Saturday, September 13, 2008

On the Mass

The Mass is indeed a propitiatory sacrifice offered for the living and the dead - a doctrine affirmed by most of Anglicanism's best theologians, including Lancelot Andrewes, Jeremy Taylor, William Laud, John Cosin, a host of Caroline Divines and of course, the Non-Jurors and Tractarians. The Mass is not the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross repeated and renewed independently of Calvary, but is the Once Sacrifice Once Offered re-presented and exhibited to the Father in the Eucharist and applied to those for whom it is offered sacramentally, under the form of bread and wine.

The main difference between the Calvinist view and ours is on the matter of Objective Presence: we believe that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, offered for the dead as well as the living, because What is offered in the Eucharist is the True Body and Blood of Christ objectively, mystically and supernaturally present under the sacred species of host and chalice. In the Eucharist, an Objective Divine Thing is made present under the sacramental veils, Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in the totality of His divinity and humanity, not merely present in power, grace or virtue, but made present in His human nature as well as His divine - and wherever that Objective Thing, the Thing Signified, is made present, He is present as Priest and Victim. Where the Body and Blood of Christ are, they are always sacrificial and atoning, for the Body and Blood, once crucified and now glorified, are now for all eternity offered as the one all-perfect and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of whole world. The Risen Jesus, who now makes intercession for us as Great High Priest, is on our Altars - really, truly and substantially. (The Caroline Divines frequently refer to a 'substantial presence,' which does not require the Latin definition of transubstantiation at all - the Change in the Elements is real but of a metaphysical and not a material kind). Christ is objectively present in the Blessed Sacrament at the Consecration of the Mass, and by virtue of that objective presence is manifest and pleaded to the Father as Sacrifice and Atonement.

The Calvinist view is virtualist, and does not believe in an objective presence, but rather in a virtual presence of Christ - the grace and power of Christ are present in the celebration, the action of the Supper, but Our Lord is not believed to be present in His human nature under the form of bread and wine. They conceive of the Eucharist as an action in which Christ's virtue, His grace, is made present to the predestined elect in the receiving of communion, but they would deny that the Incarnate Lord Himself is truly contained in, with and under the Elements by virtue of Eucharistic Consecration. But it is precisely because of the objective character of Our Lord's presence in the Blessed Sacrament that we believe the Mass is a true Sacrifice, for the Mass is Christ Himself, the true Sacrifice Himself.

Calvinists also deny ex opere operato, that Christ is always present substantially under the Eucharistic species in the Mass because of the promise of Christ in its institution. They would insist that apart from the faith of the elect Christ is not and cannot be present to the elect in the Lord's Supper. We maintain that Christ is always present when the Sacrament is offered according to His covenantal instructions, and regardless of the faith or lack thereof of the participants. A worthy Communion, an effective, beneficial and salvific Communion, the virtus (benefit) sacramenti as opposed to the res (reality) sacramenti, depends on living faith, of course, but not the validity of the Mass and Consecration themselves, which work and have effect because of Christ and not us. I believe it is fair to say that the Calvinist conception of the Eucharist is far more subjective and discarnate than the Catholic view.

We may succinctly call the virtualist Calvinist doctrine receptionism, for Christ is not sought and found in the Blessed Sacrament per se, but in the heart of the elect and believing recipient. For Calvinists, only the elect partake of Christ in the Lord's Supper by faith - the reprobate receive only tokens of the Lord's Supper but no grace. The Anglican, and thus Catholic, doctrine is sacramental identification, for Our Lord is most definitely sought and found objectively in Blessed Sacrament and is also found, by reception of the objective Gift, in the heart and soul of the communicant. Article XXIX affirms the Catholic doctrine that all communicants receive the Body and Blood of Christ objectively, the outward Sign, Bread and Wine, and the Thing Signified, Our Lord Himself, but only the faithful and properly disposed receive the spiritual nourishment of Christ in the Eucharist, the Benefit. (BCP 582). The unworthy receive to their damnation, as Saint Paul asserts with great clarity in I Corinthians 11. In the words of the indefatigable Michael Davies: 'the Blessed Sacrament is God.'

