Luther: "If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope"

Here's a Luther quote (along with commentary) from one of Rome's defenders:

From the onset Martin Luther's goal was to destroy the Church. ‘Reform’ or ‘correction’ was mere pretext for civil war. We only see 'reform' being used only to convince the illiterate surfs of Medieval Germany. From a gloss we can see schism was the goal early in Luther’s career. His main goal was to tear down what Christ had built up. Considering himself a great prophet on the order of Moses; no doubt aligned with the great deceiver, openly declared his desire to disrupt the Mass:

If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devils help, with false miracles and deceiving signs. (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., Vol. II, pg 320, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913) 1522

Notice the quote is prefaced with asserting Luther was "no doubt aligned with the great deceiver." Based on this, I suspect this defender of Rome is also the same author here:  he uses the same Luther quote, and asks, "All of which leads me to ask the question of whether or not Luther was possessed by satan? Who else would war against God’s Kingdom on earth? This might explain some strange stories surrounding some of Luther’s strange behavior." This is old-school anti-ecumenical  Romanism, hearkening back the destructive criticism of Luther that characterized Roman Catholic approaches to Luther pre-Joseph Lortz.

This particular defender of Rome also thinks Luther did away with the mass: "If you do away the Real Presence you’ve done away with the Mass. He hangs himself in the details surreptitiously ‘changing the meaning’ of the Mass form a real sacrifice to a symbolic one."  This Roman defender claims to be quoting "Luther's own words" and that responses to his critical attitude of Luther are an offering of "propaganda." Yes, there's propaganda going on, but it's not with those questioning this defender of Rome! Let's take a look at this Luther quote and see if it displays the ramblings of a person possessed by the devil, and if Luther wanted to "do away" with the mass.

Documentation
A fairly complete secondary reference was provided: "Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913) 1522." Based on his earlier post here, I suspect Rome's defender didn't actually use this source, but took the quote from Warren Carroll's book, The Cleaving of Christendom, 1517-1661, p. 59.

"Grisar" refers to a late nineteenth-century Roman Catholic Jesuit historian (1845-1932).  I've written about Grisar often over the years (see my brief overview here). Grisar is typically classified (by both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars) as belonging to the period of destructive criticism of Luther. Up until the early twentieth century, Roman Catholic biographies of Luther typically attacked the person, Martin Luther. Even with many of their theological evaluations, Luther's thought was taken as suspicious and heretical, with no redeeming value (I go into detail on this here and here). Generally speaking, Rome's contemporary scholars do not utilize Grisar, nor are his works in mass publication, nor have they been for a long, long time. However, the Internet has brought them back to life, so it's not uncommon to find Rome's defenders, particularly those whom are less ecumenically minded, utilizing Grisar.

Grisar did an extensive multi-volume work on Luther (which is at times tedious to the point of being unreadable!), and what's being referred to is volume two, page 320 (English version). There, Grisar states:

It not infrequently happened that the people were deceived by faithless and apostate clerics who became preachers of the new religion, and were drawn away from the olden faith without being clearly aware of the fact. After having become gradually and most insensibly accustomed to the new faith and worship, not even the bravest had, as a rule, the strength to draw back. The want of religious instruction among the people was here greatly to blame, likewise the lack of organised ecclesiastical resistance to the error, and also, the indolence of the episcopate.

Mass still continued to be said in many places where Lutheranism had taken root, though in an altered form, a fact which contributed to the deception. One of the chief of Luther's aims was to combat the Mass as a sacrifice.

He expressed this quite openly to Henry VIII in 1522: " If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devil's help, with false miracles and deceiving signs."1 In respect of the deception of the Mass, "I oppose all the pronouncements of the Fathers, of men, of angels, of devils, not by an appeal to 'ancient custom and tradition' nor to any man, but to the Word of the Eternal Majesty and to the Gospel which even my adversaries are forced to acknowledge." "This is God's Word," he vehemently exclaims of his denial of the sacrifice, "not ours. Here I stand, here I take my seat, here I stay, here I triumph and laugh to scorn all Papists, Thomists, Henryists, sophists, and all the gates of hell, not to speak of all the sayings of men, and the most sacred and deceitful of customs." 2

1. "Contra Henricum regem Angliae," "Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 2, p.220; "Opp. Lat. var.," 6, p. 445.
2. Ibid., p. 215=437.

Basically, Grisar provided two sources that provided the same text. "Contra Henricum regem Angliae" refers to Luther's Latin response to Henry VIII, 1522. "Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 2, p.220" refers to WA 10,2: 220, one of the most extensive collections of Luther's writings. "Opp. Lat. var.," 6, p. 445" can be found here. This reference is to a  different Latin collection of Luther's writings.The text reads:

A new English version of this text is scheduled for an upcoming volume of Luther's Works
(Theological and Polemical Writings, 1521-1546). There was an English rendering put out in 1928 by the Rev. E. S. Buchanan. Even though long out of print, the text can be found here.

