# Eucharist as Sacrifice



## Flowers (Feb 14, 2018)

I couldn't find a place on the Puritan Board that focused specifically on sacramental theology, so I hope this general theology forum is acceptable.

Greetings Fathers and Brothers!

As I study the Reformed view on the sacraments (specifically the Westminster view) I'm struggling to grasp something. According to the Westminster, the "papal sacrifice of the mass" is to be rejected. If what is being rejected here is the notion that the Eucharist is a new sacrifice in which Jesus is crucified anew and which propitiates for new (venial) sins committed between celebrations, then I whole heartedly agree.

But has the Reformed tradition gone too far in totally rejecting all sacrificial language from the Eucharist? The Westminster confirms that in the Lord's Supper we participate in the body and blood of Jesus. Isn't this a participation in the offering and sacrifice of Christ once for all? All of us would certainly agree that Jesus is our Passover Lamb and that in the Lord's Supper we find a connection (or a fulfillment?) of all the OT sacrifices.

So in rejecting the Romish errors, cannot we keep anything of sacrificial language and thought in the celebration of the Lord's Supper?

Thanks


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 14, 2018)

Flowers said:


> cannot we keep anything of sacrificial language



Seems like u have answered your own question when you say:



Flowers said:


> The Westminster confirms that in the Lord's Supper we participate in the body and blood of Jesus.


----------



## Flowers (Feb 14, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Seems like u have answered your own question when you say:



So do you suggest that it would be orthodox to think of celebrating the Eucharist as participating in the sacrifice and offering of Christ?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 14, 2018)

The PCA Book of Church Order (BCO http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/BCO-2017-for-Web-with-bookmarks.pdf) ch.58 and its language for administering the Lord's Supper does not so much counsel a teaching in its presentation of a robust, Reformation sacramental theology each time.

The OPC's BCO, section on the Directory for Public Worship (DPW http://opc.org/BCO/DPW.html) III.C. contains considerably more teaching in its recommended presentation. So, for example from the first recommendation:
[The Lord's Supper] is not a resacrificing of Christ, but is a remembrance of the once-for-all sacrifice of himself in his death for our sins. Nor is it a mere memorial to Christ's sacrifice. It is a means of grace by which God feeds us with the crucified, resurrected, exalted Christ. He does so by his Holy Spirit and through faith. Thus he strengthens us in our warfare against sin and in our endeavors to serve him in holiness.​I recommend reading through the whole chapter on administering the Lord's Supper. You should also read the Continental Reformed Church Order on the same subject (one place to read is here: http://www.prca.org/about/official-standards/liturgical-forms/administration-of-the-lord-s-supper)

As a "candidate for ministry" (per your signature) I recommend you read a number of Calvin's offerings on the subject, starting here: http://www.the-highway.com/supper1_Calvin.html. Also, this might be a good read for your library: https://www.ligonier.org/store/treatises-on-the-sacraments-hardcover/

For further blessing in instruction re. the Lord's Supper, peruse the first five chs. of this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=ylUNAAAAYAAJ
in the Table of contents on this page, click on the page1 (not sermon 1, etc.) the 4th link overall, to be taken approx. to the first sermon (the first 200pp are biography) Robert Bruce is as rich as it gets.

And this book https://archive.org/details/sacramentalmedit00willrich (was available in print, _A Sacramental Catechism,_ by John Willison $22.50 | Hardcover | 366 pages | Soli Deo Gloria. First published in 1720.)

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 4


----------



## Gforce9 (Feb 14, 2018)

My hope is that @Contra_Mundum (Rev.Buchanan) speaks to this; so very often his answers are clear, articulate and robust. I will say that, while the language seems similar, the ideas behind the language (between the Reformed and Rome) is are quite different.....I don't think it would be true to apply to our side of the equation, Rome's definition(s)...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 14, 2018)

Flowers said:


> So do you suggest that it would be orthodox to think of celebrating the Eucharist as participating in the sacrifice and offering of Christ?



No, I am just agreeing w/ your statement on the WCF. To go any further, u end up RCC or Lutheran.


----------



## Flowers (Feb 14, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> No, I am just agreeing w/ your statement on the WCF. To go any further, u end up RCC or Lutheran.



