Catechism of the Catholic Church

One of the big problems with Roman Catholics is that they are often mistaken about what their own church teaches. Though the Magisterium and the infallible pope are supposed to provide all of the correct beliefs, Roman Catholics are largely left to their personal efforts to try figure out what they are supposed to belief. This is demonstrated, in large part, by how readily they are to apply their personal opinions onto non-Catholics as if they were dead certain about what is orthodox or non-orthodox belief.

One of the strangest things I’ve found in online interactions with Roman Catholics is how they object to non-Roman Catholics citing what Roman Catholics actually believe.  They think, quite seriously, that I am lying about what I’m saying, even though most of what I argue comes from Roman Catholic sources directly. Indeed, a lot of what I say is acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Church itself. It’s not just the Catholic Encyclopedia…

…that agrees with me that the Roman liturgy is not found early in the church, but it includes the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself. As we go over the section on the Eucharist, we’ll see a couple of cases that actually confirm a few things we saw in this series.

The CCC’s take on Justin Martyr is quite interesting. It acknowledges that what is offered are (2) prayers, praise, and thanks, which concludes with (3) a corporately spoken Amen. Many Roman Catholic apologists are completely unwilling to admit this! They might even call you a liar for pointing it out. Interestingly, the CCC acknowledges that the sacrificed bread is called the ‘eucharisted‘ bread.

Of course, the CCC doesn’t go far enough with this acknowledgment. What it fails to mention is that, in Justin Martyr’s work, the unconsecrated eucharisted—sacrificed—elements are only afterwards consecrated and not offered as a sacrifice. It just leaves this out, while acknowledging the rest of the important details.

In a stark comparison to the CCC’s acknowledgment of Justin Martyr’s thanksgiving—eucharist—this is a bald-faced lie. In terms of every thanksgiving described in the first 300 years of the church, this is a lie. The anaphora—which exists nowhere in scripture—combines the prayer of thanksgiving and the consecration into one. But in Justin Martyr (and many others), the sacrifice of thanksgiving was separate from the consecration. The already sacrificed “eucharisted” bread and wine were only thereafter consecrated. The “eucharistic” thanksgiving prayer was absolutely separate from the prayer of consecration (which included the words of institution) by the corporate “Amen.” The Oblation preceded—and was separate from—the epiclesis (or consecration).

Now we go back to the CCC calmly noting that the original ‘eucharist‘ was a freewill thanksgiving offering of a tithe or gifts. Interestingly, it cites Justin Martyr as evidence. Even Roman Catholic apologists struggle to admit what the CCC just comes out and says.

Did you know that the Roman Catholic church admits that the ‘eucharist‘ is a thanksgiving offering of tithes? Sure, it argues that it is more than just that, but I’ve seen Roman Catholics completely lose their mind—spewing curses and insults—at the very suggestion that the thanksgiving includes tithes.

On the other hand, does any Roman Catholic church actually practice the collection of food for the poor as part of its thanksgiving? They certainly ask for money, but unlike food, money can be—and is—used for a whole lot of purposes other than helping the poor.

The crux of the issue is that in the first 300 years of the church, the thanksgiving was not a sacrifice of the body of Christ. There is a massive gap between Christ and the Apostles and the Roman Catholic Church.

This is the biggest lie the Roman Catholic Church has ever told its members. If this series has showed us anything at all, it is that the ancient liturgy of the first 300 years of the church is utterly incompatible with the Roman liturgy. The substance of the liturgy has indeed changed, and changed dramatically. In particular, the thanksgiving was not consecratory for 300 years.

Curiously, the CCC1356 says “If from the beginning…” as if there is some doubt that it really is from the beginning. I mean, sure, the evidence is overwhelming that it wasn’t that way from the beginning, but they clearly don’t want you to think that. This is such a deviously subtle lie. No Roman Catholic is going to read this and think “oh, the CCC isn’t sure if its Eucharist really is Apostolic.” And yet, there it is.

Many Roman Catholics claim that Melchizedek offered bread and wine, even though these were not sacrificed. Though the only thing that Melchizedek offered to God was praise:

Thus, many Roman Catholic apologists, including FishEaters in “The Eucharist” appear to be unaware that, according to the CCC, the gifts of bread and wine that Melchizedek presented were created things, that is, unconsecrated food offered to men. Logically, if Christ’s offering was of the same type as Melchizedek’s offering, then Christ had to be offering unconsecrated food—bread and wine—to men, not to God. In the face of transubstantiation, the analogy breaks down.

Are you surprised to hear the CCC acknowledges the basic, essential nature of the thanksgiving?

The Roman Catholic error was adding onto this. Since the CCC already admits that during the first 300 years of the church, this was the thanksgiving, all we have to do is show that this was the only thanksgiving in that time. And we have done just that. The Roman liturgy is completely absent.

This is an invalid argument. It does not logically follow that being a memorial of a sacrifice makes it a sacrifice itself. Indeed, were this anywhere outside the CCC, such a statement would be understood for the absurdity that it is. Normal people, without ideological commitments, would see this for the irrational statement that it is: a memorial of a thing is obviously not the thing itself.

For the words of institution to carry a “sacrificial character” requires the prior acceptance that Christ’s offering of the bread and wine was a sacrifice. If, for example, we didn’t assume that Christ was offering the bread and wine as a sacrifice, then it wouldn’t follow that the words of institution had a “sacrificial character.” Thus, the CCC is obviously engaging in circular reasoning (i.e. begging the question).

The Roman Catholic response to this tends, in my experience, to say that it is a mystery, which is a massive cop-out.

That’s not what a sacrifice is. That isn’t how the Bible defines a sacrifice. That isn’t how the early church writers defined a sacrifice. Sacrifices do not make present other sacrifices by the fact of being a memorial of a sacrifice.

The CCC claims that the Eucharist is a sacrifice because it applies the fruit of a sacrifice. What this means is that the Eucharist is a propitiation for the remission of sin, something that no writer in the first 300 years of the church ever asserted. Such claims only emerged around 350AD. To defend its novelty, the CCC cites the Council of Trent from the 16th century.

Roman Catholic apologists like to say that even though the literal body and blood of Christ are being offered as a sacrifice to God, they do not actually re-sacrifice, they merely re-present. CCC#1366 is logically incoherent and an historical anachronism. The argument that Christ is being re-presented—which is the official belief—instead of re-sacrificed is based on a chain of invalid and incoherent reasoning. Labeling it something else—re-presentation—doesn’t keep it from being idolatry.