« Vatican Website Notes | Main | Corpus Christi, liveblogged »
June 15, 2006
Yet another religious body meets..
In Michigan, the Christian Reformed Church is talking about Catholics:
GRAND RAPIDS -- More than 400 years after the Protestant Reformation, the Christian Reformed Church is trying to take back a historic slap against the Catholic Church.
It's not easy.
Delegates to the CRC Synod spent about three hours Wednesday attempting to tone down a 1563 Protestant doctrine declaring the Catholic Mass "a condemnable idolatry."
That section of the Heidelberg Catechism, a preaching and teaching tool for many Protestant churches, still smarts for West Michigan Catholics who work with or marry CRC members.
Two years ago, the CRC Synod declared the controversial passage no longer should apply as written. What they could not decide -- and still could not Wednesday -- was what to put in its place.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Well, maybe they don't mind the "NO" :)
Posted by: Ian at Jun 15, 2006 1:32:02 PM
If one reads Article 80 of the Heidelberg Confession, it is not just a matter of the form of Mass post-Vatican II (NO) or pre-Vatican II.
80. Q. What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the papal mass?(Source)A. The Lord's supper testifies to us, first, that we have complete forgiveness of all our sins through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself accomplished on the cross once for all;[1] and, second, that through the Holy Spirit we are grafted into Christ,[2] who with His true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father,[3] and this is where He wants to be worshipped.[4] But the mass teaches, first, that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the suffering of Christ unless He is still offered for them daily by the priests; and, second, that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine, and there is to be worshipped. Therefore the mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.
[1] Matt. 26:28; John 19:30; Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 25, 26; 10:10-18. [2] I Cor. 6:17; 10:16, 17. [3] Joh. 20:17; Acts 7:55, 56; Heb. 1:3; 8:1. [4] John 4:21-24; Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1; I Thess. 1:10.
In the 1988 Revised Edition for the Reformed Churches of America, this little 16th century German indiscretion (by two zealous young ministers in 1563) was relegated to a footnote.
8 The second German edition, published the same year as the first, added the following question (the three portions in parentheses were added in the third German edition):80.Q. How does the Lord's Supper differ from the Roman Catholic Mass?
A. The Lord's supper declares to us that our sins have been completely forgiven through the suffering of Jesus Christ which he himself accomplished once for all. (It also declares to us that the Holy Spirit grafts us into Christ, who with his own body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father where he wants us to worship him.) But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests. (It also teaches that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine where he is therefore to be worshipped.) Thus the Mass is basically a complete denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ (and a condemnable idolatry).
The introduction to the 1988 edition reads:
The Heidelberg Catechism is the best known of the Reformed confessions. It was written in Heidelberg, Germany, in 1563, by two young ministers. Its language is warm and personal, its spirit mild and gentle. It has a devotional tone.For more than four centuries the catechism has formed part of the teaching and preaching ministry of Reformed churches. In fact, the catechism was divided into fifty-two sections, called Lord's Days, so that one section could be used in preaching for each Sunday of the year.
So this "warm and personal," "mild and gentle" little view of the Catholic Mass is read and exponded every year on a particular Sunday in these churches.
Here is another introduction with some history:
The Heidelberg Catechism, the second of our doctrinal standards, was written in Heidelberg at the request of Elector Frederick III, ruler of the most influential German province, the Palatinate, from 1559 to 1576. This pious Christian prince commissioned Zacharius Ursinus, twenty-eight years of age and professor of theology at the Heidelberg University, and Caspar Olevianus, twenty-six years old and Frederick's court preacher, to prepare a catechism for instructing the youth and for guiding pastors and teachers. Frederick obtained the advice and cooperation of the entire theological faculty in the preparation of the Catechism. The Heidelberg Catechism was adopted by a Synod in Heidelberg and published in German with a preface by Frederick III, dated January 19, 1563. A second and third German edition, each with some small additions, as well as a Latin translation were published in Heidelberg in the same year. The Catechism was soon divided into fifty-two sections, so that a section of the Catechism could be explained to the churches each Sunday of the year. In the Netherlands this Heidelberg Catechism became generally and favourably known almost as soon as it came from the press, mainly through the efforts of Petrus Dathenus, who translated it into the Dutch language and added this translation to his Dutch rendering of the Genevan Psalter, which was published in 1566. In the same year Peter Gabriel set the example of explaining this catechism to his congregation at Amsterdam in his Sunday afternoon sermons. The National Synods of the sixteenth century adopted it as one of the Three Forms of Unity, requiring office-bearers to subscribe to it and ministers to explain it to the churches. These requirements were strongly emphasized by the great Synod of Dort in 1618-19. The Heidelberg Catechism has been translated into many languages and is the most influential and the most generally accepted of the several catechisms of Reformation times.
Notice that it was available in Latin, not just German and Dutch.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Jun 15, 2006 1:57:36 PM
Um... why don't they just leave out that wording? Or change it to, "But they're wrong about that"?