So just to be clear, in your view we should not suppose that we are participating in the sacrifice of Christ when celebrating the Lord’s Supper?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 14, 2018)

Flowers said:


> But has the Reformed tradition gone too far in totally rejecting all sacrificial language from the Eucharist? The Westminster confirms that in the Lord's Supper we participate in the body and blood of Jesus. Isn't this a participation in the offering and sacrifice of Christ once for all? All of us would certainly agree that Jesus is our Passover Lamb and that in the Lord's Supper we find a connection (or a fulfillment?) of all the OT sacrifices.


I assume you looked over some responses here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/responding-to-a-roman-catholics-defense-of-the-mass.94897/


----------



## Flowers (Feb 15, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The PCA Book of Church Order (BCO http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/BCO-2017-for-Web-with-bookmarks.pdf) ch.58 and its language for administering the Lord's Supper does not so much counsel a teaching in its presentation of a robust, Reformation sacramental theology each time.
> 
> The OPC's BCO, section on the Directory for Public Worship (DPW http://opc.org/BCO/DPW.html) III.C. contains considerably more teaching in its recommended presentation. So, for example from the first recommendation:
> [The Lord's Supper] is not a resacrificing of Christ, but is a remembrance of the once-for-all sacrifice of himself in his death for our sins. Nor is it a mere memorial to Christ's sacrifice. It is a means of grace by which God feeds us with the crucified, resurrected, exalted Christ. He does so by his Holy Spirit and through faith. Thus he strengthens us in our warfare against sin and in our endeavors to serve him in holiness.​I recommend reading through the whole chapter on administering the Lord's Supper. You should also read the Continental Reformed Church Order on the same subject (one place to read is here: http://www.prca.org/about/official-standards/liturgical-forms/administration-of-the-lord-s-supper)
> ...



Thanks for these resources. It'll take me a bit to work through them, but I will!

In brief, could you explain why, in your view, it is inappropriate to think of the Eucharist in any sort of sacrificial way?


----------



## Flowers (Feb 15, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I assume you looked over some responses here:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/responding-to-a-roman-catholics-defense-of-the-mass.94897/



I suppose I'm a little confused. Reformed folks say that the Eucharist _*is*_ _*not*_ a resacrifice of Christ. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church likewise says that the Eucharist _*is not*_ a resacrifice of Christ. Here's what the CCC says:

1330 - "[The sacrament is called...] The _Holy Sacrifice_, because it *makes present the one sacrifice of Christ* the Savior, and includes the church's offering." (Emphasis mine)

1357 - "We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the _memorial of his sacrifice._ In so doing, _we offer to the Father_ what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made _present_." (emphasis theirs)

1361 - "The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of praise by which the Church sings the glory of God in the name of all creation. This sacrifice of praise is possible only through Christ: he unites the faithful to his person, to his praise, and to his intercession, so that the sacrifice of praise to the Father is offered _through_ Christ and _with_ him, to be accepted _in_ him." (emphasis theirs)

1362 - "The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his body."

1363 - "In the sense of Sacred Scripture the _memorial_ is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them."

1366 - "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it _re-presents_ (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its _memorial _and because it _applies _its fruit."

In 1366 they then quote Trent (DS 1740) - "Christ, our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper 'on the night when he was betrayed,' he wanted to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit."

And again in 1367 - "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are _one single sacrifice_: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offer through the ministry of the priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner... this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

...

So help me with my powers of discernment here. It seems to me that calling the Catholic view of the Eucharist a _re-sacrificing_ of Christ is not being charitable or honest. It's simply not their view. As good Reformed folks, I don't believe that we need to reject all of the above. But I'm having trouble discerning exactly where the errors are. Can't we keep some understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice as Reformed folks without going all the way to Rome?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 15, 2018)

First, let me respond to this comment:


Flowers said:


> So help me with my powers of discernment here. It seems to me that calling the Catholic view of the Eucharist a _re-sacrificing_ of Christ is not being charitable or honest. It's simply not their view. As good Reformed folks, I don't believe that we need to reject all of the above. But I'm having trouble discerning exactly where the errors are. Can't we keep some understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice as Reformed folks without going all the way to Rome?



