Lamb in heaven, we see the multitudes, the angels and martyrs standing around the throne, etc. All this is present in the Eucharist and we take part in all those events. Has it or will it happen at a certain place in a particular time? Yes! Does time and space prevent us access to these events? No.
And Paul, Paul wrote to Hebrews, for these were the temple, sacrifices and the rites at the temple the center of their faith. Paul, like John in his Gospel, explains to them, that the true temple is not built of stone and the true sacrifice are not lambs. So Paul and the liturgy of the Church are not contrary to another, they pretty much say the same.
And really read Fr. Jeremy Driscolls book.
Many saw Jesus crucified but did not believe that he was God’s rescuing King, the long promised Messiah. I am pleased that I was not one of those. I, with many who are Christians today, are blessed because even though we were not there we have taken God at his word. Jesus said so himself when he spoke to the astonished Thomas after his resurrection: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)
Bee, I would encourage you to keep reading the Scriptures to see all that they are teaching on these matters.
A finished propitiation/expiation is the issue. Hebrews 7-11 is talking about a historical event that is finished, the benefits of which reach beyond its historical scope, being appropriated by the sole instrument of living faith by people in any age. The once for all sacrifice is the good news that the believers sin is finally and fully dealt with, not perpetuated in a rite. This conclusive sacrfifice is in contrast with the OT shadows and types which the Roman idea of Eucharist imitates in its perpetuating nature. The once for all sacrifice is something decisively accomplished, something that the believer can rest in without requiring priestly intercession that imitates the temporary types presented in the OT system, which has been done away with because of the arrival of the antitype, the High Priest Jesus with his unrepeatable offering of the Cross. There is no constantly trying ineffectively to appropriate final, decisive, expiation/propitiation by a priestly caste. Praise God! Jesus makes the ultimate offering of Himself, not penultimate as in the Eucharistic notion.
I will probably not read that book. But I can promise to keep carefully reading Scripture and contrasting it with the claims of men. Thanks for the interaction.
Yes read that book. Writing about the Mass on a blog, an attempt is probably the must fail. Fr. Driscoll worte 100 + pages for it and I think it’s the shortest book on this topic on the market.
I agree that we should avoid distorting what Catholics teach as we seek to show them why we believe that they are failing to follow the plain sense of Scripture. We actually do not need to distort their teaching – we can simply take what they are taught to believe from their Catechism and compare this with Scripture.
Take 1407 above: “The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life . . .” The Gospel writers use much space to record Jesus teaching his disciples. Only a small section describes Jesus’ last Passover meal. Paul is the most prolific NT writer.Though he has a clear section on the Lord’s Supper, it makes up a very small part of his letters. Like the Gospels the concern is about teaching, teaching about God’s gracious intervention in our messed up world and his call to us to respond. The singular focus of Catholics on the Mass has had two results: It has in practice obscured the teaching of Jesus and his first followers. In doing so it has loosed itself from that of which it is meant to be a powerful visual reminder and a means to examine and if needed to correct the celebration.
This reveals where I believe the fundamental difference between Catholics and historical Protestants lies: The authority of the Scriptures and the clarity of its message. This for every Christian should be the final arbiter of the Catholic celebration and understanding of the Mass.
See, and still we have to know what exactly we are talking about. The holy mass has two parts. First part is more or less about reading scripture, the second is the Eucharist. So how can the scripture and the teachings of Christ – to whom all scripture is pointing – be obscured by reading them out loud to the people? Think, if you want to obscure something you better not read it in public. At least this would be my plan.
And I don’t know how you read the four gospels, but to me they seem somehow passion narratives with really long introductions. And for me Paul is the blueprint for every priest and bishop. He is celibate, he claims for himself the authority to corrected parishes, he sees himself as an intercessor for the people of God and yes, he teaches and is worried about the proper way to celebrate the Eucharist.