The text in English is entitled, Martin Luther against Henry King of England. This was Luther's 1522 response  to Henry VIII's book Assertio Septum Sacramentorum. The King (or whoever wrote the book attributed to the King) attempted to defend the sacrifice of the mass, attempted to present an exegetical defense of transubstantiation, defend the income of priests via masses, and sought to use tradition to justify withholding the cup from the laity (as well as  commenting on other Protestant-related issues of the time). King Henry presented the book to the Pope and earned the title "Defender of the faith." (see Brecht, Martin Luther, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, Vol. 2:86-87). Luther vehemently responded to Henry's book. It's little wonder Luther wrote so harshly against this book. Brecht states, "[Luther] could only ridicule the pope's offer of an indulgence for reading Henry's book" [c.f. "The Pope also granted an indulgence of ten years and ten quadragenes to those who would read the King's book or listen to its content"(link)].

The quote in question appears towards the end of this short treatise. Presenting the complete context is beyond the scope of this entry, so I recommend those interested in Luther's full argumentation read it for themselves. The treatise isn't all that long.

Context

Let us return to the institution. We have then taken away the Mass, and we say in triumph against the Defender of the sacraments, that it is not a work nor a sacrifice, but a word and a sign of divine grace, which Christ uses for establishing and strengthening in us faith in Himself. And we see how foolish Satan is, since the longer and fiercer he rages and writes against us, the more senseless and infatuated is his delirium. For this book of the King, as it is about the best in Latinity of all the books that have been written against me, so is it above all others the most blockish and stupid, so that I could almost attribute it to our writers in Leipsic, who are wont thus to babble when their babblement is at its best.

Having triumphed over the Mass, I think we have triumphed over the whole papacy. For upon the Mass as upon a rock is built the whole papacy with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, its doctrines, and leans on it with its whole weight. And all these things must fall with the sacrilegious and abominable Mass. So Christ through me has begun to unmask the abomination standing in the holy place, and to destroy him, whose coming was through the operation of Satan in all wonders and lying miracles.

O that miserable Defender of the Papist Church! O miserable Church which in vain has poured forth its Indulgences for so great a book, except that a worthy reward it gave both to the Defender and to his book! For as are the Indulgences, so is the Church, so is the Defender, and so is the book also.

These things that I have said are enough for the defence of the chief sacrament, in handling which the Lord Henry greatly laboured with his assertions, as one who was not ignorant that therein lay the main thing for the preservation of the papal reign. The things remaining unsaid I am obliged to defer, being overwhelmed with many occupations, especially with translating the books of the Bible, most necessary works, lest I myself should promote the ends of Satan by my too great zeal in refuting him; for Satan by these senseless books thinks to hinder me, but he will not succeed.

Conclusion
The English of Grisar's Luther quote uses "doing way" with the mass.  Grisar's German text uses "abzuschaffen." Buchanan though renders it "triumphed over the Mass" (note the Latin word, "Triumphata" in the original). The Grisar versions, using the words they do,  may give off the false impression that Luther sought to completely abolish the mass, in general. Rather though, in context, it's Rome's version of the mass that's been triumphed over. That's the intended meaning, which is why Grisar prefaces the quote with, "One of the chief of Luther's aims was to combat the Mass as a sacrifice." What Luther was arguing against were specific abuses heaped on the mass by Rome. Luther believed he was defending the integrity of the "chief sacrament" (see the context above).

This particular defender of Rome went on to cite Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle stating, "It is also generally known with what guile Luther and Melanchthon bore themselves in doing away with the Mass." Denifle though, does not expound on this. Oddly, this Roman defender went on to claim of Luther, "If you do away the Real Presence you've done away with the Mass. He hangs himself in the details surreptitiously changing the meaning of the Mass form a real sacrifice to a symbolic one." For this Roman polemicist, unless it's transubstantiation, it's the symbolic view. He need only visit the Smalcald Articles to gain correction, or any number of other Roman Catholic apologists that use Luther's view to prove he believed in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

Very interesting article on the real presence in the Eucharist in the early church

"This article will examine the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma."  Brian Culliton, at his "onefold" wordpress blog

https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

Did Ignatius teach "the real presence" in the Eucharist?

This is an excellent article by Timothy Kauffman that shows that Ignatius did not teach the "real presence" (physical) of Jesus' body and blood in the Eucharist, or celebration of the Lord's Supper.

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/

Regrettable Lutheran Arguments for the Real Presence

"On a more frivolous note- although it was meant to be taken quite seriously- Luther's supporter Johann Brenz attempted a novel refutation of Zwingli's insistence that the body of Christ is physically present at the right hand of God in heaven. Brenz computed the distance between the earth and heaven by means of his own, and arrived at the distance of 16,338,562 German miles. Given the speed of Jesus' ascent from the Mount of Olives, as Brenz estimated it, Brenz concluded that the body of Jesus could not yet have reached heaven by the sixteenth century" (Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies (Grand rapids: Baker books, 1984), 325).

Could Luther Be Convinced the Lord's Supper Was Just Bread and Wine?

