In the second through the fourth centuries, four divergent interpretations concerning the Christian doctrine of God made their appearance—strict Unitarianism (Ebionites, adoptionists), modalism (Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius), Arianism (Arius, Aetius, Eunomius), and Trinitarianism (Athanasius, Hilary, Cappadocians). It took two Ecumenical Councils, copious apologetic writings from a number of bishops, and some imperial support for Trinitarianism to emerge—in the last two decades of the fourth century—as the predominant view. In the seventh century, a new religion founded by Muhammad—Islam—became the only substantial threat to the Trinitarian view until the sixteenth century.
The Protestant reformation/revolt created the environment for the reemergence of Unitarianism, various forms of Arianism, and eventually, even modalism. It also allowed for the first time four distinct, opposing views of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper: Zwinglian (memorial only), Lutheran (consubstantiation), Calvinist (spiritual presence) and Catholic/Council of Trent (transubstantiation).
Now, with that said, one important question that needs to be asked is this: which of the four views has the most continuity with the preceding centuries of Christian thought?
A few years ago (2010), Tim Troutman identified three types/categories of statements found in the writings of the Church Fathers that are quite useful for a detailed analysis of the historical continuity of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper. First, ‘Affirmation of Change During the Consecration’; second, 'Simple Identification of Consecrated Species as the Body and Blood’; and third, ‘Demand of Extraordinary Reverence’. [Link to Tim’s informative treatment HERE.]
Tim provides numerous germane quotations from the Church Fathers for each type/category, along with some brief commentary. At the end, there is an appendix that addresses some objections and a short list of additional reading resources.
Tim’s contribution is a must read for folk who have an interest in our topic at hand. Shall end this post with Tim's 'Introduction':
The claim that the Church fathers believed in Transubstantiation is not a claim that any particular father commanded a precise understanding of the doctrine as formulated by Trent. Any given Church father could no sooner express this doctrine precisely in its developed form than could any given ante-Nicene father express the Niceno-Constantinoplitan doctrine of the Trinity. Yet this does not mean either that they did not believe it, or even that it existed in mere “seed form.” The Nicene doctrine of the Trinity can be detected not only in the early Christian writings and in the New Testament, it is an unavoidable development. That is, anything other than the Niceno-Constantinopolitan doctrine of the Trinity would be contrary to the Tradition of the Church. Likewise, the affirmations that the fathers made about the Eucharist were not only compatible with Transubstantiation, they were incompatible with anything less.
Grace and peace,
David
8 comments:
Dave. As St Vincent of Lerins says: "Say things newly. Not new things." "Transubstantiation" was a new way of saying an old...apostolic...Thing.
Hi Rory,
What I particularly find interesting about the four competing interpretations is that the Catholic view actually includes the main aspects of the other three, for it affirms that the Eucharist is a memorial (Zwingli), that Christ is spiritually present (Calvin), and that He is physically present (Luther). This should be serious 'food for thought' for anyone reflecting on the nature of the Eucharist.
Grace and peace,
David
Dave, hi again.
That was a very timely insight for me. In preparation for a project I expect to be working on, I have been reviewing one of the writings published by Angelus Press, the publishing arm of the Society of St. Pius X. The book I am studying is taken from retreats, sermons, and conferences given by Abp. Marcel LeFebvre, the founder of the Society (SSPX).
The book is called The Mass of All Time. In that book he gives some wonderful comments in the first part of the book which explains a lot of the theology of what is frequently called, the Tridentine Mass, because it came about after the Reforms of the Council of Trent. The second part deals with what the Archbishop explains as the defective nature of the Novus Ordo Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI, as LeFebvre understood it. I agree with LeFebvre in all of the first part, and most of the second part.
But there is one quote in this second part of the book that is critical of the instruction of the Church in regard to a definition of the Mass in general, but issued as the first general instruction for the New Missal. I quote the Archbishop, who is quoting from what was then, the general instruction of the new Roman Rite (G.I.R.M.):
"The Lord's Supper or Mass is the assembly or meeting of the People of God, met together with a priest presiding, to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church. 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.'"
His excellency then observes the following: "That is how they define the New Mass. This definition is absolutely contrary to Catholic teaching."