In First Corinthians he says something to the effect: Okay, you are confused and you dispute about how women should dress. I’ve got an opinion and I’ll be happy to explain my opinion to you…. But what is really is important is what you do when you come together to celebrate the Eucharist. What you do now is harmful and I command you to stop it and stop it now. This is not my opinion, this is the Tradition aka something that has been revealed to us by Christ himself. You can go on and argue about vials and dresses, but there is no room for different opinions when it comes to the Eucharist. If you don’t obey this you put your lives and your salvation in jeopardy. So, yeah, maybe a small part but to me it sounds as he was very, very concerned about this.
And, please excuse me, I hear Protestants praise the clarity of scripture, it authority and power and I tend to agree, but then I observe how the same Protestants go ahead and rip the scriptures apart, throw out books of the Old Testament, spreading doubt about the authenticity of New Testament writings, playing out verses against other verses, getting mad about some words and never ever finding common ground, while there parishes are shrinking and the people are turning away form God to find peace in yoga or whatever.
You know God 9.0? Biggest thing on the christian market over here. Written by protestant pastors and theologians telling the crowed that neither the Bible nor Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God and that we are move into a totally new and better spirituality by overcoming Christianity. And of course they are up set b/c one of the mean old men with a funny purple hats said in passing that all this is nonsense and if one follows this nonsense he not only leaves Peter.
So, yeah, I hear you and in the back round the noise of people fighting about baptism, the Eucharist (we still have some Old-Lutherans here), predestination, church structure, sex, morals, politics,….Afghanistan, yeah, some Protestant Bishops here say that if you support the troops your not a christian and I am sure they have a verse that says exactly that…So I think I pretty blessed with arguing about candlesticks, altar cloths, saying the black and doing the red and stuff.
Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).
Bee asks several interesting questions of which this is one:
So how can the scripture and the teachings of Christ – to whom all scripture is pointing – be obscured by reading them out loud to the people? Think, if you want to obscure something you better not read it in public.
To say that Catholics read the Scriptures “out loud to the people” is a bit of a gloss. A study done by a Jesuit scholar found that, with specific respect to the book of Hebrews, as little as 5.6% was read at mass before Vatican II; now only 27% is read.
So one way the Catholic Church has obscured the Scriptures is by only reading part of it “out loud, to the people.”
Peace.
@Constantine: Have you ever seen a tridentine or post-V2 lectionary? If you would have looked into a lectionary, you would have noticed that 27% of Hebrews is read on Sundays. But we have daily Mass and so we hear 62%. (And believe it or not, people really got to daily Mass. It is not just me) This may not be much, but compared to evangelical church, we hear much more of the Scritures than the average Protestant. I mean, com’on, I’m in Europe but we have TV and (obviously) Internet here, too. What means I can watch the services form evangelical Mega-Churches, what means, that I am painfully aware of what they teach and how they use (or misuse) holy Scripture by picking a verse here and there and squees them into their show. I do not want sound mean, but is that really preaching, worship and the right administration of the sacraments, that was demanded by the Protestant Reformation?
To me it looks more like a cross-breeding between variety show and Top of the Pops. And yes, there are exceptions such as the LCMS. But using an almost identical lectionary. So, do they do so to obscure the bible?
I mean, really, switch on the TV and whatch God.TV or Hour of Power or Joyce Meyer or Marc Driscoll or whoever. Look at them. You really want to try to tell me that the Mass is blasphemous or the holy Scripture is obscured by the Catholic Church? How cute. Keep trying. It makes me laugh.
My dear Bee,
So we are agreed. By only including 62% of Hebrews on weekdays you necessarily censor 38% of that book. Did you know that Rome also censors passages it deems to be “sensitive”. For example, those passages that clearly show Jesus had many siblings. And why only include 24% of 2 Peter? He was your first pope, no?
I hope you won’t spend so much time watching TV. Here in the State we are all aware of what a distortion that brings to reality – especially in televised liturgies.
I don’t believe I ever said the Mass was blasphemous. I just noted – as you have confirmed – that to participate in the Mass is to purposivelly censor the Scripture.
Peace.