One of the primary tasks of the church of Jesus Christ, which the apostle Paul calls the "pillar and ground
of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15),
is to confess its faith before the world. The church owes its life to the work
of Christ, who by His Spirit and Word calls it into existence and preserves it
in the way of faith. Because the church is born out of and nourished by the
Word of God, there is no task more basic or critical than that of confessing
what it believes the Word teaches. Reformed churches, therefore, are always
confessing churches. They subscribe to creeds and confessions, which publicly
attest their faith before others. Such creeds and confessions are often
referred to as "forms of unity," since they join their adherents together in a
unity of faith.
Due to the importance of the confessions
to the church’s testimony and unity, it is not surprising that few changes have
been made to them over the centuries. And, when changes have been proposed,
these have usually provoked considerable discussion and reflection in the
churches. The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA), however, is
presently contemplating a significant change in one of its historic
confessions.
Though it is risky to offer
generalizations about such things, I have the impression that this change may
well be occurring below the "radar screen" of public awareness or
discussion. The change to which I refer is a proposal to place Question and
Answer 80 (Q. and A. 80) of the Heidelberg Catechism in a smaller font (print) in
future printings of the Catechism, and to declare that this answer "can no
longer be held in its current form as part of [the] confession."
Q. and A. 80 offers a sharply worded account of the difference between the
sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and the "popish mass," declaring the mass to be "nothing
but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a
condemnable idolatry." Accordingly, if the proposed change is adopted by a
future synod (2006 is contemplated), the CRCNA will have officially changed its
confession and diminished an important Reformation conviction regarding the
unbiblical character of the Roman Catholic mass.
Background
and History
The proposal to alter the
CRCNA’s adherence to Q. and A. 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism comes as the result of a recent
and relatively brief process of study and reflection dating back to 1998. Synod
1998 received two overtures regarding the Catechism’s treatment of the Roman
Catholic mass. One overture asked that Q. and A. 80 be removed from the Catechism for three
reasons: one, the language of "condemnable idolatry" should only be used
against the behavior of those who deny justification by faith in Jesus Christ;
two, the harsh language of Q. and A. 80 does not meet the requirements of Christian
love or unity; and three, the original version of the Heidelberg Catechism did
not include Q. and A. 80. A second overture, which was formulated in response to the
first, argued that Q. and A. ought to be retained in its present form, since the Roman
Catholic Church (RCC) had never repudiated the official decisions of the
Council of Trent and its statements about the mass.
Though Synod 1998 did not accede
to the first of these overtures, which asked that Q. and A. 80 be
removed from the Heidelberg Catechism, it did direct the lnterchurch Relations
Committee "to make an attempt to dialogue with the leadership of the Roman
Catholic Church to clarify the official doctrine of that church concerning the
mass" (Acts of Synod 1998, p. 427). Subsequently, the IRC appointed a special
subcommittee to carry out these instructions from Synod. This subcommittee was
composed of Dr. David Engeihard, Dr. Lyle Bierma, Dr. Henry De Moor, Dr. Ronald
Feenstra, and Dr. George Vander Velde. During the course of the subcommittee’s
work, two meetings were held with official representatives of the RCC to
ensure that the Committee’s representation of the Roman Catholic view of the
mass was accurate, and that its assessment of the language of Q. & A. 80 was
based upon an accurate understanding of contemporary Roman Catholic teaching
and practice.
In fulfillment of its mandate,
the subcommittee of the IRC presented an initial study report on Q. and A. 80 to
Synod 2002. This initial report was also forwarded to the Conferences of
Catholic Bishops in Canada and the United States in order to see whether they could concur that it
offered an "accurate representation" of the Roman Catholic view of the mass.
In addition, the report was sent to churches with whom the CRCNA enjoys
ecclesiastical fellowship, to invite their response to its findings. After
receiving a favorable judgment from the Catholic bishops, who affirmed that
the report accurately summarized the Catholic
conception of the mass, the subcommittee made some minor revisions to the report and prepared a second,
briefer report that it submitted to Synod 2004.
The actions of Synod 2004 in response
to this second report suggest that the CRCNA is poised to alter its confession
regarding the Lord’s Supper and the Roman Catholic mass. After adopting a
recommendation that calls for the removal of Q.
and A. 80 from the Heidelberg Catechism ("That
synod declare Q. and A. 80 can no longer be held in its form as part of our confession given our study of official Roman Catholic teaching and extensive dialogue
with official representatives of the Roman Catholic Church"), Synod 2004
adopted several motions that will provide opportunity for churches in ecclesiastical
fellowship, as well as CRC churches and classes, to respond to the proposed
change before its implementation. Barring any
significant opposition to what is being
proposed, a future Synod (in 2006?) will likely ratify the change in
Q.
and A. 80.