Here's an interesting comparison of two English translations of a section from an open letter Luther wrote to the Christians at Strassburg (Dec. 1524). The letter was primarily about Luther ex-colleague Karlstadt and his radical theology. Note the difference in the second translation. Luther's words are far more revealing- in which Luther was tempted to think of the Sacrament as "but mere bread and wine."

Luther's Works vol. 40 states:

I confess that if Dr. Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament he would have done me a great service. At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them. I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy. There were two who then wrote me, with much more skill than Dr. Karlstadt has, and who did not torture the Word with their own preconceived notions. But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage. Even if someone in these days might try more persuasively to prove that only bread and wine are present, it would not be necessary that he attack me in bitter spirit—which I, unfortunately, am altogether inclined to do, if I assess the nature of the old Adam in me correctly. But the way Dr. Karlstadt carries on in this question affects me so little that my position is only fortified the more by him. [LW 40:68]

Now compare this translation to that to this done by Preserved Smith in Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary letters vol. 2:

I freely confess that if Carlstadt or any other could have convinced me five years ago that there was nothing in the sacrament but mere bread and wine, he would have done me a great service. I was sorely tempted on this point, and wrestled with myself and strove to believe that it was so, for I saw that I could thereby give the hardest rap to the papacy. I read treatises by two men who wrote more ably in defence of the theory than Dr. Carlstadt and who did not so torture the Word to their own imagination. But I am bound, I cannot believe as they do; the text is too powerful and will not let itself be wrenched from the plain sense by argument. But even if it could happen that today anyone should prove on reasonable grounds that the sacrament was mere bread and wine, he would not much anger me. (Alas, I am too much inclined that way myself when I feel the old Adam!) But Dr. Carlstadt's ranting only confirms me in the opposite belief.

Luther's Works 40 relies on WA 15, 391-397 for their translation. The translation was done by Conrad Bergendoff. The quote can be found on page 394.  Smith cites Enders v, 83; DeWette, ii, 574, German. As far as I can tell,  WA 15 and DeWette ii are the same German text.

The LW 40 version doesn't flow in a coherent way.  One odd thing I found was that if one compares the two translations up to the point in question, they compliment each other nicely.  They both say basically the same thing. Then, at the point in question comes two different sets of train tracks:


LW: I confess that if Dr. Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament he would have done me a great service.

Smith: I freely confess that if Carlstadt or any other could have convinced me five years ago that there was nothing in the sacrament but mere bread and wine, he would have done me a great service

LW: At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them.

Smith: I was sorely tempted on this point, and wrestled with myself and strove to believe that it was so

LW: I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy.

Smith: for I saw that I could thereby give the hardest rap to the papacy.

LW: There were two who then wrote me, with much more skill than Dr. Karlstadt has, and who did not torture the Word with their own preconceived notions.

Smith: I read treatises by two men who wrote more ably in defense of the theory than Dr. Carlstadt and who did not so torture the Word to their own imagination.

LW: But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage.

Smith: But I am bound, I cannot believe as they do; the text is too powerful and will not let Itself be wrenched from the plain sense by argument

LW: Even if someone in these days might try more persuasively to prove that only bread and wine are present, it would not be necessary that he attack me in bitter spirit—which I, unfortunately, am altogether inclined to do, if I assess the nature of the old Adam in me correctly.

Smith: But even if it could happen that today anyone should prove on reasonable grounds that the sacrament was mere bread and wine, he would not much anger me. (Alas, I am too much inclined that way myself when I feel the old Adam!)

LW: But the way Dr. Karlstadt carries on in this question affects me so little that my position is only fortified the more by him. 

Smith: But Carlstadt's ranting only confirms me in the opposite belief 

LW: If I had not previously been of this opinion, such loose, lame, empty talk, set forth on the basis of his own reason and idiosyncrasy without scriptural foundation, would lead me to believe first of all that his opinions amount to nothing. 

Smith: if I had no opinion on the subject to start with, his light, unstable buffoonery, without any appeal to Scripture, would give my reason a prejudice against whatever he urged.


I'm not into conspiracies, but, Smith's translation makes a lot more sense. Obviously, Luther consistently held that the sacrament was the body and blood of Christ, so no, Luther could not be convinced otherwise. I do find it interesting that if Smith's translation is more accurate, this would be one of the first significant examples I've found that a translator of LW took liberties with a text to downplay what it was actually saying.


Addendum
For an interesting look  at the significance of the life and work of Conrad  Bergendoff, see this long pdf file that reminisces over his long career. A short bio page mentions he "was above all an ecumenicist." Now, I don't know his opinion on Rome, but I did find this other omission interesting- that he left out "Antichrist" which is clearly in the German text, and it's not too far of a stretch that Luther meant the papacy:

Smith: Dearest brethren, I greatly rejoice and thank God the Father of all mercy for His rich grace in calling you to His wonderful light and to the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ For now through His wholesome Word you know Him and joyously call Him Father Who has freed us from the horrible darkness of the Antichrist and from the iron furnace of Egyptian sin and death and has led us into a large, safe, free, good and promised land.