If you read through to the end of the referenced thread, you should have found some cogent explanations of RC views, including an explanation of Rome's views as a_ system._

There are two tacks one may take by way of criticism. One is to critique something by using your own position as a yardstick. The other is what is called "an internal critique," which is to judge something by its own chosen standard.

It is a *mistake* on your part to allege that the Reformed are being "uncharitable" to judge RC views by a Reformed yardstick, if the purpose is to explain within our system why the RC view is mistaken. It would be a different kind of mistake to go to a RC member, and try to explain to* him* why he's wrong by a measure he doesn't own as true.

In other words, we can say as Reformed folk that the RC_ may say_ his practice isn't a "resacrifice," but his own self-judgment doesn't carry any weight with us in terms of making our OWN judgment about his views. What would be in fact "uncharitable" is failing to understand why_ on his own terms_ he is not so inconsistent as we may believe him to be as judged on our terms.

It would be uncharitable (and counterproductive, and talking-past each other) to address a RC and assert to him--without any lengthy references to doctrinal history or understanding his perspective--that his church's official stance in the 21st Century denies its previous stance or is otherwise incoherent.

Within its own "system" of explanation, Rome doesn't find itself at odds with itself. As the last post in the other thread indicates, two main pillars of RC dogma backstop its self-understanding: it's theory of Authority, and it's theory of Incarnation. One also should be aware of Rome's attitude toward what we might call historic "contradictions," which they reinterpret as "development."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Flowers (Feb 15, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> First, let me respond to this comment:
> 
> 
> If you read through to the end of the referenced thread, you should have found some cogent explanations of RC views, including an explanation of Rome's views as a_ system._
> ...



Thanks for the clarification.

So you're saying that the Reformed position _*accuses*_ Rome of holding to a re-sacrifice view _*even though*_ Rome would not claim this as an accurate understanding of the Roman view.

If this is so, it appears to be a breakdown in communication. If Reformed folks say: "Upon analyses, your view amounts to X and we deny that X is true." And then Roman folks say: "Your description of our view as X does not match _our_ understanding of our view." Then I'm not sure where this leaves us.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 15, 2018)

Flowers said:


> So help me with my powers of discernment here. It seems to me that calling the Catholic view of the Eucharist a _re-sacrificing_ of Christ is not being charitable or honest. It's simply not their view. As good Reformed folks, I don't believe that we need to reject all of the above. But I'm having trouble discerning exactly where the errors are. Can't we keep some understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice as Reformed folks without going all the way to Rome?


See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...olics-defense-of-the-mass.94897/#post-1158326

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...olics-defense-of-the-mass.94897/#post-1158329

The Mass is a "true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead". I have conducted the Mass over a dozen or so times, so I tend to think I know a wee bit about the matter. The Lord is summoned to earth each time the priest rings the bell to be a literal _transubstantiated_ victim, contrary to the Reformed once for all view of Our Lord's sacrifice. I am not arguing the Mass is viewed as a different sacrifice, rather, it is a _re-sacrifice_ of what was properly one and done. Couching that re-sacrifice in re-presentation language does not escape the logical conclusion of the reality of the Mass. Fr. Jame's O'Brien's quote in the other thread captures what the priest actually believes_._

From Fiorenza, Francis. _Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives:_


Spoiler



The Reformation controversies of the sixteenth century were about both practice and doctrine, as these are essentially interconnected. As far as practice was concerned, the Reformers objected to the concentration on the priestly acts of consecration and sacrifice and to the replacement of communion by the veneration of the species. They wanted the Lord’s Supper restored as a sacrament, accessible in both kinds to all the faithful, in recognition of their royal priesthood, and *they would not brook the language of sacrifice when this was associated with propitiation or turned into the action of the priest apart from the faithful*. For them, the once and for all sacrifice was that of Christ and the Cross, and the purpose of the sacrament was to make its mercy and forgiveness available to the communicants. Hence, they expurgated the Mass of all language of sacrifice other than that of thanksgiving and self-offering. This, however, was not strictly a retrieval of the early Christian understanding of sacrifice, since the Reformers saw this metaphorical sacrifice not as essential but as accessory to the Lord’s Supper, whose only essence was the offer of the sacrament of the body and blood to the faithful and communion in the sacrament.

