New Vatican Document (Redemptionis Sacramentum)
The Vatican recently released a new document entitled Redemptionis Sacramentum which deals with “certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist.” Matt Hall has commented briefly on this document. As is standard practice for the Roman Catholic Church, the document goes into minute detail, mentioning even standards for the freshness of the wine lest the mass be rendered invalid by sour wine.
James White has written about the document in a substantial article you can read here. You will have to scroll down a little bit to his entry from April 25. Here are some relevant quotes:
There was a day, not too long ago, when you could assume that just about every well-read, theologically concerned “evangelical” would read those words with nothing but utter disdain and deep sadness for anyone who would believe such teaching.
Such terminology has not only become foreign to our post-modern world, but, sadly, has become foreign to many who claim to be “Reformed” as well. “Popish sacrifice,” “abominably injurious,” “repugnant,” “cause of manifold superstitions” and “gross idolatries” are not phrases born of compromise or a spirit that finds anything in the source of such teachings a ground for “getting along” and “dialoguing” about our “perspectives.” Such descriptions assume that the truth about the sacrifice of Christ is knowable and known; that to pervert that truth is to separate oneself from the very gospel of Christ; and that to refuse to speak boldly in defense of the very death of Christ on the cross is to show oneself a friend of the world and an enemy of the faith.
Comments (3) »
1. matt h.
April 27, 2004
10:16 PM
Tim - I suppose I may have sounded like somewhat of an ecumenical in my post (apart from the whole “false gospel” comment)… I guess my thoughts were sparked by the blatant flippancy most evangelicals have toward the Eucharist. Even in Reformed circles, it has become increasingly debased and irrelevant in our church life. So while I would agree whole-heartedly with White’s indictment of Rome and of those who speak the language of inclusiveness, I do think that we as Protestants need to lead the charge in holding to a high (and biblical) view of the sacrament of Communion.
2. Tim
April 28, 2004
8:02 AM
Matt - I did not think you sounded ecumenical on your site. You made it clear that you were not promoting a Catholic view of the eucharist but rather commenting on the sometimes flippant view Protestants have towards communion. I think your post complemented White’s quite well.
3. John M.Esparolini
April 29, 2004
2:48 PM
Commenting on the Vatican’s recent reiteration of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches’ classical, ancient view of the Eucharistic bread and wine as the actual body and blood of Jesus in sacramental form, White (citing the Westminster Confession as his Magisterial “proof”) believes that “every well-read, theologically concerned ‘evangelical’” should regard “with nothing but utter disdain and deep sadness for anyone who would believe such teaching.”
If that’s the case, then the following ancient Christian thinkers and teachers —none of whom White bothers to indict along with modern-day “Rome” (and why not???)— should likewise be regarded with the same “utter disdain and deep sadness” by [allegedly] “well-read” modern Evangelicals since these ancient believers held the very same “repugnant” “Popish” “superstition” about the Eucharist.
To save space, I’ll provide a quote from just two of them which express the view held by all of them. For the rest, I’ll include references so that others can read for themselves what these ancient Christian brothers and leaders believed the Bible said about the Eucharist:
Justin Martyr (105-165 AD), The First Apology, Chapter 128:
….Then there is brought to the elder of the brethren bread and a cup of water and of watered wine and taking them, he gives praise and glory to the Father of all, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and he himself gives thanks at some length in order that these things may be deemed worthy.
When the prayers and thanksgiving are completed, all the people present call out their consent, saying ‘Amen!’ ‘Amen’ in the Hebrew language signifies ‘so be it.’ After the elder has given thanks, and all the people have shouted their assent, those whom we call deacons give to each one present to partake of the Eucharistic bread and wine and water; and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who has been washed in the washing [baptism] which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [2 Pet 3:21], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him [see 1 Cor 11: 23-26; Lk 22; 19] and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished is both the flesh and blood of the incarnated Jesus [see John 6: 53-56].
The apostles, in the Memoirs which they produced, which we called Gospels, have thus passed on that which was enjoined upon them: that Jesus took bread and, having given thanks, said, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me; this is My Body’ [Lk 22:19; Mt 26:26; Mk 14: 22: 1 Cor 11: 23-24]. And in like manner, taking the cup, and having given thanks, He said, ‘This is my Blood’ [Lk 22:20; Mt 26: 27-28; Mk 14:24; 1 Cor 11: 25]. And He imparted this to them only. The evil demons, however, have passed on its imitation in the mysteries of Mithra [a popular pagan Roman cult of the time —JME]. For as you know or are able to learn, bread and a cup of water together with certain incantations are used [by the Mithra cult] in imitation of the [Christian] mystic rites.
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (? - 110 CE), Letter to the Smyrnaeans:
…Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God …they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raise up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in ther disputes.
(See also Ignatius’ Letter to the Philadelphians)
Similar, and even more explicit, statements on what the Bible really says about the nature of the Eucharist can be read in….
(1) Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (130-202 AD), Against Heresies, Books 4 & 5
(2) Clement, Bishop of Alexandria (150-216 AD), On the Instruction of Children
(3) Hippolytus of Rome (170-236 AD), The Apostolic Tradition
(4) Origen (185-253 AD), quoted by Eusebius (died 336 AD) in his Church History, Book 6
(5) Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (200-258 AD), Letters, No 63:9 (To Caecilian) and On the Lapsed
(6) Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), Sermons (#’s 1, 2, 131, 159, 227, 284, 285, 297, and 310), City of God (Books 10, chap. 20 & Book 16, chap. 22), Explanation of the Psalms (Psalm 98)
Whether he likes it or not, the reality is that the watered-down reductionist view of the Eucharist which White endorses falls far outside what has universally been regarded as an integral part of classical Christian orthodoxy since the earliest centuries of the church.
Post Your Comment Here »