LW 40(Bergendoff):Dear sirs and brethren. I greatly rejoice and thank God the Father of mercy for the riches of his grace bestowed upon you, in that he has called you into his wonderful light and let you come into the participation of all the treasures of his Son, Jesus Christ. Now through his salutary Word you can recognize and acknowledge with joyful hearts the true Father, who has redeemed us from the iron furnace of Egyptian sin and death and brought us into the broad, secure, free and veritable Promised Land.

Calvin: A right understanding of the Lord's Supper is a requisite for salvation?

Over on the CARM boards a Roman Catholic posted the following:

Council or Protestant Reformer? Here's a little quiz for your Thursday afternoon. Please identify the author of the following doctrinal quotations. Is it from a Catholic Council or a Protestant Father?

What followed were a series of quotes with two choices: a Roman choice, or a Protestant choice (all the quotes though were from Protestants). The goal appears to be to demonstrate that certain historically important Protestants held to particular Roman beliefs. This sort argument really is, in essence, futile. Protestants don't follow earlier Protestants as infallible interpreters. Nor is it surprising to find that the earliest generation of Protestant reformers may have still held to particular Roman beliefs on various things. Roman Catholics are quick to point to an infallible "development of doctrine" to explain their inconsistencies with earlier periods of church history. It's a double standard then to demand that Protestant doctrine did not (or could not)"develop" further away from Romanism as history progressed. So, while some of the quotes accurately reflected the beliefs of the Protestants being cited,  some of them were historically misleading, and when placed back in context said something much different than what the Roman church believes.  I'd like to highlight a few of these quotes in a few blog entries. Here's the first quote and choices:

1. A right understanding of the Lord's Supper is a requisite for salvation
“As the holy sacrament of the Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ has long been the subject of several important errors, and in these past years been anew enveloped in diverse opinions and contentious disputes, it is no wonder if many weak consciences cannot fairly resolve what view they ought to take of it, but remain in doubt and perplexity, waiting till all contention being laid aside, the servants of God come to some agreement upon it. However, as it is a very perilous thing to have no certainty on an ordinance, the understanding of which is so requisite for our salvation, I have thought it might be a very useful labour to treat briefly and, nevertheless, clearly deduce a summary of what is necessary to be known of it.'

a. Council of Trent
b. John Calvin

The quote appears to have the polemical value of demonstrating that while contemporary Protestants supposedly do not think a correct understanding of the Lord's Supper is all that important, Calvin says it is important and "requisite for salvation." The underlying assumption is that Rome teaches a correct understanding of the Lord's Supper is requisite for salvation.  Well, if this is what this question is supposed to imply, a staff apologist from Catholic Answers stated 70% of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist.

Here is the document this Calvin quote is taken from. When Calvin implies a right understanding of the Lord's Supper is a requisite for salvation, he's talking about the wrong way of understanding the Lord's Supper being the way Rome understands it. If you scroll through the document, notice Calvin painstakingly details Rome's abhorrent errors. When Calvin finally gets to other Protestant views, he doesn't classify them as he has Rome's understanding. Calvin clearly thinks Rome's view is wrong.

Of Protestants, Calvin goes on to say:

First, I beseech all believers, in the name of God, not to be too much scandalized at the great difference which has arisen among those who ought to be a kind of leaders in bringing back the light of truth. For it is no new thing for the Lord to leave his servants in some degree of ignorance, and suffer them to have debate among themselves—not to leave them for ever, but only for a time to humble them. And indeed had every thing till now turned out to a wish without any disturbance, men might possibly have forgotten themselves, or the grace of God might have been less known than it ought. Thus the Lord has been pleased to take away all ground of glorying from men, in order that he might alone be glorified. Moreover, if we consider in what an abyss of darkness the world was when those who have shared this controversy began to bring back the truth, we shall not wonder that they did not know every thing at the beginning. The wonder rather is, that our Lord in so short a time enlightened them that they were themselves able to escape and draw others out of that sink of error in which they had been so long immersed. But no better course can be taken than to show how matters have proceeded, because this will make it appear that people have not so much cause to be scandalized at it as is commonly supposed.

Calvin then goes on to describe the views of Luther and the Swiss theologians, in a quite evenhanded tone:

Both parties failed in not having the patience to listen to each other in order to follow the truth without passion, when it would have been found. Nevertheless, let us not lose sight of our duty, which is not to forget the gifts which the Lord bestowed upon them, and the blessings which he has distributed to us by their hands and means. For if we are not ungrateful and forgetful of what we owe them, we shall be well able to pardon that and much more, without blaming or defaming them.

What's interesting to me about this document from Calvin is that he doesn't completely throw Luther and Zwingli under the bus. Rather, he points to their contributions against Romanist error, and explains what he feels were their shortcomings. Calvin looked forward to a day in which "concord" would be "fixed" among the Protestant leaders. He doesn't appear at all to be saying in this document that either Lutherans or Zwinglians lacked salvation because of their view of the Lord's Supper. The point again is that the incorrect view of Lord's Supper, the view that if held is against salvation, was, for Calvin, the Roman Catholic view.

The Reformation Caused People to Abandon Celebrating the Lord's Supper?