For defenders of the Catholic faith, this undid the whole Catholic system of devotion and worship and stood as *a denial of the essential doctrines of substantial presence, transubstantiation, and propitiatory sacrifice offered by the priest for the living and the dead*. It takes many volumes to discuss anew the exact doctrinal and theological positions of both Catholic apologists and Reformers. Whatever is said about these, it has to be said that the situation was one of impasse and led to the defensive definitions of the Council of Trent that were concerned with both faith and practice and that established the medieval Eucharist as the core Catholic practice for four more centuries, even though the postconciliar reforms did purge it of many of its more impious and superstitious abuses.

In the Decree on the Sacrifice of the Mass (DS 1738– 59), the council abjured any idea of mere metaphorical sacrifice and *sternly defined the propitiatory character of the sacrifice as offered by the ordained priest*. One can certainly find language in the conciliar teachings that shows a healthy sense of the sacramental and representational relation of the Mass to the Cross, as one can also find encouragement of more frequent communion by the faithful, though not under both kinds, which could have smacked too much of Protestant persuasion (DS 1747, 1760). There is, however, no getting away from the fact that Trent favored a priestly conception of Eucharistic doctrine and practice and did nothing to overcome the clericalization of liturgy that was so much a part of the medieval heritage.

The mistake of later centuries, encouraged by the catechism of the Council of Trent, was to take the Tridentine decrees as the authentic and full teaching of the Christian faith on the Eucharist, rather than as the historically determined, apologetic, and defensive documents that they actually were. Without setting themselves up as judges of history, Catholics today can face their own critical issues only through a better understanding of what took place in the sixteenth century and of the reasons why the Council of Trent chose to define certain articles of the mystery of the Eucharist as essential to the faith and practice of the time.

[Pope John Paul II encyclical letter of 2003, _Ecclesia de Eucharistia_]:
“*The Eucharist is a sacrifice in the strict sense*, and not only in a general way, as if it were simply a matter of Christ’s offering himself to the faithful as their spiritual food. The gift of his love and obedience to the point of giving his life is in the first place a gift to his Father. Certainly it is a gift given for our sake, and indeed that of all humanity, yet it is first and foremost a gift to the Father."
Fearing that some accentuate a community-centered approach, the pope reminds his readers that the primary dimension of the Eucharist is vertical or God-centered: the *Eucharist makes present Christ’s sacrifice* in which he gives himself in love to the Father for our sake...

...the pope emphasizes that the “Mass involves a most special presence that— in the words of Paul VI—‘ is called “real” not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were “not real,” but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present’ (15; cf. _Mysterium fidei_, 39).

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the action of Christ and the Spirit in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in post-Reformation communities and churches, but it continues to affirm that “especially because of the lack of the Sacrament of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the eucharistic mystery.” [John Paul II, _Ut Unum Sint_, 67, citing Vatican II, _Unitatis redintegratio_ 22.)]

As for the Tridentine definition that the Mass is a sacrifice in no purely metaphorical sense but is propitiatory for the living and the dead, many problems have already been overcome through certain results of ecumenical dialogue. *First*, there is the common recognition that the Eucharist can be spoken of as sacrifice only in sacramental relation to the sacrifice of the Cross, of which it is the *representation*. Historical studies have made it clear enough that this language was already used at Trent but in the circumstances of the time was not enough to overcome oppositions between Catholic and Protestant interests and beliefs.

*Second*, the primary offering of the Mass is the offering of Christ himself to the Father and as communion gift to the church. The offering of the church is a communion in Christ’s self-offering and has no validity aside from its inclusion in that offering. There is no unanimous agreement among Catholics as to whether it is appropriate to say that the “church offers Christ” by way of expressing its will to be taken up into his offering and its confidence in Christ’s acceptance by God for the sins of the world. [This is the explanation adopted by the Catholic party to the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue. See _Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue, The Eucharist_ (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1980), 20.]

