Of course, Rome rarely does “infallibly” interpret individual texts (and we know not how many times she has infallible spoken), but she decrees she has an assuredly infallible magisterium, that when her magisterium speaks to the church universal on faith and morals then it is infallible. And which renders her own declaration that she is infallible to be infallible, and whatever else she decrees in accordance with her scope and subject-based formula. And thus history and Scripture can be what she says they are.

“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine…I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves…The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — (Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

Not at all; to understand “Rome”, you need to understand 1st century Christianity. That is, to understand the Catholic Church you have to have solid understanding of all Church history, beginning from the NT scriptures, which incidentally, developed in the Catholic Church.

You have impressively encapsulated what I believe the proper Protestant position should be with regard both to the Mass.

You have also properly defined the very center of the debate- the nature of authority. Does Rome have divine right authority to define matters of faith? If not, such declarations are spiritual tyranny. The spirit of antichrist would be at work. If….

Very true, though the objection was never really that Rome lacks the gospel. It is that she adds to the tradition and thereby distorts the message Christ committed to his Church.

Some distortions are in themselves innocent enough. Personally, I am half inclined to think Mary was in fact assumed to heaven after her dormition. Content here is not the problem, rather it is that Rome has turned a speculative pious opinion into a dogma. The pope was entirely upfront about what his act meant: “if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith” (MD, 45).

Certain distortions are more grievous. Consider again the sixth canon of the thirteenth session of Trent:

“If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.”

The wording is precise, especially when read in context, and does not enjoin simply the primitive Eucharistic adoration according to which Christ being received through the sacrament is worshipped. Trent squarely insists that the worship proper to God alone is to be directed to the consecrated elements as being substantially the body and blood of Christ. If the RCC has misinterpreted the nature of Christ’s presence, then the rationale for this type of adoration vanishes, and we are left with a practice which, whether technically idolatrous or not, certainly tends in that direction, and is quite seriously erroneous. And our full approval is demanded for the error.

I dislike being negative. To repeat, we should rejoice for what is good in the RCC. There is plenty of it, far more than we often think. I do not want to return to the bad old days of vitriol and bombast. Nonetheless, if we can brook differences like those above, I worry we have let the pendulum swing too far. We should be extremely cautious yielding ground occupied not just by one sect or another, but by nearly all traditional Protestants.

A well regarded Reformed Presbyterian Professor, teaching Systematic Theology at the RP Seminary, once told my class that there was more of the gospel in a Roman Mass than your average evangelical worship service.

But I guess that those old blue bloods were never up to the standard of orthodoxy of you and your friends.

I thank you for your post, which well represents the confessional Reformed response.

I wont take the time to debate the specifics with you now, but wish to help your conscience.

Although the RPCNA does not demand strict subscription to the Confessional documents, you know that I was always, as an RP Pastor, a defender of the Constitution. I take the case for Reformed confessionalism seriously, and believe it is the only hope of keeping the Reformed churches orthodox.

You asked if I still affirm Westminster’s teaching on the Mass. The answer is that I do not. For this, and for other departures from Reformed Orthodoxy, I have already made known to my Presbytery my desire to affiliate with another denomination. My membership has been moved from our former RPCNA congregation and now resides in the Christian Reformed Church.

Although you surely disagree with where I am theologically, I hope that you will be able to appreciate the honesty of my convictions and my unwillingness to serve against a denomination’s confession. I have to much love and respect for the Covenanters to do anything less.

CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
In case you think that this is old stuff (which an irreformable Church cannot change), here is the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church issued by Pope John Paul II (“Dedicated to the Immaculate”, i.e. Mary) which heavily quotes the Council of Trent:
1383 The altar, around which the Church is gathered in the celebration of the Eucharist, represents the two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the Lord. This is all the more so since the Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself, present in the midst of the assembly of his faithful, both as the victim offered for our reconciliation and as food from heaven who is giving himself to us. “For what is the altar of Christ if not the image of the Body of Christ?”[212] asks St. Ambrose. He says elsewhere, “The altar represents the body [of Christ] and the Body of Christ is on the altar.”[213] The liturgy expresses this unity of sacrifice and communion in many prayers. Thus the Roman Church prays in its anaphora: We entreat you, almighty God, that by the hands of your holy Angel this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven in the sight of your divine majesty, so that as we receive in communion at this altar the most holy Body and Blood of your Son, we may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace.[214]
1410 It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
1419 Having passed from this world to the Father, Christ gives us in the Eucharist the pledge of glory with him. Participation in the Holy Sacrifice identifies us with his Heart, sustains our strength along the pilgrimage of this life, makes us long for eternal life, and unites us even now to the Church in heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints.
Bill, this is the doctrinal position of the Roman Catholic Church. This is a sacrifice on an altar. This is an abomination.
The Westminster Confession which you vowed to uphold says in the section on the Lord’s Supper (29.2) says, “In this Sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same: so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect. Heb. 9:22, 25-26, 28; 1 Cor. 11:24-26; Matt. 26:26-27; Heb. 7:23-24, 27; Heb. 10:11-12, 14, 18.”
Do you still hold to this statement of faith? Do you believe that the mass is abominably injurious to Christ? As an Elder in the RPCNA, I await an answer.

May God give you grace to see the light.

In Christ,
Randy Johovich

I’m not so sure that we’re really off-topic here. The initial posting refers to the question of whether Rome is an enemy to those who embrace the Reform tradition. I have found our exchanges to be very instructive regarding Reformed theology, about which I know very little. My intention is to attempt to alleviate concerns about idolatry in the Catholic faith, particularly the Mass and Eucharist.

While I understand your concerns, I do believe that the question from my last posting is relevant. You accept and in fact use as your highest reference a book which was chosen and assembled by the Catholic Church. We are not so far apart as may appear.

The lineage of Catholic theology is perhaps the most detailed and recorded history in all the world over such a long span of time. It is quite easy to trace the popes and Church teaching all the way back to Peter–a span which now approaches 2000 years.

There were certainly some clunkers elected along the way but their individual sinfulness did not effect the DOCTRINE of the Church. It certainly affected the activity of certain individuals (to our great sadness) but it did not change the tenets of the faith.

More impressively, most of the Popes WERE holy despite an enormous amount of temptation and corruption around them. The historical record bears this out.

If I am understanding you correctly it would appear that our differences lie mainly in that I accept this unbroken lineage of the Church from Peter to Pope Benedict (including its teachings) as being guided by the Holy Spirit. And I accept that a handful of those who ascended Peter’s chair were, like Judas, chosen but betrayed their position as they betrayed their Savior. If Jesus himself batted 11 of 12 then surely the College of Cardinals can bat 250 of 266.

I take Jesus at his word when he proclaims Peter to be the Rock on which He will build the Church. I also believe Him when He says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. And I assume that that means even for a short period of time. What reason would we have to assume otherwise?

My prayer is that you might see that this is the genuine belief of faithful Catholics. We accept the tenets of the faith because we believe that the Holy Spirit never abandoned the Church and therefore has continuously guided it even through times of great corruption of individuals, even popes. That the Catholic Church remains THE bastion of the faith in the world despite all the assaults against it we offer as evidence.

Idolatry is a danger for every Christian every day. But at the Mass, Catholics worship our one and only Lord and Savior. The priest is just a servant as were the apostles and those they appointed to help them. We continue that tradition begun by the apostles.