Here's a new one (at least for me) from the CARM discussion boards: Look What Happened when the "Reformers" Protested against the True Church-

I've pointed this out in the past but never realized the "Reformers" recognized this problem. When they changed Christ's ancient teaching of the pillar and foundation of the truth, they recognized that many of their disciples stopped celebrating the Lord's Supper.

The proof given consists of statements from Luther's Large Catechism (bolded emphasis from the CARM post):

In conclusion, since we have now the true understanding and doctrine of the Sacrament, there is indeed need of some admonition and exhortation, that men may not let so great a treasure which is daily administered and distributed among Christians pass by unheeded, that is, that those who would be Christians make ready to receive this venerable Sacrament often. 40] For we see that men seem weary and lazy with respect to it; and there is a great multitude of such as hear the Gospel, and, because the nonsense of the Pope has been abolished, and we are freed from his laws and coercion, go one, two, three years, or even longer without the Sacrament, as though they were such strong Christians that they have no need of it; 41] and some allow themselves to be prevented and deterred by the pretense that we have taught that no one should approach it except those who feel hunger and thirst, which urge them to it. Some pretend that it is a matter of liberty and not necessary, and that it is sufficient to believe without it; and thus for the most part they go so far that they become quite brutish, and finally despise both the Sacrament and the Word of God.

First, from a personal contemporary perspective, I belong to a Protestant church in which the sacrament of Holy Communion is taken quite seriously and is well-attended by the congregation. The sacrament is observed typically once a month, though in two stages. The week before the celebration, part of the service is dedicated to preparing for the upcoming Lord's Supper and parishioners are exhorted to continue prayerfully preparing during the week. In other words, however unimportant this Roman detractor thinks all of Protestantism regards the sacraments, my experience does not support any such contention; and by extension, all those churches that are in solidarity with my church share a similar seriousness in regard to Holy Communion.

From a historical perspective, I would direct this Roman defender to Steven E. Ozment, The Reformation in the Cities: The appeal of Protestantism to Sixteenth-Century Germany and Switzerland (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975). He should particularly read chapter 2: Lay Religious Attitudes on the Eve of the Reformation.  On page 17, Ozment describes historians that spoke against a lively religious piety in the late Middle Ages. For instance, one French scholar saw in a particular French region "only external, formalized religiosity among laymen."  He notes a lack of enthusiasm in the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist (p.18). After noting the irregularity of those faithfully going to confession, he states, "Irregularity is also found to mark lay reception of the Eucharist, despite large numbers of participants at Easter and other festive occasions, when attendance was much more diligently enforced" (p. 19). Ozment then states:

"A study of piety in late medieval Germany has reported very similar results. There, even the threat of force did not prevent many from staying away from Easter communion as well as 'voluntary' communion during the year. In 1480 in the diocese of Eichstätt, fewer than one hundred persons are recorded to have received communion at times other than Easter" (p.19).

Roman Catholic historian Joseph Lortz notes similarly:

Within the whole system the reception of holy communion played a very small part. Universally the power of this opus operatum above all others fell into the background of the spiritual economy. In general, people received only the strictly obligatory Easter communion after the likewise obligatory two confessions. (Communion was obligatory, moreover, on pain of imprisonment and corporeal punishment.) And even then there was relatively great neglect of this minimum. There were repeated admonitions from synods that this once yearly communion must not be neglected. But these admonitions were in vain. [Joseph Lortz, The Reformation in Germany Volume 1 (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), p. 123]. 

But perhaps the best response to this Roman defender was offered by another CARM participant:

Hebrews 10: "24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching." 

So, who had "changed Christ's ancient teaching of the pillar and foundation of truth" when the epistle to the Hebrews was written? Interesting that the apostles encountered similar behavior even before the great and powerful Oz, oops, I meant the great and powerful, all-authority Roman Church came into existence.

This CARM contributor makes a good point, a good biblical point. There were those people even during the lifetime of the Apostles and the writing of the New Testament that "gave up" the blessing of meeting together as a church. And of course, there's Paul's description of the abuses during the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11). It's no surprise to me that the writer to the Hebrews and Paul both exhorted the early church on basic points of fellowship and sacraments, nor am I surprised Luther did the same. If the apostles needed to exhort the church, why would we assume those that came after the apostles would not need to as well?

Seventy Percent of Roman Catholics Do Not Understand The Eucharist

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 04/15/2009

Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist? There's that anti-catholic James Swan again, making stuff up about the one true church. Everyone knows, those who are members of the one true church have the benefit of the infallible magisterium. The papacy has God-given authority keeping Catholics unified!

Actually, what most who may think this about me don't realize is I probably read more Roman Catholic books at this point than Protestant books. I certainly listen to more Catholic broadcasts than Protestant. This particular fact was not something I made up. It comes from the April 6, 2009 broadcast of Catholic Answers Live. Catholic apologist Jim Burnham devoted an hour on "How to Defend and Explain the Eucharist." You can listen to Jim's statistics in this short clip. Jim says in part,

"Poll after poll in recent years has confirmed that more and more Catholics are mistaken... they have misguided views about the Eucharist. it used to be everybody understood that the Eucharist was Jesus. it was the true flesh and blood... the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine. And now more recent polls suggest that sometimes up to fifty percent depending on how the question is phrased, sometimes as many as seventy percent of Catholics can't identify that core Catholic belief..."