The
Arguments of the IRC Subcommittee
Reports
If we may assume that a change in the church’s confession is always a matter of
considerable importance, the question that has to be pressed regarding the
proposed change in Q. and A. 80 is: has the burden of proof
for such a change, one that alters substantially a consensus of the Reformed churches since the sixteenth century on the subject
of the Roman Catholic mass, been met? What kind of argument has the
subcommittee of the IRC mustered that warrants the removal of Q. and A. 80 from
the Heidelberg Catechism?
Both reports begin by observing
that Q. and A. 80 registers two principal objections to the Roman Catholic mass. The
first objection to the mass focuses upon its nature as an unbloody sacrifice,
which is offered daily by priests on
behalf of the living and the dead.
Because believers enjoy the forgiveness of sins only on the basis of the
unbloody sacrifice of the mass, which is offered to God on their behalf as a
propitiation for sins, the mass "is basically nothing but a denial of the one
sacrifice and suffering of Christ."
The second objection to the mass
focuses upon the way Christ is
worshiped in the form of the
bread and wine, which through the miracle of transubstantiation have become the
true body and blood of Christ. Though the consecrated elements appear outwardly
to be bread and wine, they are the actual body and blood of Christ and are to
be venerated accordingly. Q. and A. 80 declares such worship to be a "condemnable
idolatry," because it requires believers to venerate the bread and wine as the
true body and blood of Christ. The strong language of Q. and A. 80 is
directed against these two elements of
the traditional Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass.
In their case for removing Q. and A. 30, the
IRC subcommittee reports offer the following arguments:
First, the IRC subcommittee’s
two reports challenge the accuracy of Q. and A. 80’s description of the Roman Catholic mass as a sacrifice.
Though the subcommittee’s two reports acknowledge the sacrificial character of
the mass, they also call attention to other features of the mass that figure
prominently in Roman Catholic teaching. They note, for example, that the mass
is not only a sacrifice, but also "a meal, spiritual nourishment, offering of thanksgiving,
memorial, sign of unity, bond of love, source of grace, and pledge of future
glory." Because the RCC recognizes these various features of’ the sacrament of
the mass. Q.
and A. 80 misleads, when it treats the mass primarily, if not exclusively, as a sacrifice.
Second, the IRC subcommittee’s
two reports insist that Q. and A. 80 misrepresents the Roman Catholic view of the relation between
Christ’s one sacrifice upon the cross and the sacrifice of the mass. When Q. and A. 80 speak
of Christ being offered "daily" in the mass, it concludes that the Roman
Catholic view denies the unique and unrepeatable nature of Christ’s bloody sacrifice upon the
cross. However, the Roman Catholic view,
according to the subcommittee and Synod 2002, speaks of "one sacrifice [that]
is offered in different manners." The sacrifice of the mass is not another
sacrifice, but a sacramental "representation" and "perpetuation" of the one
sacrifice of
the cross.
Third, the IRC subcommittee’s
two reports further argue that Q. and A. 80 misstates the Roman Catholic view of the way
Christ is to be venerated or worshipped in the mass. Though Christ is "present
under the appearance of the consecrated bread and should be worshiped in the adoration of those consecrated elements," this
adoration is an adoration of Christ, "not the elements." Q. and A. 80 fails
to appreciate the Roman Catholic understanding that the object of the
worshipper’s adoration is Christ himself, even though the form of worship
involves a veneration of the sacramental elements in which Christ is present.
Fourth,
in respect to the claim of Q. and A. 80 that the sacrifice of the mass obtains the
forgiveness of sins for believers, the IRC subcommittee and Synod 2002 maintain
that this reflects a failure to distinguish between what lies "in the area
ofjustification" with what lies in the area of "final sanctification." In the
assessment of the subcommittee and Synod 2002, the Roman Catholic view does
not "detract from the finality of redemption accomplished on the cross." Since
the forgiveness that is mediated through the sacrament of the mass relates to
the believer’s present and future holiness before God, it
should not be viewed as the forgiveness ofjustification or acceptance with
God.
And
fifth, in its second report, the IRC
subcommittee introduces and appeals to a distinction between "official" Roman
Catholic teaching and the "practice" of the Roman Catholic church in some
places. Though Q. and A. 80’s
criticism of the mass may apply to the practice of some Roman Catholics, it
does not fairly represent the official standpoint of the RCC, particularly in light of the reforms and improvements introduced
by Vatican II.
Evaluating
the Arguments for the
Proposed Change
Since my summary of the
arguments of
the IRC subcommittee reports, which have
thus far enjoyed the approval of two synods of the CRCNA, is rather skeletal,
it might seem improper to evaluate them too critically. The more I reflect
upon these reports and their arguments, however, the more convinced I become
that they offer little that approximates a refutation of Q. and A. 80.
Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence adduced in the IRC subcommittee reports
that confirms rather than disproves the
accuracy of Q. and
A. 80. Though Q. and A. 80
may speak the truth in language that is more severe than our contemporary ears
will allow, it speaks the
truth nonetheless, and on a matter of iio
small significance. To illustrate the weakness and implausibility of the
subcommittee’s case, I will respond briefly and directly to each of the five
points I have identified.
First, though the RCC today and
at the time of the Reformation recognizes many different elements in the mass, it continues to
view the mass principally as an unbioody sacrifice. The statements of the sixteenth century Council of
Trent and the more recent twentieth century Vatican II Council fully concur in representing the mass as
an unbloody sacrifice that priests offer
upon an altar to God. Though Vatican II emphasizes more than the Council of
Trent that the whole people
of God are joined with the priests in
making this sacrifice to God, it remains an unbloody sacrifice, not merely of
thanksgiving (a proper Eucharist), but of oblation and propitiation. Q. and A. 80 can
hardly be faulted for neglecting the RCC’s teaching that the mass is more than
a sacrifice, when its interest is to distinguish the true Supper of the Lord
from its corruption in the sacrifice of the mass. The evidence presented in the
IRC subcommittee reports only confirms this aspect of what Q. and A. 80 says
about the mass, rather than disproving it.
Second, the IRC subcommittee’s
two reports properly note that contemporary Roman Catholic teaching prefers
to speak of the sacrifice of the mass as a "perpetuation" rather than a "repetition"
of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross. It is, strictly speaking, not correct to say that the RCC views the
sacrifice of the mass as "another" offering. However, the subcommittee reports
indulge in a bit of wishful thinking, when they conclude that this protects
the RCC against the charge that the mass is a denial of the one sacrifice and
suffering of Christ.
The once-for-all sacrifice of
Christ upon the cross can no more be "perpetuated" or "prolonged" or "represented"
or "enacted" than it can be "repeated." To speak of the mass as an unbloody
sacrificial participation in the one sacrifice of Christ is nothing other than
a denial of the finished work of Christ upon the cross. If I may be permitted an analogy, a mother
who has given birth to a child may now enjoy features of motherhood that are a
result of her child’s birth. But these features of motherhood are in no proper
sense to be conceived of as a perpetuation or prolongation of the act whereby
she gave birth to her child. In a similar way, Christ, our high priest, having
made sacrifice once-for-all for the sins of His people, may continue to apply
and communicate the benefits of that sacrifice through Word and sacrament.
However, Christ’s work of applying the benefits of His unique, indispensable
sacrifice should not be confused with the sacrifice itself.
On this point, a comment of Calvin
seems as appropriate today as when it was first written: "Nor am I unaware of
the tricks by which the father of lies is wont to disguise his fraud: that
these are not varied or different sacrifices, but the same one often repeated"
(IV.xviii.3). The contemporary RCC claim that the sacrifice of the mass is not "another"
sacrifice than the sacrifice of the cross is no more plausible today than it was in Calvin’s
day.
Third, the claim made by the IRC
subcommittee
reports (and Synods 2002 and 2004) that
the mass does not constitute a form of idolatry is unwarranted and even belied
by the evidence adduced to confirm it. According to the 1RC subcommittee
reports, the RCC mass is not a form of idolatry because those who venerate or
adore the consecrated elements are actually venerating or adoring Christ who is
mediated through them. If this attempt to defend the veneration of Christ in
the mass were plausible, it might equally well be applied to various
acts that are described as
idolatrous in the Scriptures. Few are the idolaters who profess to have any
other intention than worshipping the true and living God, even though the immediate object or means whereby their worship is offered is a golden calf or some other creature. When the children of Israel worshipped the golden calf, they no doubt intended to
worship God alone. To say that the Roman Catholic mass does not constitute
idolatry because the worshipper believes that the bread and wine are the real body and blood of Christ is a self-defeating argument. If the worshipper
venerates the bread and wine in order
to venerate Christ, he commits
idolatry.
Fourth, one of the more unlikely
claims of the IRC subcommittee’s first report is the claim that the mass does
not compromise the finality of redemption accomplished on the cross. To
support this claim, the subcommittee report notes that a distinction must be
made between justification and final sanctification. Those who argue that the
mass compromises the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for sin fail to recognize
that its benefit relates only to the believer’s sanctification, not his
justification.
Though one can admire the
subconmiittee’s ingenuity in trying to defend the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass, this
argument fails utterly. Roman Catholic teaching regarding the mass continues to
be that it is an unbloody and truly
propitiatory sacrifice that obtains
the forgiveness of sins on behalf of those who benefit from it. The forgiveness
of sins that believers enjoy through the offering of the sacrifice
of the mass is an important
part of the process whereby believers are justified and made holy and
acceptable to God. Though the IRC subcommittee and Synod 2002 insist that
the forgiveness that is obtained through the mass relates only to a (final)
sanctification, this is not the teaching of the RCC. The distinction between
justification and sanctification, as it is drawn by the subcommittee and Synod,
is a Protestant, not a Roman Catholic distinction.
