The distinct approaches to sacramental efficacy by Protestants and Catholics are rooted in what each group wants and expects in its theological system. Protestants--first Lutherans, then others in turn--had to make a case that there was no aspect of divine appointment about the apostolic succession and the priesthood. Sadly, 16th century Catholicism provided ample provocations.
This is why a Protestant understanding of “apostolic” is that the apostolic kerygma—the apostolic preaching—is entirely contained within the Scriptures. The excision of 7 books of Scripture as it had been received, not all at once, and not all for the same reasons, is harder to justify in a principled way.
In any case, theologically what Luther, Calvin, et al. eventually argued was that the sacraments functioned independently of the Catholic hierarchy; that is, the workings of grace depended primarily on the disposition of the receiver, not on the precise performance of the ritual with the right form, matter, and intention. Both sides today agree that Christ is the true minister of all sacraments, and that a wicked minister doesn’t invalidate a sacrament, per se. Both sides today agree that a bad disposition on the part of a receiver makes the sacrament unfruitful.
But the crucial difference is that for the Protestant, graces are given on the occasion of the celebration of a sacrament, not through the sacrament itself. The 5 Solas of the Reformation essentially mean, “grace unmediated by the Catholic hierarchy.” Both Catholics and Protestants agree that the sacraments retain an element of signification: Bread and wine signify or point to the body and blood of Christ, given for us at the Cross in the Lord’s Supper, for example.
Perhaps one difficulty for Protestants in understanding the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is that the signs are retained. The qualities of bread and wine remain, and they still signify Christ on the Cross.
But in an important way for Catholics, the Eucharist is the sacrifice of the Cross. The same one, made present. This is why v. 26, “you proclaim” in 1 Cor 11:26 is in the present tense. It is our “daily bread,” as Christ taught us to pray. Many of us probably don’t realize that he taught us to pray for the Eucharist!
It can’t be as some argue that His presence in the Eucharist for Catholics is contrary to the Cross, because we receive the risen, victorious Christ. He is the Lamb standing slain from Revelation 5, wounded, yet never to die again.
(Some extreme Protestants don’t pray the Our Father, because it’s asking for what we’ve already received.)
But how can we abide with him, and he with us, as he promised, if he’s not here?
I agree with the Reformed Thomas Watson and others that the Word preached is best accompanied by a visible Word.
Remember when the two disciples walked on the road to Emmaus as recorded in Luke 24? Jesus joined them in disguise, as it were. They were sad because they thought he was dead. “Sir, have you not heard what has happened here in Jerusalem these past three days?” (My paraphrase) Actually, it’s better if our translation has the word “things” in there, because Jesus saying, “What things?” always sends me, as the young people say. It’s so funny! The poor disciple goes on moaning that he thought Jesus would be the one to redeem Israel. And then we get this from St. Luke: “And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, Jesus began to interpret all the Scriptures concerning himself.” Their hearts burned within them. Jesus then acted like he was going further. They implored him to stay with them. To abide with them, you might say. And at table, he gave thanks, and they recognized him in the breaking of the bread.
The word "sacrament" derives in part from a wage of salt paid to a Roman soldier for his service. In a similar way, Catholics speak of validity or invalidity in sacraments. In other words, God is going to hold up His end. For my part, I don't understand how the Protestant system provides assurance, or that some even dare to argue that more assurance exists in that system. Consider a few words from the famous hymn, "Rock Of Ages":
Could my zeal no respite know
Could my tears forever flow
All for sin could not atone
Thou must save, and Thou alone.
--
Frankly, I think the Catholic Church, via the sacraments, better encapsulates the truth of this than any Protestant theology. But in order for that to be true, we have to understand that sacramental life as a series of personal encounters with Jesus Christ. We have to understand the whole thing as a friendship. If these encounters begin as superstitions and are fearful, especially in childhood, well, I think the possibility of leaving the Catholic Church is high. In another instance, maybe someone has been in a high-control community, where they might talk about love and grace, but one is unlikely to experience it. I'd leave there, too. If Jesus isn't with me and calling me to him, the Catholic Church would be terrifying. The parishes would be like occasionally impressive scary museums where a guy yells at you occasionally, based upon the contents of a book you haven't read.
Still others might be drawn to Calvinism because the thought of losing the grace of justification and going to Hell is even more terrifying than not being one of God's elect and going there anyway. On the other hand, the desire I have encountered among so many Protestant people to truly love God, to be with Him, to rest in Him, is truly admirable. This helps explain why so many of the best teachers and theologians in the Catholic Church in the West are converts from Protestant communities. "We" know our Scriptures; we have pored over them most of our lives. To us, that's what we had. Anything else of benefit did not exist.
I think I will wrap it up this way: The biggest points of agreement are the identity of Jesus Christ, and that His Cross is both the best expression of His love, and our best access to it/Him. Full communion with the Catholic Church is usually provoked by a problem or series of them, which leads a Christian to believe that God is calling them here. I'm a huge nerd, as you are discovering, but the discovery of the Church Christ founded doesn't have to be a drawn-out intellectual affair. It's perhaps better if it isn't.
Comments