So, if I were to ask seven out of ten Catholics to explain the Eucharist, according to Burnham, I'd probably get a few different answers, or maybe even seven different answers. Here again we find a simple truth, typically ignored by Catholic apologists. Catholic apologists will repeatedly claim a Christian relying on the Bible as his sole infallible authority will produce confusion. They claim one must have another infallible authority, the Papacy. Yet, here is one of their key doctrines, what Burnham calls, "the crown jewel" of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist, and seven out of ten Catholics are confused on it.

In this period of economic crisis, many companies are evaluating their work plan, trying to find ways in which their company is failing and losing money. I submit, If your alleged infallible teaching magisterium is working as Burnham describes, you may want to evaluate the effectiveness of upper management at this point.

The Wobbly and Heretical Evolution of Rome’s Doctrine of “Real Presence”

Paul Hoffer has commented on Ken’s article on (a) Augustine’s errors, and (b) Roman Catholic misuse of Augustine in his errors.

Hoffer said:

I would suggest that the reader follow the link you have put up to Augustine's words. You may fashion an argument over how Real of a Presence he believed was present in the Eucharist here, but what you can't argue about is that he was talking about something else.

If God truly is in the Eucharist as Augustine writes, then it is entirely appropriate for us to bow down and worship Him there. As I hope to show in the near future, Augustine's views are entirely in line with those of Ambrose, his mentor and the Catholic Church at that time and what the Church teaches yet today. I do recognize that you are merely parroting the opinion of your particular denomination on this matter. I must wonder though how Protestants who do accept the doctrine of the Real Presence interpret the passage in question. How do you reconcile your denial of the Real Presence with those Protestants who do recognize to varying extents the truth of the doctrine?

Paul Hoffer here touches on one of those clearly heretical “developments” that Ron DiGiacomo was talking about, that we should not hesitate to bring up.

Edward Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharist in the West” (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press) sheds some light here.

In our day, many Catholic theologians of the Latin tradition favor the notion of the objective sacramental representation of the historical redemptive work of Christ “on the altar.” In other words priority is awarded to the notion that the Eucharistic liturgy is the means by which the historical redemptive sacrifice of Christ is represented sacramentally so as to become available to be encountered by faith. The advocates of this average modern Catholic position have attempted to support their position especially by an appeal to Greek patristic theology.

However, the ambiguity of the precise meaning of the Greek speculation on the link between the historical self-offering of Christ and the Eucharistic sacrifice provides a major obstacle to this argument from the authority of tradition.

I will say it here. Rome completely fouled up its own understanding of the Lord’s Supper; now it looks to the Eastern churches for some clarification of the “ancientness” of its beliefs in this regard.

Now, I don’t know all the angles on the eastern conception of the Eucharist. Paul Hoffer rightly cites Ambrose of Milan (c. 337-397) both as Augustine’s mentor and as one who played a formative role in the western church’s (i.e., Rome’s) understanding of the Eucharist.

However, the view that Ambrose helped to formulate is not the New Testament teaching on the Lord’s Supper, and nor is it the same as what was taught by earlier church fathers, either in the east or the west.

Schaff provides some perspective:

The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.

Now, where have we seen this theme before?

Nevertheless, Roman Catholics will of course cite various passages from Ignatius and the Didache to the effect that the earliest church, emphasis was not on the mode of Christ’s presence (i.e., “real” or “spiritual”), but on the “worthy participation,” as Schaff notes. And that was Paul’s insistence, too (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Keith Mathison, in his work “Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, ©2002), notes that, in discussions of “real presence,” great care must be given to understand “to what extent were the early fathers influenced by Platonic thought?” Mathison cites Gary Macy on the history of the theology of the Lord’s Supper:

Nothing is more important in understanding Christian thought on the eucharist than the simple insight that for most of Christian history, people who wrote about the eucharist just assumed that Plato was right. The most “real” things were those grasped by the mind; the least “real” things were those things that were sensed. “Essences” (or “substances” or “forms”) were always more real than sense data (329).

That is, when an ancient said “real presence,” there was the greatest likelihood that he was saying “real” in the Platonic sense. What was “real” was not that which one could “touch with one’s hands,” – that is, for Plato, “there was a whole world of perfect objects (which he called “forms”) that serve as criteria for the objects of our knowledge, and he argued that we must know the forms with greater certainty than anything else” (John Frame, “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God,” pg 111).