And fifth, the IRC subcommittee
reports offer no compelling evidence to warrant the claim that "official" Roman Catholic
teaching differs so widely from the practice
of some Roman Catholics that the condemnations of Q. and A. 80 only
apply to the latter. Q. and A. 80 was most likely written in direct reply to the decrees and
canons of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, which concluded its work
shortly before Q. and A. 80 was added to the Heidelberg Catechism. While the IRC
subcommittee suggests that Q. and A. 80 might have originally addressed the
practice of the medieval RCC more than its official teaching, no historical
evidence is provided to support this suggestion. The likeliest explanation of Q. and A. 80 is
that it intends to condemn the official teaching and corresponding practice
of the RCC. That remains its proper purpose to the present day.
Conclusion
Lest my evaluation of the
proposed change
to Q. and A. 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism be
misunderstood, I wish to note that I
have no quarrel with the CRCNA’s desire to ensure that this Q. and A. speak
the truth in the present
context. Even though the IRC subcommittee’s studies may not finally warrant
their conclusions, they remain fairly thorough and useful treatments of Q. and A. 80 in
comparison with contemporary Roman Catholic teaching. Reformed believers who
confess Q. and A. 80 should have no objection in principle to a fresh reconsideration
of their confession, and to an honest discussion with Roman Catholics whether it properly presents their teaching
regarding the sacrament of the mass. Indeed, those who would defend the retention
of Q. and A. 80 in its present form owe it to themselves and to the cause of
truth to read the two reports of the IRC subcommittee and to study contemporary
Roman Catholic teaching on the subject. If a compelling argument can be made to
show that the Heidelberg Catechism misrepresents the RCC’s teaching regarding
the mass, then the Catechism should be revised accordingly. Since the RCC recently
updated in the documents of Vatican II some of its formulations regarding the mass, a
reexamination of Q. and
A. 80 is all the more proper.
The problem with the proposed
change, however, is that it is not warranted by the kind of arguments presented in the IRC subcommittee reports. Rather than showing that Q. and A. 80
misrepresents the RCC doctrine of the mass, these reports could easily be read
to confirm the accuracy of Q. and A. 80. Both of the IRC subcommittee reports
provide numerous official RCC statements that the mass is an unbloody
sacrifice, which perpetuates the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross and
procures propitiatory benefit for those who participate in its offering.
Likewise, ample documentation is
provided for the Heidelberg Catechism’s claim that the mass is a "condemnable idolatry." By the subcommittee’s own
admission, RCC teaching continues to affirm the propriety of worshipping Christ
in the consecrated elements of bread and wine. Furthermore, though
the documents of Vatican II exhibit a tendency to soften the severe language of
the Council of Trent, the subcommittee reports also confirm that the position
of the Council of Trent was reaffirmed by Vatican II, including the anathemas
pronounced against the Reformed view of the sacrament.
When all of this is taken into
account, one is left to wonder whether the real objection to Q. and A. 80 is
that its language is simply too harsh and condemning. Should we continue to
use language like "nothing but a denial" or a "condemnable idolatry," when
speaking of the RCC view of the mass? Is such language consistent with the requirements
of Christian love and unity? Perhaps this is the primary motivation that
undergirds the proposed change to Q. and A. 80.
If this were the only reason for
the proposed change, would it not be preferable to consider an alternative
proposal that retained the substance of Q. and A. 80, while removing the offending language "nothing
but" and "a condemnable" idolatry. One could easily imagine a proposal to
change Q. and A. 80 that might read: "Thus the mass in effect denies ... the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and is
a form of idolatry." However, rather than propose a change in Q. and A. 80 along
these lines, the proposal presently being considered calls for a piece of more
radical surgery, namely, the removal of Q. and A. 80’s condemnation of the Roman Catholic mass.
Though it may not comport with
modern sensibilities, I believe Q. and A. 80 should be retained in its present form.
Though the language may be severe, it reflects a Reformed passion to defend
the sufficiency of Christ’s one sacrifice upon the cross and to condemn
idolatry in whatever form, even if it be born of the most pious of 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. and A. 80 from
the Heidelberg Catechism. As its stands, Q. and A. 80 expresses the truth that John Calvin
articulated so eloquently in his Institutes: "But when it is most
clearly proved by the Word of God that this Mass, however decked in splendor,
inflicts signal dishonor upon Christ,
buries and oppresses His cross, consigns His death to oblivion, takes away the
benefit which came to us from it, and weakens and destroys the Sacrament by
which the memory of His death was bequeathed to us—will any of the roots be too
deep for this most sturdy ax (I mean the Word of God) to slash and upturn?"
