Rejecting the papal mass: on Heidelberg Catechism q&a 80

Question and answer 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism is somewhat famous, or infamous, because of its stern language. It condemns the “mass” of the Roman church as an “accursed idolatry”. Frequently, people have called this answer harsh, an unfriendly obstacle in the dialogue between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Sure, we disagree about the nature of the Lord’s supper, but is the language of “accursed idolatry” necessary?

History of q&a 80

The Heidelberg Catechism was published first in 1563, in an area in Western Germany known as the Palatinate. The ruler of the Palatinate, Elector Frederick III, wanted to have a catechism to instruct children about Christian doctrine and to help ministers organize their teaching. He put together a team of theologians (most notably Ursinus and Olevianus) to write this book.

The Heidelberg Catechism gives a detailed description about the sacraments, and especially the Lord’s supper. This was necessary, because the Palatinate had separated itself from the Roman church, and this was an important area of disagreement. The Heidelberg Catechism clearly teaches a different view of the sacraments than the Roman church, as well as the more radical Lutheran churches.

But Frederick III decided that this disagreement should be stated more clearly. Therefore he ordered that a question and answer should be added to the second edition of the catechism. This became q&a 80. It very specifically addresses the question: “What difference is there between the Lord’s supper and the papal mass?” It explains why the Reformed churches of the Palatinate could not agree with the Roman church on this point.

Re-sacrificing Jesus Christ?

One year before the Heidelberg Catechism was published, the Roman church had made an official decision about the meaning of the Lord’s supper. This was done at the Council of Trent, a meeting of church leaders called together to deal with the problem of the Protestant Reformation. At their September 17, 1562 meeting, they stated that adopted the following statement:

[… I]n this divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace […] For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross, the manner alone being different. (Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 2:179)

According to this Roman doctrine, the priests are re-sacrificing Jesus Christ every time they celebrate the mass. This sacrifice has the power to forgive sins. This is the reason why it is so important for Roman Catholics to go to mass regularly: they can only find salvation by participating in this sacrifice, again and again. The Roman church will even apply the mass to those who have died with unforgiven sins.

The Reformed churches strongly disagree with this. Jesus Christ sacrificed himself on the cross once for all! The New Testament teaches clearly in Hebrews 10:1-18, that we no longer need to sacrifice animals in the temple because Jesus died once for all. How strange, then, for the Roman church to re-introduce daily and weekly sacrifices!

The mass teaches	The Lord’s supper teaches
that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the suffering of Christ unless he is still offered for them daily by the priests.	that we have complete forgiveness of all our sins through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself accomplished on the cross once for all.

Real body and blood?

Another disagreement between the Roman church and the Protestants was the nature of the sacrament. The Roman church said that the bread and wine of communion physically became the body and blood of Jesus, every time the priest spoke the words of consecration: Hoc est corpus meum… (“This is my body…”) Even though the colour, texture, and taste remained those of bread, it had essentially become the body of Christ. The lay people in the church could only think of this as “magic”; in fact, the Latin words “hoc est corpus meum” gave us the words “hocus pocus“… But the church scholars of the Middle Ages supported this idea with philosophical arguments, and named it transubstantiation.

The Council of Trent, responding to the Reformation, reaffirmed this idea in 1551:

[… A]fter the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant: that our Saviour himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, he be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance […] (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:126)

Again, the Reformed churches wanted nothing to do with this theory. When believers participate in the Lord’s supper, they do have real fellowship with Jesus, even with his body and blood. But that is not because in some magical way Jesus has come down from the throne of heaven. Rather, believers have spiritual fellowship with Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit. As our Form for the Lord’s Supper states, we “lift our hearts to heaven, where Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father”. We do not pull Jesus down through a “hocus pocus” formula, but in faith the Holy Spirit lifts us up to him.

The Heidelberg Catechism summarizes this as follows:

The mass teaches	The Lord’s supper teaches
that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine, and there is to be worshipped.	that through the Holy Spirit we are grafted into Christ, who with his true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and this is where he wants to be worshipped.

Accursed idolatry!

It should be clear that these views of the Lord’s supper are very different. The Catechism points out why this difference is so serious. “Therefore the mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ.”

But is this enough to speak of an “accursed idolatry”? Some Reformed churches think this is too harsh. In 1998, a committee of the Christian Reformed Churches declared that we cannot maintain the language of q&a 80. They argued that especially modern Roman Catholics do not always emphasize the sacrificial aspect of the mass, and realize that they should worship Christ rather than the bread and wine.

But the official doctrine of the Roman church has not really changed. Officially, the statements from 1551 and 1562 (quoted above) still stand. The Council of Trent also proclaimed anathema (“accursed”) on anyone who teaches the Reformed view of the Lord’s supper—and those anathemas have never been retracted. When the Reformed churches declare the mass an “accursed idolatry”, its language is in fact milder than that of the Roman church!

It is important that we maintain how seriously wrong the Roman view is. The heart of the gospel is at stake. Our hope lies in the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus; and in his Holy Spirit, who makes us ready for the life of heaven and spiritually unites us with our Lord. The Roman view of the mass undermines that. When we say: it is an “accursed idolatry”, that is not meant to be mean to the Roman church; rather, it is a serious warning to keep our focus on the completed work of Jesus Christ.

Further reading

Lyle D. Bierma et al., An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology. Grand Rapids, 2005. Especially p. 37-42, 99-102 and 104-105.

Cornelis P. Venema, “The Lord’s Supper and the ‘Popish Mass’: An Historical and Theological Analysis of Question and Answer 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism”; in: Mid-America Journal of Theology, vol. 24 (2013).