Beyond these clarifications of the dogma, headway has to be made through overcoming the apparent opposition between a sacrifice of thanksgiving and a sacrifice for sin. Much that has already been explained above serves in that direction, for the study of the Eucharistic prayer makes it clear that it is through the memorial prayer of thanksgiving and intercession that the Pasch of Christ is *represented *and becomes *efficacious *for the community gathered in his name and in the Spirit. It has also become clear that the prayer is a prayer over bread and wine and leads normally to the communion table. To speak of what is done through consecration of the elements without a necessary reference to the communion table is unacceptable.

[_It is_] the Catholic position that *the Mass may be offered by the priest for the sins* of the living and the dead.



I could go on and on about this but I see no need to rehabilitate Rome's views. If you want to retain the Reformed view of the Supper as a *sacrifice*, retain the Reformed proper view, not inadvertently attempting to subsume Rome's word salads on the matter.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Flowers (Feb 15, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I could go on and on about this but I see no need to rehabilitate Rome's views. If you want to retain the Reformed view of the Supper as a *sacrifice*, retain the Reformed proper view, not inadvertently attempting to subsume Rome's word salads on the matter.



Thanks for these further resources. Is it possible to retain the Reformed view of the Supper as a sacrifice? Not that Jesus is being re-sacrificed. But acknowledging that Jesus is given to us as a sacrifice - the only sacrifice acceptable to God. And that through Jesus our lives are made acceptable to God. So in celebrating the Supper, we are remembering Jesus' offering of himself (once for all), cleaving to it, and being united to him are offering our entire lives to the Father through Christ.

Do we not do that in the Lord's Supper? Is this understanding contrary to the Reformed view?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 15, 2018)

Flowers said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> So you're saying that the Reformed position _*accuses*_ Rome of holding to a re-sacrifice view _*even though*_ Rome would not claim this as an accurate understanding of the Roman view.
> 
> If this is so, it appears to be a breakdown in communication. If Reformed folks say: "Upon analyses, your view amounts to X and we deny that X is true." And then Roman folks say: "Your description of our view as X does not match _our_ understanding of our view." Then I'm not sure where this leaves us.


It leaves us where it actually is, two views that are _immiscible_. Why are you pressing for homogeneity where it clearly impossible? Why do you consider that some kind of failure?


----------



## Flowers (Feb 15, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> It leaves us where it actually is, two views that are _immiscible_. Why are you pressing for homogeneity where it clearly impossible? Why do you consider that some kind of failure?



All I'm trying to do is to understand. I'm not necessarily pressing for homogeneity. I don't understand why all semblance of sacrificial language must be thrown out of the Lord's Supper and I'm trying to discern where exactly Rome errs. I'm wondering if anything of sacrificial language and thought can be retained in the Reformed view.

If others have clarity on this, I do not. I'm simply trying to arrive at personal clarity.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 15, 2018)

Flowers said:


> Thanks for these further resources. Is it possible to retain the Reformed view of the Supper as a sacrifice? Not that Jesus is being re-sacrificed. But acknowledging that Jesus is given to us as a sacrifice - the only sacrifice acceptable to God. And that through Jesus our lives are made acceptable to God. So in celebrating the Supper, we are remembering Jesus' offering of himself (once for all), cleaving to it, and being united to him are offering our entire lives to the Father through Christ.
> 
> Do we not do that in the Lord's Supper? Is this understanding contrary to the Reformed view?


Did you read this:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/eucharist-as-sacrifice.94975/#post-1159120

Asked and answered.


----------



## Flowers (Feb 15, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Did you read this:
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/eucharist-as-sacrifice.94975/#post-1159120
> 
> Asked and answered.



Could you spell it out for me? I'm not seeing a clear answer to that question.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 15, 2018)

Flowers said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> So you're saying that the Reformed position _*accuses*_ Rome of holding to a re-sacrifice view _*even though*_ Rome would not claim this as an accurate understanding of the Roman view.
> 
> If this is so, it appears to be a breakdown in communication. If Reformed folks say: "Upon analyses, your view amounts to X and we deny that X is true." And then Roman folks say: "Your description of our view as X does not match _our_ understanding of our view." Then I'm not sure where this leaves us.