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

A sincere question: Is the Presence of Christ objective in such a way that the one who receives the Sacrament unworthily (manucation ingignorum) also receives the True Body and Blood of Christ?

The Most Reverend Chandler Holder Jones, SSC said...

Thank you for the question: yes, I believe Article XXIX agrees with Martin Luther that the wicked indeed receive the True Body and Blood of Christ, but to their spiritual harm and damnation. The manducatio impiorum, on which I have written before, holds that the unworthy receive, in Augustinian terms, the signum sacramenti and the res sacramenti, the outward Sign and the Thing Signified, but not the virtus sacramenti, the grace or benefit of the Blessed Sacrament. This is how, to use Article XXIX, one can receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and not be a 'partaker of Christ.' It follows in the Augustinian and Thomistic tradition perfectly. God bless you!

welshmann said...

Fr. Chad:

I am not an Anglican; I am a Baptist with an interest in church history, which has given rise to a growing interest in liturgical & sacramental worship, so please do not misinterpret the following as a militant Protestant throwing down the Reformation gauntlet.

Modern Protestantism is often a Reader's Digest version of Reformation, but even with that qualifier, it is my understanding that the Reformers consistently insisted that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is strictly one of thanksgiving and praise, and definitely not one of propitiation.

That being said, what error, if any, do you believe the Reformers were addressing when they denied the Eucharist as propitiation? Were the Reformers simply wrong, or were addressing a real error?

My own creeping suspicion is that the Reformers were right in substance, but that they did overstate the case more than a little. The Eucharist is not something that we do to appease God, period. Nothing we can do can do that. However, when I began to read ancient writers, men who wrote long before the later Protestant/Roman debate, they often stated very Reformation-friendly ideas while using the most explicit sacrificial language, even when referring to the Eucharist. It is as though the ancient writers never supposed that anyone would think that they were continuing, adding to, or repeating Calvary when they set forth the Lord's death and resurrection in a liturgical way.

Once I made that observation, I just couldn't read the New Testament the same way. Despite my Protestant fears, it seemed that sacrifice was on every page.

Both Protestant and Roman/Orthodox writers often agree that Eucharistic Sacrifice (except one of thanksgiving and praise) cannot be reconciled with justification by faith, and so as a result, Protestants cannot have a meaningful doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice. I am no longer so sure. Don't we "offer" that Sacrifice whenever we invoke it by faith?

I think I've been clear as mud, but if you can find a worthwhile question in there, I'd love to have your thoughts.

Yours in Christ,

welshmann

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your term when you use the word "veil"...that Christ is present, really and substantially, but "veiled" under the species of bread and wine. I had a dialogue with an anticatholic about this and asked her then why did Jesus feel obliged to partially veil His identity, to "disguise" Himself so to speak after His Resurrection - beginning with St. Mary Magdalene at the tomb, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, right up until He ascended. The Protestant skips right over this behaviour on the part of Jesus...so veiled was He that even His dearest followers were unable to recognise Him.

The real objective and substantial Presence is easily arguable for anyone willing to take Scripture in its plainest and most obvious sense. What would be the damnation involved in eating mere bread and wine?? The damnation St. Paul warns of plainly indicates that the Bread and Wine are in fact the Body and Blood of Jesus truly present and the unprepared or "unworthy" partaker is guilty of a mortal sin. It is for this reason that I'm also all for abolishing Communion in the hand and non-ordained persons distributing the Body and Blood. I believe the earliest Prayer Book rubrics insist that Communion be on the tongue...

Reflection: The 2024 APA Clergy Retreat on G3 Unity

Reflection: The 2024 APA Clergy Retreat on G3 Unity