---The Mass of All Time, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Angelus Press, (2007), p. 223
David, this first instruction was not intended as an exhaustive definition. Rather, it was probably limited to highlight those aspects of the Mass which Protestants should be able to accept. This is proved by the fact that a second instruction includes distinctively Catholic teaching from the Council of Trent on its sacrificial nature. It was clearly intended as a limited definition.
But it contained two of the three properties of the Eucharist that you mention when you say that "the Catholic actually maintains the main aspects of the other three," Namely, the Zwinglian view as memorial, and the Calvinist view, as spiritual presence.
I would suggest that the Archbishop's harsh reaction, overstating that this instruction was "absolutely contrary to Catholic teaching", highlights the same problem that heretics frequently have of overemphasis, abandoning one truth to the exclusion of another. Catholics who hear that the Protestants teach a certain thing about the Lord's Supper/Mass should not assume that the heretic has to be wrong, as the archbishop seems to do. The Church does not teach the heretics are necessarily wrong about everything. Most heresies overemphasize one true teaching to the exclusion of another true teaching. We do not, at least in this case, want to make the Protestant mistake of anathematizing a true belief through overemphasis on another. In my opinion, this is the Protestant kind of error Abp. LeFebvre makes when he says that the teaching in the first G.I.R.M. "is absolutely contrary to Catholic teaching."
Above, a confusing linguistic booboo on my part: "abandoning one truth to the exclusion of another", should be understood as "championing one truth to the exclusion of another."
Thanks for bringing attention to these interesting points, David. Coincidentally I just heard Mr Troutman's articles referenced on a radio program last week.
With regard to Rory's observation concerning Archbishop Lefebvre's critique of the Novus Ordo, I agree that he fails to recognize how the other aspects presented in the GIRM complement rather than contradict previous teaching. There is always an important tension between dogma and mystery whereby they direct us to the Divine Reality and the Love contained therein. The benefit of the Catholic position is that there is a mandate and promise from Christ that the teaching and practices bound by Peter (and successors) will accord with the heavenly realities. The domas and doctrines do not exhaust the fullness those realities.
I definitely agree with Rory that heresy is the affirmation of a partial truth to the exclusion other essential aspects of the mystery.
Dave, hi again.
Thanks for the phone call. Following is some context of the remarks I made in my latest post from footnote 142 of The Mass of All Time, some of which I read to you over the phone. I trust you don't mind my putting it up here at the blog.
From the editor apparently, the beginning of the footnote:
"Even if there was a controversy over the character of the definition of the Mass in Article 7 of the General Instruction, many indications persuade us that it is indeed a definition."
I will number those "indications", while quoting all of footnote 142.
1) "The Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Fr. Bugnini wrote: 'The Fathers reiterated that this 'General Instruction Presentation' is not a dogmatic text, but purely and simply an exposition of the norms regulating the Eucharistic; there is no intention to define the Mass, but rather to give a description of the rites'" (Documentation Catholique, No. 1552, December 7, 1969, p.1055).
My comment: I fail to see how that helps establish that the instruction was a definition of the New Mass. How is it an "indication" that there was an attempt at a definition when the author claims that "there is no intention to define the Mass"?
2) "But Paul VI decided the matter: 'The new missal is preceded by a 'General Presentation' which is not a simple collection of rubrics, but rather a synthesis of the theological, ascetical, and pastoral principles indispensable for doctrinal understanding as well as for the celebration, catechesis, and pastoral ministry of the Mass'" ('The New Roman Missal': Pontifical Letter to the Liturgical Week of Italy, Documentation Catholique, No. 1594, October 3, 1971, p. 866)
My comment: I agree with Paul VI. Catholics need to understand as I said above in my second post, that heretics are not wrong about everything. We should not reject a Catholic teaching simply because it is believed by a Zwinglian or Calvinist. In the next "indication", that this text in the first general instruction is/was intended by the Church as a comprehensive definition we find even less impressive "indications" that this was an unlimited comprehensive definition. The author of footnotes will dig up two more "indications", one of which refers to the general instruction as "a remarkable definition". The other "indication" refers to the general instruction as "a definition...perfectly orthodox".