So if something was “real” (consider the term “real presence”), it was not the tangible, physical presence that someone was talking about; “real” was something “out there,” “floating in space,” – quite the opposite of what people understand today when they say “real presence”. Schaff points out that there were, “among the ante-Nicene fathers, three different views” [of the Lord’s Supper], and Kilmartin notes that “the Latin Fathers show less concern for the speculative aspects of Eucharistic theology than the Greek fathers. Their interest is geared more to the pastoral and practical side of the efficacy of the Eucharistic sacrifice and Holy Communion. Also, although acquainted with a Platonic way of thinking about reality, they were less consistent about its application to the Eucharist.” Augustine’s view could be said to be more Platonic:

On the subject of the reception of the sacraments of the body and blood, Augustine describes the gift that is bestowed on the communicant as a virtus, unitas, caritas, by which one is integrated more deeply into the “society of the predestined, called, justified, and glorified saints and faithful.” Augustine views the grace of the Eucharist as that which unites the believers to Christ and to one another. He describes this grace as grace of the Spirit of Christ, signified by the sacrament, and bestowed on believers on the occasion of their participation in the sacrament. The grace is not conceived as though contained, as it were, in the external sacrament. Much less does Augustine teach that the body and blood of Christ are “contained” under the forms of bread and wine. The theology the fourth-century Antiochene [Eastern] School concerning the somatic real presence of Christ under forms of bread and wine is definitely not that of Augustine.

On the other hand, the Eastern theology of the fourth-century Antiochene tradition, as exemplified in the writings of St. John Chrysostom, was clearly and strongly reflected in the writings of St. Ambrose of Milan. Ambrose confessed the somatic real presence of Christ under forms of bread and wine, effected through conversion of elements into the body and blood of Christ (5-6).

Kilmartin notes, This metabolic understanding of the change is a new concept which goes beyond what would develop from an image theology. Hence, at least in the early Middle Ages, Ambrose’s teaching also provided the basis for an alternative to the traditional fourth-century (realistic, metabolic-conversion) Antiochene explanation of the process of Eucharistic conversion (18).

On the question of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Ambrose provides an example of the difference of the orientation between the Eastern and Western traditions. The Greek Fathers of the fourth-century Antiochene tradition base the sacrificial character of the Eucharist on the concept of anamnesis: the commemorative actual presence of the one and unique sacrifice of Christ on the cross. … Ambrose teaches that it is precisely the liturgical assembly that is the subject of the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice … The idea that each individual Mass has a value in itself as a kind of new act of Christ performed in and through the sacrificial offering of the Church [derives from Ambrose].

Ambrose’s doctrine of the somatic presence of Christ under forms of bread and wine was borrowed from the fourth-century Antiochene tradition. But … it was not “received” within the Platonic horizon of the Greek theologians. However, his teaching on this subject, thus separated from its natural Platonic horizon, became the viable – and eventually triumphant – option in the Latin Church of the early Middle Ages over against the “spiritualized” interpretation of the content of the sacraments of the body and blood linked to the Augustinian tradition. Likewise Ambrose’s teaching about the Christological aspect of the Eucharistic sacrifice shows no signs of the influence of the Greek notion of commemorative sacrifice. This fact, which proves that Ambrose’s “reception” of Greek Eucharistic theology was only partial, is indicative of the difficulty which the Western theological mindset has traditionally experienced in its attempts to grasp the Greek notion of commemorative sacrifice.

By the end of the sixth century this Greek concept, which could have served the interests of a more balanced theology of the Eucharistic sacrifice, was no longer present to the Western tradition. At the same time the tendency of the Western theology of Eucharistic sacrifice toward postulating a complete disjunction between the historical sacrifice of the cross and the Eucharistic sacrifice received additional support from Pope Gregory the Great’s saying that “(Christ) in the mystery of the holy sacrifice is offered for us again (iterum)” [from Dialogorum libri iv 4.58 (PL 77.425CD). This text is one of the earliest that refers to Christ being “newly” offered. Supported by the authority of Gregory it became an important proof text for the notion that the sacrifice of Christ is repeated in each Mass in an “unbloody way” (19-22).

Thus we have come full circle: here we have papal affirmation (and it’s Pope Gregory The Great!) of the very opposite of what the Scripture teaches, in which Christ died “once for all,” and “is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”

Modern Roman Catholicism has tried to play down that embarrassing “repeated in an unbloody way” language, and have made the effort to re-adopt the “re-presentation of the one sacrifice” imagery; but modern Roman Catholics should know that is a Greek concept that Rome once rejected.

For those Roman Catholics who think that Rome’s doctrine of the Eucharist is somehow the Eucharistic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper that was held by the earliest church, you are just simply deceived. You are putting more faith in the vascillating “traditions” of the Roman church, than you are in either the genuine early traditions of the church, or the clear teachings of Scripture on this matter.

Index of recent argumentation regarding the Real Presence as monophysitism

I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect to provoke a lot of anger and vexation over my recent post: Is transubstantiation a Monophysite doctrine? But it was so much fun to write! And it's been even more fun to watch:
1) how fired up certain interlocutors became
2) how bad their arguments generally were
3) how little they actually interacted with the fundamental point - that Jesus, as both God AND man, is not multilocational but is, rather, always in one place at one time
4) how it made bedfellows out of practitioners of otherwise fairly hostile systems, such as Scott Windsor, loyal son of Rome, and Edward Reiss, fairly conservative Lutheran.

This index post is to serve as a collective reference point to see all the conversation that has gone down over this point.
First came Steve Hays' Anti-Incarnational sacramentalism.
I'd had my post written for some time but was waiting for a good time to post it, and figured that I should go ahead and strike while the iron was hot. So then came my post, which has accumulated more than 120 comments.

Scott Windsor added Transubstantiation Question, and I interacted a lot there.
Later he posted Transubstantiation Question II, and I interacted some there as well. Read these if you want a lot of strawmen and a failure on Windsor's part to even understand what I was saying.

And then you can see Matthew Bellisario post barely-relevant quotations from Thomas Aquinas over at his post: For Those Confused About Transubstantiation..., in which combox I interacted some.
As one philosopher (apocryphally) said: if you speak nonsense in Latin, you can write many books; if you speak nonsense in Saxon, you are found out at once.

Perry Robinson aka Acolyte4236 interacted extensively with me in the combox of my post, starting here.

Edward Reiss jumped in with How Jesus' body--even before the resurrection, is not "Just like ours", then Calvin's framing of the question about the Incarnation--i.e. Jesus' body, is flawed, as if I appealed to Calvin or care particularly what he had to say about this issue if it's irrelevant. Find a great deal of interaction there between us.
Later, Jesus as a "Spiritual reality", since it really seems that the monophysitism proponents in this discussion have a hard time admitting that the spiritual is real. Strange for someone who confesses to be a Christian, but you know.
Later, If St. Peter can do it, Jesus' miracles don't tell us anything special about Jesus as a man..., in which he attempts to assert that Jesus' status as God-man makes Him more buoyant, more cooperative with the surface tension of water than my status as regular man makes me.

TurretinFan had One More Response to Edward Reiss.

Finally, Steve Hays had numerous helpful things to say in his posts:
The Styrofoam Jesus, in which he mocks the buoyancy argument.
A Lutheran's unresponsive response
Lutheran cartoons
The Heisenberg compensator
The Real Presence of the Big Mac, a specific response to some of the comments from Perry Robinson, Acolyte4236 in the combox of my post.
Why Lutherans deny the empty tomb, a reductio on the Lutheran view Edward Reiss has been defending (and by extension, the Roman view).

Overall, a very interesting and satisfying exchange. It's good to be Reformed. Sort of funny how I'll be teaching through Eric Svendsen's curriculum on the Lord's Table starting pretty soon in my Sunday School class.

Is transubstantiation a Monophysite doctrine?

CrimsonCatholic and Perry Robinson participated a few months ago in a fairly technical but somewhat interesting discussion at David Waltz's blog.
CrimsonCatholic made a very interesting statement:

The key feature of Chalcedonian theology is that Christ's nature is exactly the same as ours, so what happens to the human nature in Christ happens to everyone who is "in Christ Jesus" (to use St. Paul's term) by grace, including the sharing of the divine glory.

I'd like to ask a few questions, if we're going to take this consistently with the rest of our theology.
So Christ's nature is exactly the same as mine. My nature is human. Part of being human (as opposed to being divine) is to be limited to a particular physical location at any one time, is it not? My body cannot be in more than one place at any one time. That's obvious.

Now, Christ Himself, at the time of His Incarnation, took upon Himself a human nature and a physical body. At the time of His Resurrection, His body became glorified and immortal; He doesn't necessarily have blood anymore, but He retains flesh and physical tangibility, among other properties. He can perhaps walk through walls, or perhaps not; John 20 simply says, "when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be with you.'" Maybe He created a key and let Himself in; maybe He knocked and they let Him in; maybe He passed through the door via "teleportation"; the text does not tell us. Obviously He can perform miracles such as walking on water and perhaps passing through walls, disappearing right in front of two disciples at dinnertime on the road to Emmaus, etc, but we never see Christ in more than one place at any one time.

CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . ."

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

On any given Sunday, or really most any day of the week, Mass is performed at thousands of churches across the globe. On any given Sunday morning, to be sure, the Eucharistic host is transubstantiated in multiple locations, at the same time. How well does this match with the conception of Christ's body's substance? It is supposed to be of human substance, yet here it displays a trait better assigned to divinity, that of omnipresence. Christ's human body, it turns out, is NOT "exactly the same as ours", as I don't think CrimsonCatholic has ever been at two or more places at once. I know I haven't, much as I'd like to be; I could get a lot more accomplished!

And the situation seems to be even worse than that. Take a look at this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and particles that remain on the or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion.

Thus the red candle/light that one often sees perpetually lit on the altar of a Roman church - one or more transubstantiated hosts are still there. The real and substantial body of Jesus Christ is enclosed there. In many hundreds or thousands of churches across the world, simultaneously.

So, taking the doctrine that CrimsonCatholic has expressed and applying it consistently across the board, we run into a serious snag in the doctrine of the Eucharist. It would seem that, if transubstantiation is true, then the RC position leads to a denial of the true human nature of Christ, because the substantial, real human body of Christ is simultaneously in thousands of different places, thus applying a divine trait to Christ's human nature. Not Chalcedonian at all, then; more like Monophysite.