Or, better yet, they could just decide we're right and come back. :)
Posted by: Maureen O'Brien at Jun 15, 2006 2:46:49 PM
The Christian Reformed Church is the denomination I was raised in. I find it pretty cool that it is mentioned in a Catholic blog. I have always found the description of the mass as a condemnable idolatry to be quite logical. If you believe the body and blood of Jesus are not present in the elements of communion then how can you not call it condemnable idolatry? Isn't idolatry the worship of something as God when it is in fact not God. Isn't that what they beleive Catholics are doing? I have never had an issue with my former church describing it that way.
It seems like it is more of an effort to be politically correct. To pretend differances are no big deal. It is really the idea of all religions are basically the same, who knows what the truth is anyway, as long as your faith works for you, etc. It has gone out of fashion to make strong statements of what you beleive and certainly strong statement of what you don't believe make people cringe. In that way I see this as sad.
Posted by: Randy at Jun 15, 2006 2:47:57 PM
I'm with Randy. I see in the term "condemnable idolatry" nothing offensive, only incorrect. We have this stuff, the work of human hands, and we say it's God. If we're right, we're worshipping God. If we're not, we're worshipping an idol. And idolatry is certainly condemnable.
Of course, we're right, but from their POV it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. And I don't see how smoothing over the words without changing their beliefs is going to further the cause of unity.
Posted by: bearing at Jun 15, 2006 3:10:44 PM
I'm with Randy. I see in the term "condemnable idolatry" nothing offensive, only incorrect. We have this stuff, the work of human hands, and we say it's God. If we're right, we're worshipping God. If we're not, we're worshipping an idol. And idolatry is certainly condemnable.
Of course, we're right, but from their POV it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. And I don't see how smoothing over the words without changing their beliefs is going to further the cause of unity.
Posted by: bearing at Jun 15, 2006 3:11:03 PM
"Condemnable idolatry"? What can you expect from a bunch of heretics who lost all hope of heaven when they . . . . Oops. Sorry, I wasn't being politically correct. Separated brethren, of course.
Actually, Dr. Johnson answered that one for us in the 18th century, and he Anglican and Tory. It's years since I've read it and the book certainly isn't at the office, so I'm paraphrasing like crazy: There is no idolatry in the mass because the Catholics believe Our Lord to be present in the bread and wine and, believing that, they worship him.
So no, Bearing, we're not committing idolatry if we're wrong. We would only be committing idolatry if we were wrong and knew it and continued worshipping the bread and wine. It's not reasonable of the Calvinists, or any other Protestants, to say that Catholics are idolators. No more than it is for old-fashioned Catholics to say that the Protestants deny Christ by failing to rejoin the Church He founded.
My mind leaps to another issue: A whole mess of Catholics are said to no longer believe in the real presence. If that's the case, are THEY committing idolatry by attending, assenting by silence to what they hear, and receiving?
Peace and all good
Murdoch Macleod
Posted by: Mac in Alberta at Jun 15, 2006 7:24:54 PM
@Murdoch:
Dr. Johnson apparently didn't answer anything, he only sidestepped the issue. Idolatry remains idolatry, even if we believe that what we are worshipping is a god. There are several examples for this in the Old Testament. Take 1 Kings 18. Here, Elijah proves that the God of the Israel is the True God, and that Baal is a mere idol. Do you think the priests of Baal did not believe that Baal was a true god? Obviously, they did. Weren't they idolaters then? They were.
I'm also with Randy here. Let the heretics just rant about the Mass - we know that it's indeed Jesus Christ we are worshipping there...
Posted by: Petra at Jun 16, 2006 8:15:38 AM
Hmmm. Christian Reformed Church -- our French and Dutch Calvinist Friends, United Church of Christ and various other very progressive National Council of Churches folks.
Enough said.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 16, 2006 9:42:06 AM
Note the RCA is different from the CRC.
Posted by: dk at Jun 16, 2006 1:33:39 PM
Petra,
I'll stick with Samuel Johnson.
Committing a sin requires that the matter be sinful, that you know so, and your intent to commit the act or omission regardless.. So if the priests of Baal thought that Baal was a real god, then no, they were not committing idolatry. They lacked knowledge.
If they continued after Elijah's demonstration of the reality of Yahweh as compared to Baal, then they would appear to be idolators, insofar as I can judgmentally say so.
If intent doesn't matter, then we Catholics probably are idolators: we pray to crucifixes and statues of saints. Our claims to be worshipping Christ or asking the intercession of saints must be as hollow as some of the statues.
So we'll likely have to agree to disagree: I still hold that we are not idolatrous in our worship of God present in our tabernacles. We believe He is there. Even if we were wrong, our intent is to worship God, not bread.
Peace and all good
Murdoch
Posted by: Mac in Alberta at Jun 16, 2006 2:46:06 PM
"Note the RCA is different from the CRC."
Ooops, right you are dk, I am confusing them with the Reformed Church in America.
Mea culpa, thanks for pointing it out!
Posted by: Christine at Jun 16, 2006 3:10:29 PM
