Replies

CALVIN'S INSTITUTES
Of the Popish mass
How it not only profanes, but annihilates the Lord's Supper
Chapter 18

1. By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man; namely, when, with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins. I say nothing as to the way in which the sounder schoolmen at first received this dogma. I leave them with their puzzling subtleties which, however they may be defended by cavilling, are to be repudiated by all good men, because all they do is to envelop the brightness of the Supper in great darkness. Bidding adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the Roman Antichrist and his prophets have imbued the whole world, viz., that the mass is a work by which the priest who offers Christ, and the others who in the oblation receive him, gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory victim by which they regain the favour of God. And this is not merely the common opinion of the vulgar, but the very act has been so arranged as to be a kind of propitiation, by which satisfaction is made to God for the living and the dead. This is also expressed by the words employed, and the same thing may be inferred from daily practice. I am aware how deeply this plague has struck its roots; under what a semblance of good it conceals its true character, bearing the name of Christ before it, and making many believe that under the single name of Mass is comprehended the whole sum of faith. But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God, that this mass, however glossed and splendid, offers the greatest insult to Christ, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it? Will any semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the lurking evil?
2. Let us show, therefore as was proposed in the first place, that in the mass intolerable blasphemy and insult are offered to Christ. For he was not appointed Priest and Pontiff by the Fathers for a time merely, as priests were appointed under the Old Testament. Since their life was mortal, their priesthood could not be immortal, and hence there was need of successors, who might ever and anon be substituted in the room of the dead. But Christ being immortal, had not the least occasion to have a vicar substituted for him. Wherefore he was appointed by his Father a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek, that he might eternally exercise a permanent priesthood. This mystery had been typified long before in Melchizedek, whom Scripture, after once introducing as the priest of the living God, never afterwards mentions, as if he had had no end of life. In this way Christ is said to be a priest after his order. But those who sacrifice daily must necessarily give the charge of their oblations to priests, whom they surrogate as the vicars and successors of Christ. By this subrogation they not only rob Christ of his honour, and take from him the prerogative of an eternal priesthood, but attempt to remove him from the right hand of his Father, where he cannot sit immortal without being an eternal priest. Nor let them allege that their priestlings are not substituted for Christ, as if he were dead, but are only substitutes in that eternal priesthood, which therefore ceases not to exist. The words of the apostle are too stringent to leave them any means of evasion, viz., "They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, has an unchangeable priesthood," (Heb. 7: 23, 24.) Yet such is their dishonesty, that to defend their impiety they arm themselves with the example of Melchizedek. As he is said to have "brought forth (obtulisse) bread and wine," (Gen. 14: 18,) they infer that it was a prelude to their mass, as if there was any resemblance between him and Christ in the offering of bread and wine. This is too silly and frivolous to need refutation. Melchizedek gave bread and wine to Abraham and his companions, that he might refresh them when worn out with the march and the battle. What has this to do with sacrifice? The humanity of the holy king is praised by Moses: these men absurdly coin a mystery of which there is no mention. They, however, put another gloss upon their error, because it is immediately added, he was "priest of the most high God." I answer, that they erroneously wrest to bread and wine what the apostle refers to blessing. "This Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham," "and blessed him." Hence the same apostle (and a better interpreter cannot be desired) infers his excellence. "Without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better." But if the oblation of Melchizedek was a figure of the sacrifice of the mass, I ask, would the apostle, who goes into the minutes details, have forgotten a matter so grave and serious? Now, however they quibble, it is in vain for them to attempt to destroy the argument which is adduced by the apostle himself viz., that the right and honour of the priesthood has ceased among mortal men, because Christ, who is immortal, is the one perpetual priest...

Who denies it's a problem? Some people just don't know how to have fun.

"What do I know?" is a very good starting point. I've said before that from a purely innerleckshual POV the Eucharist is a great problem because it calls on so many basic questions, even before we get to the Xty and revelation part. And once we get there, my brain gets even more fried than it already is.

I'm not sure how usefully to respond to the paraclete question except to say that we think (a)the paradigmatic prayer is addressed to the Father, through the Son in (and with, and by, and most of the other prepositions hanging around) the Spirit; and (b)the "Great Thanksgiving" ought to conform closely to the paradigmatic prayer. So it is addressed to God the Father, and asks, well, many things, but among them is that the Holy Spirit make the "gifts" holy.

And we don't "task" the Spirit, we ask the Father to do so, (and sometimes the Son, but less often). It's important, I think, to note the precatory, rather than commanding, language. We trust in God's promise, but we don't come to Him with contract in hand saying, "Hey. It says right here ...."

And again, on the whole flesh v. spirit issue, it ain't so clear neither.

If we do hard-line Thomism, the "body" is the body of Christ as it currently is. So that means it is the "substance" (and PLEASE remember that does NOT mean "The stuff that it's made of"; it means the "quiddity", the "what it IS, bro," of a thing) of resurrected body, which Paul SEEMS to say is a (alert: stand by for mind destruction) "spiritual body".

Oh good. That makes it SEW much clearer.

Not.

It seems to me the witness is that Christ is "really" present "there" (somehow). Lateran IV "baptizes" a way to say that, a language for the mystery, but it SHO don't explain it.

And I THINK the main difference, on the ground, between us and most Protestants is enshrined in the word "there". (That MAY be because I have a phenomenological sense of "real", and I may be in error in that -- as well as in a zillion other things.)

But I think many if not most Protestants would go with (a)The Spiritual is the "Real" that matters -- that other "real" stuff vanishes like the flower that fades; and (b) therefore Christ is really enough present in the faithful in the observation of the "ordinance". (What caliber is that there ord'nance?)

So in my exploratory conjecture, the difference is indicated less in "real" than in "there".

I trust I make myself obscure.