I could point out, that Rome might want to make a little of its own effort at_ appreciating_ why their view is self-referentially incoherent to people who don't share her assumptions about history, authority, even reality itself.

We certainly do suffer from a loss of communication; but still we make attempts to speak to RCs, and have this confidence: that even if I, myself, don't know where the chink in the armor of an individual RC is, God may guide his arrow (1Ki.22:34) of truth to strike an inconsistency. The resulting discomfort could bring a man to eventually drop his erroneous system. But we can speak the truth in love without being donkeys.

Now consider that this Board does not exist to offer RC dogma some kind of "level playing field," a neutral space in which to assert its self-regard. No, but this Board assumes a Reformed playing field. It's our "rule book" that's in effect here. Rome's dogmas and historical claims are going to be judged by what we believe is fair. We're here to support the Reformed views, and to explain why they are superior to Rome, and why Rome's views don't measure up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 15, 2018)

Flowers said:


> Could you spell it out for me? I'm not seeing a clear answer to that question.


From the link given in the post:
http://opc.org/BCO/DPW.html#Chapter_III

*C. The Lord's Supper*
1. The Institution of the Sacrament

The minister shall read the words of the institution and instruction of the Lord's Supper as found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 or one of the Gospel accounts (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, or Luke 22:14-20). In addition, he may read words of instruction from passages such as John 6 and 1 Corinthians 10.

*2. The Meaning and Nature of the Sacrament*

The minister shall then summarize before the congregation the teaching of the Word of God as to the meaning and nature of the sacrament in the following or like words:

Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Lord's Supper as an ordinance to be observed by his church until he comes again. *It is not a resacrificing of Christ, but is a remembrance of the once-for-all sacrifice of himself in his death for our sins*. *Nor is it a mere memorial to Christ's sacrifice*. It is a means of grace by which God feeds us with the crucified, resurrected, exalted Christ. He does so by his Holy Spirit and through faith. Thus he strengthens us in our warfare against sin and in our endeavors to serve him in holiness. The sacrament further signifies and seals the forgiveness of our sin and our nourishment and growth in Christ. The bread and wine represent the crucified body and the shed blood of the Savior, which he gave for his people. In this sacrament, God confirms that he is faithful and true to fulfill the promises of his covenant, and he calls us to deeper gratitude for our salvation, to renewed consecration, and to more faithful obedience. The Supper is also a bond and pledge of the communion that believers have with him and with each other as members of his body. As Scripture says, "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). The Supper anticipates the consummation of the ages, when Christ returns to gather all his redeemed people at the glorious wedding feast of the Lamb. As we come to the Lord's Table, we humbly resolve to deny ourselves, to crucify the sin that is within us, to resist the devil, and to follow Christ as becomes those who bear his name.​


----------



## Flowers (Feb 15, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> From the link given in the post:
> http://opc.org/BCO/DPW.html#Chapter_III
> 
> *C. The Lord's Supper*
> ...



Thanks.

I have read these BCO statements and confessional statements. I'm asking if someone could use their own words to explain what they mean for this particular question.

My question is this: within this system is it appropriate to think of the Lord's Supper as our participation in Christ's offering of himself to God (once and for all on the cross) for our sins?

Really a simple yes or no would satisfy me here. But also, if you're willing, you could elaborate on why yes or why no.

Thanks again!


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 15, 2018)

Friend, the sacrificial language of the Roman Catholics and most Anglicans is clear: a church has an altar administered by a priest. They even have a pall (a funeral cloth) over the wine. 

The Bible teaches a single sacrifice, once and for all time, in the work of Christ. The scriptures point to one priest, Jesus who intercedes for us before His Father. The division between God and his people was ripped apart by the finished work of Christ. It is serious error to mix the propitiatory work of Jesus with an ongoing sacrificial language or practice.

The reformers went so far as to remove architectural barriers from between the congregation and the minister. They placed the pulpit (hence the word) as high and as close as possible to the center. There is no altar in a reformed church.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Flowers (Feb 15, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> Friend, the sacrificial language of the Roman Catholics and most Anglicans is clear: a church has an altar administered by a priest. They even have a pall (a funeral cloth) over the wine.
> 
> The Bible teaches a single sacrifice, once and for all time, in the work of Christ. The scriptures point to one priest, Jesus who intercedes for us before His Father. The division between God and his people was ripped apart by the finished work of Christ. It is serious error to mix the propitiatory work of Jesus with an ongoing sacrificial language or practice.
> 
> The reformers went so far as to remove architectural barriers from between the congregation and the minister. They placed the pulpit (hence the word) as high and as close as possible to the center. There is no altar in a reformed church.



So in what way is the Lord's Supper related to the sacrifice of Christ? It appears to me that the standard Reformed answer is that the Supper is a _memorial_ of the sacrifice of Christ. Assuming this to be true, we receive the bread and the wine (his body and blood) as benefits of his sacrifice. Jesus has been offered to the Father once for all and we feast on the benefits of propitiation. Is there any error in what I've just said here?


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 15, 2018)

The memorial language is closer to the modern Baptists who often de-emphasize the Lord's table. The WCF does see the table as a means of Grace, and joins Paul in his language that it commemorates Jesus' death until He returns. But the Westminster defines are crystal clear about admixing sacrificial language:
"In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Flowers (Feb 15, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> The memorial language is closer to the modern Baptists who often de-emphasize the Lord's table. The WCF does see the table as a means of Grace, and joins Paul in his language that it commemorates Jesus' death until He returns. But the Westminster defines are crystal clear about admixing sacrificial language:
> "In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect."



Is there an important difference between the word "commemoration" and the word "memorial"?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Feb 15, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> Friend, the sacrificial language of the Roman Catholics and most Anglicans is clear: a church has an altar administered by a priest. They even have a pall (a funeral cloth) over the wine.
> 
> The Bible teaches a single sacrifice, once and for all time, in the work of Christ. The scriptures point to one priest, Jesus who intercedes for us before His Father. The division between God and his people was ripped apart by the finished work of Christ. It is serious error to mix the propitiatory work of Jesus with an ongoing sacrificial language or practice.
> 
> The reformers went so far as to remove architectural barriers from between the congregation and the minister. They placed the pulpit (hence the word) as high and as close as possible to the center. There is no altar in a reformed church.



Excellent, Jean!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 15, 2018)

Flowers said:


> Is there an important difference between the word "commemoration" and the word "memorial"?


You could say the sacrament of the Supper was instituted to be a _memorial _(perpetual obligation) to_ commemorate_ (remembrance) that one offering up of Our Lord, by Himself, upon the cross, once and for all.

I do not think you could say the sacrament of the Supper was instituted to be a _memorial to memorialize_ that one offering up of Our Lord, by Himself, upon the cross, once and for all.

I commend to you Shaw's exposition of the matter here:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/shaw_29.html

As Hodge states in his exposition of the WCF section,
"This [_Rome's Mass_] is not a mere act in commemoration of the one sacrifice upon the cross, but a constantly repeated real, although bloodless, expiatory sacrifice, atoning for sin and propitiating God."​
An ordinance cannot be both a sacrament and a sacrifice. The same act cannot be a commemoration of one sacrifice, and itself an actual sacrifice having intrinsic sin-expiating efficacy.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 15, 2018)

Flowers said:


> Thanks for these resources. It'll take me a bit to work through them, but I will!
> 
> In brief, could you explain why, in your view, it is inappropriate to think of the Eucharist in any sort of sacrificial way?


First, I want to speak encouragingly. I don't want you to think I've disparaged any of the questions you've offered. The internet is fraught with opportunity to give and take offense, even inadvertently.

Second, the short answer is: because it isn't_ Reformed_ or_ Presbyterian_ to think so; but only because we think the Bible stands behind the view we espouse. It isn't mere tradition. But it is a_ defined_ tradition: defined by the historic, ecclesiastical confessions that purport to teach the unchanging truth on the subject.

So, unless one thinks that truth in one age isn't necessarily truth in another, he's bound either to conform to the old truth; or else explain it as yet more error mistaken for truth in the past.

But if he cannot persuade the church he's correct, and that the church has been wrong for so long; the honest thing to do is figure out if there's a church around that DOES teach what he thinks is true, and join that church.

