Mystery and Idolatry

Passage: Lord’s Day 30

Q&A 80 is a section of the Heidelberg Catechism that is intentionally antagonistic. Other Reformed Confessions, such as the Canons of Dort, are written with an explicitly polemical agenda – that is, their authors clearly state their intent to refute heresies or alternate theologies. For the most part the Catechism avoids this kind of language. But here in Q&A 80 the gloves come off. The authors of the Catechism contrast a Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper with the Roman Catholic Mass. And they conclude that the latter is a “condemnable idolatry.” Why do they take such a hard line?

To be fair, the position of the Catechism is no longer reflective of the official position of our church. Our denominational translation of the Catechism (available at the above link) brackets the aforementioned passage and adds the following footnote:
In response to a mandate from Synod 1998, the Christian Reformed Church’s Interchurch Relations Committee conducted a study of Q. and A. 80 and the Roman Catholic Mass. Based on this study, Synod 2004 declared that “Q. and A. 80 can no longer be held in its current form as part of our confession.” Synod 2006 directed that Q. and A. 80 remain in the CRC’s text of the Heidelberg Catechism but that the last three paragraphs be placed in brackets to indicate that they do not accurately reflect the official teaching and practice of today’s Roman Catholic Church and are no longer confessionally binding on members of the CRC.
In other words, a majority of members of our church no longer hold to the position that the Roman Catholic Mass is a “condemnable idolatry.” That being said, the passage is still there. Why?

The first is that within the practice of the Roman Catholic Church of the 1500’s there was perceived to be widespread misunderstanding of the purpose and meaning of communion. There were many lay members of the church who had been led to believe that their salvation was in jeopardy if they didn’t partake of the Mass on a daily, or at least weekly, basis. This led to the belief that it was the Mass itself that saved people.

The second is that the doctrine of Transubstantiation – that is, the conviction that the bread and wine of communion become the physical body and blood of Jesus when blessed by a priest – can lead to the treatment of the elements as sacred objects. The bread and wine themselves can be treated with a level of reverence or worship that belong only to God. Hence the conclusion that the Mass was idolatrous.

Our denomination no longer holds to such a sweeping condemnation. However, Q&A 80 contain a caution to members of any Christian tradition. The reality is that anyone who takes communion runs the risk of treating it as a substitute for a relationship with the risen Lord Jesus. If we think of the elements of communion as the thing that makes us right with God, then we eliminate our need for Jesus himself. Communion becomes an act of reconciliation that we initiate and we control. And it risks becoming a sort of spiritual self-medication – so long as we’re taking the elements, we’re saved. The elements are seen as the source of salvation. Regardless of the official position or theology of your church, if you approach communion with this attitude (conscious or unconscious), you’re treating it as a “condemnable idolatry.” A substitute for a living God and his gift of grace.

The Catechism reminds us that our sins have been forgiven, once and for all, by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is through our union with Christ that we are made right with God. Communion doesn’t forge our union with Christ; it celebrates the union that Christ has already granted. Communion doesn’t save people; Jesus does. We don’t appeal to God on the basis of any other intermediary – religious rituals, good behavior, or holy people. Our appeal is solely on the basis of Jesus' intervention: his death on the cross; his resurrection; and his physical presence in heaven before the throne of God the Father.