Protestant Teaching on Eucharist Part I

We now see, through the writings of Michael Davies and also through other credible works of history, that the root of the protestant revolution was a rejection of the sacrificial nature of Mass.  Perhaps we can say that the weakness of the members of the Church caused enough of a failure of authentic witness inside the Church, to embolden a false theology which essentially re-brands discipleship.  This new theology is where one believes that all necessary sacrifice was already done... and that there is nothing really else in the way of sacrifice for us to do except simply state that 'Jesus Christ is Lord'.

Click here to go to beginning of book review

But we know that even the demons can say that Jesus is Lord... for the demons of Hell give Our Lord Jesus accolade in Saint Luke's Gospel, Chapter 4, verse 33-34:

And in the synagogue there was a man which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice, saying Let us alone, what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth?  art thou come to destroy us?  I know thee who thou art; The Holy One of God. 

So we see here it is possible to say the name of Jesus, know and acknowledge His Divinity... but reject him nevertheless.

This chapter in Davies book contains so many variations of false teachings about the Eucharist that it is not surprising that the protestant revolters fought vigorously with each other about what they DID believe regarding communion at their "services".  The only thing the revolutionaries COULD agree on was their common hatred for any sign or language in the prayers of their new mass which would hint at the idea of sacrifice, propitiation, atonement or remedy for sin. 

This rewording of the prayers of the protestant Mass at the time afforded a very comfortable Christianity for the new members of the rebellious church.  For if nothing was lacking after the crucifixion and resurrection of Our Blessed Lord... then personal conversion was really only a matter of showing up at Sunday service (still, at that time called Mass by many)... and mimicking verbal acceptance of Christ.  Thus... pretty quickly (within a generation or two), we see a dying off of the ascetic practices of Christianity and a corresponding demographic implosion of the Catholic faith.

This transformation of Catholic culture in those days... is very nearly identical to the changes in Catholic culture of modern times from the 1960's until the present day... with the corresponding demographic implosion of sacramental marriages, infant baptisms, ordinations, the disuse of the holy sacrament of confession and increase in sacrilegious reception of holy communion.  The last of these greatly exacerbated by the widespread acceptance and use of contraception among Catholics... and it's corresponding negative impact on divorce rate, infidelity, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, venereal disease and the 'final solution' of modernism which is of course, abortion and euthanasia.

The only difference between then and now, is that the reformation was a disorientation intentionally fostered by a force directed from outside the Church toward the heart of the Church (the Mass).  The liturgical revolution of the sixties, contrastingly, was approved by many at the highest levels of ecclesiastical authority in the Roman Church.  Instead of physical force... the enemies of Christ used the very authority of the institutions and offices in the Church to do their damage.  And while the resulting liturgy remains valid... it's cultural impact upon the Catholic man is not insignificant. This is not a failure of the guarantee of infallibility... for no direct heresy was initially committed in the alteration of the Mass.  Rather... it is a silencing of certain themes and theological realities which rob the man in the pew slowly.  This spiritual malnutrition then opens the door for innovations and novelties to creep in... with such variation and frequency that the even the most conscientious bishop can barely control and reorient us back to a theology which is incarnational and which is sacrificial in nature.

More will be said about what Protestants believe in their innovations regarding the Eucharist in my next installment.

Chapter 4, Catholic Teaching on the Eucharist

Before I begin let me make a personal observation: Ever since I reverted to the Catholic Church (in my 20's), I have always erroneously thought that the root of the difference between what Catholics and Protestants believed was the three main objections of the protesters: 1.) The Eucharist, 2) Our Lady, 3.) The Apostolic succession and especially the papacy. I was wrong in this assumption. I see now that it is INDEED their false theology of justification which is at the very core of all these other things.

Click here to go to beginning of book review

So without further delay, I wish to give you an excellent excerpt from Chapter 4 (p 26-27). It tells us more then I could ever say on the subject. I will highlight in red... the parts which really jumped off the page for me... and I can not argue with them because Mr. Davies is quoting St. Augustine here.

"As the Church is the body of this head", wrote St. Augustine, "through Him she learns to offer Herself." Furthermore, although the intrinsic value of the Sacrifice of the Mass, like that of the Cross, is infinite, Christ being both High priest and Sacrificial Victim, its extrinsic value is limited as regards the fruits of any particular Mass. The value of a particular Mass "is dependent on the greater or lesser holiness of the reigning Pope, the bishops and the clergy throughout the world. The holier the Church in Her members (especially the Pope and the Episcopate), the more agreeable must be Her sacrifice in the eyes of God...With Christ and the Church is associated in the third place the celebrating priest, the representative through whom Christ offers up the Sacrifice. If he be a man of great personal devotion, and purity, there will accrue an additional fruit, which will benefit himself and those in whose favor he applies the Mass. Hence the faithful are guided by a sound instinct when they prefer to have the Mass celebrated by an upright and holy priest rather than by an unworthy one... In the fourth place must be mentioned those who take an active part in the Mass, e.g., the servers, sacristan, Organist, singers and, finally the whole congregation." Needless to say, the application of the fruits of the Mass to the living for whom it is offered or who participate in it will be governed by their own dispositions (see Appendix I).  Note:  I will be adding this very important index soon [02/06/2012]

"This lack of dispositions cannot exist in the case of the suffering souls in Purgatory, and with them, therefore, the desired effect, whether it be the alleviation of their sufferings, or the shortening of their time of purgation, must infallibly be produced." The effectiveness of the fruits in their case will be governed only by the holiness and fervor of the Church as a whole and Her particular members involved in offering this particular Mass. Once the Protestant leaders "had adopted the doctrine of justification by faith only, and had thrown over the reality of sanctifying grace as the supernatural life of the soul, there was nothing for it but to give up belief in operative and grace-producing sacraments. So the Real Presence and Transubstantiation had to go, and the Eucharist had to loose altogether it's sacrificial character and to be retained simply as a memorial of the Last Supper whereby the soul is moved to prayer and enabled in some way to enter into communion with and to receive Jesus Christ... Hence it is not surprising that, to a great extent, belief in the Mass became the touchstone of Catholic orthodoxy and that all through the centuries of controversies with protestantism, Catholic theologians should have used all their powers of argument and all their resources of learning in it's defense.

The teaching that every Mass produced fruit which the celebrant could apply to both the living and the dead was above all else "good work" par excellence. It was quite incompatible with their doctrine of Justification and must therefore be rejected, as it will be made clear in chapter VII.

There can also be no doubt that the protestant heresiarchs fully realized that it was the Mass that mattered. It was upon the Mass that they directed the full force of their attack.