---to be continued
3) "The well-known commentator Fr. Tillard wrote: 'In the 1969 text, a remarkable definition...' (Jean-Marie R. Tillard, The Liturgical Reform and the Rapprochement of the Churches.' [I cannot do italics. The following is italicized] Liturgia opera divina a umana: Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S.E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini [end italics][Ed. Liturgiche, 1982, p. 218]. Likewise, Dom Oury speaks of the first edition of Article 7 as "'a definition of the Mass...perfectly orthodox" ('Le missel de Paul VI,' [italics] Esprit et Vie: L'Ami du clerge, [end italics], No. 30, July 13, 1970, p. 462)"
That is all of the long footnote 142 which begins on p. 22, and ends on p. 223 of the work cited. Both of the "indications" refer to "a definition". Of course, but is it intended to overthrow the definitions the Council of Trent? Or does it emphasize other aspects of the Mass such as you mentioned in your opening post Dave, and citing Troutman, which are also Catholic? Namely, the spiritual presence, and the paschal meal. What Catholic would disagree with the person cited who said that this incomplete definition is "perfectly orthodox"? Is it false? Is it "absolutely contrary to Catholic teaching?" No. This is why I suggest that the Archbishop is reacting like a Protestant who overemphasizes the Catholic doctrine that he likes and rejects the Catholic doctrine that he does not like. Some Catholics seem to think that every heretic is wrong about everything.
The Archbishop argues against the definition because many Protestants believe it. So therefore Catholics can't believe Article 7?
"Article 7 of the instruction which introduces the new rite expressed an already Protestant mentality."
---ibid, p.223
I agree with many things Abp. Lefebvre says against the New Mass, as did Pope Benedict XVI and others. Catholics can admit a "Protestant mentality" in areas where the Protestants accept Catholic teaching. If someone wants to find a FULL Catholic teaching on the Mysterium Fidei, the unrevised, original Article 7 is inadequate. But what it said was "perfectly orthodox."
Hi Rory,
Thanks much for your informative posts; a lot to take in for sure. As you know, the ongoing controversy concerning the Novus Ordo Missae is a topic that I am not well studied in—though I have read a few books written by both sides of the issue. During this week, I hope to spend a good deal of time looking more deeply into this topic; but for tonight, I would like touch on the following you quoted from Archbishop LeFebvre:
>>"The Lord's Supper or Mass is the assembly or meeting of the People of God, met together with a priest presiding, to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church. 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.'"
His excellency then observes the following: "That is how they define the New Mass. This definition is absolutely contrary to Catholic teaching."
---The Mass of All Time, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Angelus Press, (2007), p. 223>>
Archbishop LeFebvre was responding to the orignal 1969 Latin document, the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani . Some online research tonight yielded the following:
>>”7. Cena dominica sive Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum. Quare de sanctae Ecclesiae locali congregatione eminenter valet promissio Christi: "Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum" (Mt. 18, 20).
7. The Lord's Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ's promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: 'Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst' (Mt. 18:20)."
This is the original complete definition of the Mass according to the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae, the New Order of the Mass promulgated by the "Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum", to the horror of many believing Catholics, exactly 50 years ago today: they were arguably the most influential liturgical words written in the 20th century and signaled a watershed moment -- in a sense, closing the book written since late antiquity and the chapter begun in Sessions XIII and XXII of the Council of Trent.
Number 7 of the first edition of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (the General Instruction of the Roman Missal - GIRM) is the end moment of the original liturgical movement. Its writers also thought they would have the final say in the history of the Traditional Mass - within a few months, the storm started by these words on the edge of acceptability would spark the Brief Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass, presented to the Pope and to the Catholic world under the auspices of Cardinals Ottaviani, first Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Bacci.
The waves set by that text have not subsided. That famous number 7 and other highly problematic words of the original 1969 IGMR (in which Trent is not mentioned a single time) and Ordo Missae would be amended in 1970, 1975, and 2002. While much was vindicated by the swift and significant corrections of 1970 -- and, ultimately, by the proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI that the traditional Roman Missal was "never abrogated -- can it be denied that the spirit of the 1969 IGMR lives on in the New Mass, or "Ordinary Form"?>> [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/04/exactly-50-years-ago-paul-vi-tried-to.html]
I have not be able to locate a complete translation of the full Latin document, but if the author of the above is correct that Number 7 was “the original complete definition of the Mass according to the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae”, then Archbishop LeFebvre’s comment seems appropriate under such circumstances.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment