Listening to a Cardinal . . .

Yesterday at HBU we hosted Daniel Cardinal DiNardo as our guest for convocation. Our director for the school of theology, David Capes, suggested the event after having heard the cardinal speak on a prior occasion. I honestly had no idea what to expect. 

Cardinal DiNardo asked about any themes we might have for convocation this year and we provided him with John 14:6, which reads, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" 

He chose to make that verse the basis of his presentation. I must tell you that his exposition of the gospel of John would have satisfied any Protestant I know. It was relentlessly scriptural and he clearly had mastery of his subject. He spoke comfortably from notes in a way that had the audience on the edge of their seats. There are days when you have to keep after students to leave their phones alone while a speaker is talking, but this was not one of them. Afterwards, many students lined up to speak with him. You can watch his presentation here. 

I know there is a distance between catholics and protestants and that it is substantial, but listening to this cardinal preach has bolstered my confidence in the eventual unity of the church. 

Comments

[fat albert]

What a wonderful sermon/homily! As a Houston resident (and a Baptist) I can say that we are blessed to have Cardinal DiNardo here with us. While there will always be theological differences between Catholics and Protestants (at least until our Lord settles them forever) I celebrate when we focus on our commonalities rather than our differences.

[Mark]

I imagine he sees true unity as stated in this recent article.

Cardinal DiNardo also sees the Anglican Use parish as an effective Catholic evangelization tool to not only reach out to the spiritual marooned Episcopalians in this country and Anglicans abroad to bring them into the fullness of faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church through the See of Peter and to also bring those disenfranchised Catholics who have left the Church and discovered Her again through the beauty and majesty of the Anglican Use liturgy.

He spoke very generally and did not expound on places like John 6 where Transubstantiation and the Eucharist are often defended.

Even a Mormon could speak generally on the Trinity without defining terms and seem agreeable to a Protestant.

[this]

Transubstantiation is not Catholic doctrine. It is a explanation proposed for the Real Presence, which is Catholic doctrine.

Why would one need to "defend" the Eucharist?

The only doctrine I can't see any defense for in scripture is the doctrine of sola scriptura.

[CSA]

It would be very difficult for a Mormon to speak about the Trinity in any fashion. I am with 'Fat Albert', it was beautifully done, on topic and as a homily should be, a 'reflection' on the passage. As I recall, he was not asked to speak on John 6.

Praise God that we human beings with our near sightedness are finally shedding the blinders and recognizing that there is much in common to celebrate. We can never participate in Christ's high prayer for unity without recognizing each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

And Mark is quite right, Transubstantiation is an explanation not a doctrine. Personally, I do not need the the explanation but in general, we Westerners like explanations. However like our Orthodox brothers and sisters, we recognize that the Eucharist is one of Christianity's sacred mysteries and we refer to our celebration of the Eucharist as such.

[John B]

Transubstantiation began as an explanation and apologetic for the real presence. But, it was gradually elevated to doctrinal status in the Catholic Church. This was declared emphatically at the Council of Trent in the Thirteenth Session, Canon II.

No defense for the real presence was ever needed. Nothing could be added to the promises that God revealed in his holy Word. The theory of transubstantiation elevated philosophy to an authority along side of sacred scripture, as though the clarity of God's own revelation could be illuminated by human reason. In vain this attempt to enlighten God's own revelation only resulted in causing confusion.

Because of Christ's real presence with his church, we are reconciled to God, adopted by him, and live in his abundant grace.

[Daniel D. De Haan]

John B.

Thank you for pointing out for others the actual doctrinal status of transubstantiation. However, I have some problems with the rest of your post. Perhaps you could address them? (Unless the very act of producing a defense and explanation would render your position inconsistent.)

You write:
"Nothing could be added to the promises that God revealed in his holy Word. The theory of transubstantiation elevated philosophy to an authority along side of sacred scripture, as though the clarity of God's own revelation could be illuminated by human reason. In vain this attempt to enlighten God's own revelation only resulted in causing confusion."

Difficulties:
1. Scripture encourages us to give a reasons and explanations of our faith, it even tells us there will and needs to be persons appointed for such offices. It seems like according to your position, these guys and gals are now in a pickle.
2. God's own revelation necessarily adopted and transformed already existing concepts and categories of human reason. And all Christians since have continued to do so, like you and I and everyone on this web blog.
3. This assertion renders all Christian explanations, creeds, apologetics, homilies, sermons, and catechisms of revelation as vain attempts to utilize human reason to clarify the mysteries of their faith.
4. And I believe, if pushed hard enough, this very assertion (or line of thinking) is self-defeating. It becomes itself a human reason (a philosophy) that makes epistemological assertions about the authority of the sources of revelation, while being itself not revelation, but the workings of human reason. The very statement is an addition to "the promises that God revealed in his holy Word." To which you said, "Nothing could be added to the promises that God revealed in his holy Word."

Finally:
"No defense for the real presence was ever needed."

Does not the very fact that readers on this web blog, who disagree with the real presence (or about what it means) show that a defense and explanation is required? And is not your little paragraph itself, a sort of defense of a certain way of understanding the real presence, namely, it is a defense of the position that the real presence must be understood apart from all additions to human reason? (Even though, again, this paragraph is an addition of human reason to revelation.)

Maybe you were making some other point and misspoke or I misunderstood. Could please correct my misunderstandings or, if they be, your misstatements?

Mr. Baker, thank you for your kind words about Houston's Cardinal Dinardo. I too look forward further celebrations, "when we focus on our commonalities rather than our differences."

In Christ

[this]

13th session, canon II:

If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

No, my son, not the same as saying transubstantiation is doctrine. The first part is a rejection of consubstantiation (C'mon, who wouldn't reject that?); the second part refers to T/S as the term used to describe the underlying reality.

One of crucial points to be understood about definitions in Church doctrine is that they cannot be held to answer questions that were not asked. At the time of this definition, Thomistic understanding of substance was the only game in town: to invoke it as a means of conveying the Church's teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not undermine the Church's adherence to the doctrine of the Real Presence itself.

[this]

By the way, Fat Albert, I salute your comment. Methinks you should adopt the moniker "Albertus Magnus" instead of "Albertus Adiposus" :)

[John B]

The doctrine of Transubstantiation applies abstract speculations about elements and formulas to force the Eucharist into an intellectual framework. It answers the what, why, when, and how questions about the change in the substance of bread and wine. Are they symbols, substance, or accidents? Applying good scientific methods, the sacrament is isolated, reduced and defined. Transubstantiation provides theories that reduce the sacrament to worldly categories of time, substance, and causes. But it seems the more of these questions that are answered, the more are the new questions that arise. The Eucharist is vastly more than the sum of its parts.

Scripture presents the Eucharist from a very different perspective, as that which constitutes Christ's body, his church. The great change that occurs is in the church itself. The life of thanksgiving before God, which was lost in the Fall, is now restored in Christ, the perfect Eucharist, who gives his life to us. Christ takes us to God in his eucharistic ascension, his people separated from the world and journeying to heaven. Christ receives the church to feast in His Kingdom; a foretaste of the age to come, which is beyond time, space, science, and philosophy. By faith in Christ the church ascends to glimpse the glory of God and to join with all the company of heaven in adoration of him. Thanksgiving, in complete submission before God, worshiping in spirit and truth, is the only response possible to the redemption that is in Christ. Faith is not an intellectual search; it's the complete transformation of the heart.

In this passing age, which condemned Christ and thereby condemned itself, no natural elements can become the body and blood of Christ. The church is lifted into the age to come, which was inaugurated by Christ, has been given to the church, and where the church is fed and fulfilled supernaturally, sealed in the Spirit. Christ is leading the church into the eschaton, which is perfected in him, though not yet in us. Then we'll rejoice in his presence, seeing him face to face.

Transubstantiation, with philosophical explanations, drives a wedge between Word and Sacrament, losing sight of the transforming acts of God, which occur in and through the life of the church in worship. There is no separation between the Word and the sacrament. The sacrament manifests the Word. And the proclamation of the Word is sacramental, imparting faith to those who hear. The gospel is not only a historical record; it is the presence of the Word of God in the power of the resurrection, which transforms hearers into temples of the Holy Spirit.

There are of course many different convictions held in the various communions about the Eucharist. "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." I apologize for leading this thread astray from the topic. But I did want to note that transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, and therefore clearly and substantively divides those who reject this doctrine from the Roman communion.

Discussion of the sacraments is often controversial, so I won't say anything more on this topic here. But I'd be glad to respond further by email.

"And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."

[fr nathan thompson]

Getting back to the original post (MUST... RESIST... SACRAMENTS... RABBIT TRAIL.) The idea of unity between Protestants and either Catholics or Orthodox Christians is pretty far fetched. Last I heard, there are 30K Protestant denominations. It's hard enough to get the Orthodox Churches to agree on things. How would one get Protestants who are not currently "in communion" with one another (I use the quotes because most Protestants have a very different idea of being in communion than do the RC and EO Churches) to work together to reunite with Rome and/ or the EO? I pray that it will happen, but as an EO Christian, I believe that God will not force us to do that which we would not do and frankly, in my opinion, there are too many people involved and with too much on the line (in their own minds at least.)

[this]

Father Nathan,

If Protestants would believe in the Real Presence, I couldn't care less if there were 30K or 300K denominations.

The Church rightly calls the Eucharist "the source and summit of the Christian life". It's waaaaay more important than visible unity.

[Robert Espe]

I don't think it is impossible. I grew up in the Fellowship of Christian Assemblies. I haven't really converted to anything particular, but I'm now comfortable worshiping in any of the Christian churches. I'm comfortable with the idea of the real presence. The whole Con/Tran debate is over my head, but I figure if Jesus said that His body was bread and wine, I'll just take His word for it without sweating the details.

All it really took was observing the lives of Christians from different branches, Budziszewski converting to Catholicism, and a little help from David Mac's Catholic Bridge site to correct some misconception I had about Church history. It's amazing how thin the lines that divide us appeared when I stopped to listen to where they came from. Now I just do my best to help my Protestant friends learn the same thing one at a time. Once we learn to call each other brothers and pray together again, the rest will come.

[this]

Robert,

That resonates with me because of a story I heard about a lady at a certain Church in Scotland who had worked out this doctrine (in practice) for herself and was astonished to discover that her minister disbelieved it according to the tenets of his denomination.