Third, the longer answer is that the Lord's Supper, or Communion, or the Eucharist (if you prefer the term) is a_ *meal*,_ and not a_ *sacrifice*_. The bread and wine are_ instrumental,_ not identities of the things they signify. This is at least two steps removed from Him who was the Lamb of God.

Rome names their Eucharistic furniture an "altar." Why do you suppose they do this? It is because they have taken their denomination back to adoption of OT shadows. They have reinstituted the priesthood. They bring their congregations to commemorate and reenact the crucifixion.

This is wrong on many counts; but perhaps no more obviously than that--instead of commemorating and reenacting the Last/First Supper--there is no Table in Rome's setup where Jesus is (still) sharing a meal with his people. Instead, there's an unauthorized "altar" (cf.Dt.12:13-14)

Where is the true altar? Heb.13:10, it is in heaven itself, where the Priest who never dies (Heb.7:3) presents himself to God, as both Priest and Sacrifice. There was only one (legitimate) altar in Israel, not stand-in altars all over the land, with priests imitating the major offering in Jerusalem. Rome's multiplied altars and priests are foreign even to the outmoded system they think to imitate.

Israelite OT feasts such as Passover did not save the people out of Egypt all over again, or reprise the paschal sparing of the first-born (in fact, an entirely different ritual, Ex.13:11-16, was used in that connection). But all the feasts were for tying every generation to the original events inaugurating their elect existence and solidarity.

Israel ate--and we eat--the sanctified "residue" of what was already accepted by God. But Rome's position is that their priest and altar are for making/establishing the people's acceptability. This is the reason why their wafer and cup are lifted high and called "re-presentation."

We sit down in the presence of the Lord, and "eat and drink" and live (cf. Ex.24:9-11). We are accepted and seated because we have been joined in covenant, not so that we may gain or maintain covenant. On the night in which he was betrayed, our Lord already had accepted the disciples around his Table (in spite of the fact they would all forsake him). They partook before there had even been a sacrifice, yet they partook on the basis of it and of Christ himself who was united to them.

Likewise, we also partake on the basis of the same sacrifice now past, and on Him who is united to us. Jesus did not perform a sacrificial ritual at the First Communion; he had a meal with his church--one that portended his sacrifice, and by which he fed his disciples in union with him. He does the very same thing today, by which we come as near to our dear Savior as can possibly be, still on this side of eternity.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 3


----------



## Flowers (Feb 15, 2018)

Rev. Bruce, that looks like a very thorough answer which gets more to the heart of my question. Thanks for taking the time to articulate it. I will be looking over it in more detail in the coming hours and will follow up with more questions if I have them!

Gratefully,

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Flowers (Feb 16, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> First, I want to speak encouragingly. I don't want you to think I've disparaged any of the questions you've offered. The internet is fraught with opportunity to give and take offense, even inadvertently.



None taken. I hope I've offered none.



> Second, the short answer is: because it isn't_ Reformed_ or_ Presbyterian_ to think so; but only because we think the Bible stands behind the view we espouse. It isn't mere tradition. But it is a_ defined_ tradition: defined by the historic, ecclesiastical confessions that purport to teach the unchanging truth on the subject.
> 
> So, unless one thinks that truth in one age isn't necessarily truth in another, he's bound either to conform to the old truth; or else explain it as yet more error mistaken for truth in the past.



Fair enough. But the Reformers not only departed from the 16th century Roman Church on this issue. In rejecting all sacrificial language they departed from the early church as well (and the entire history of the church from the second century onward). Without question, the Apostolic Fathers refer to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. They may not have meant it in the Roman sense, but what did they mean?



> Third, the longer answer is that the Lord's Supper, or Communion, or the Eucharist (if you prefer the term) is a_ *meal*,_ and not a_ *sacrifice*_. The bread and wine are_ instrumental,_ not identities of the things they signify. This is at least two steps removed from Him who was the Lamb of God.



Can the meal be neatly separated from the sacrifice? For example, can the Passover meal be neatly separated from the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb? Or are they two parts of the same event?



> Rome names their Eucharistic furniture an "altar." Why do you suppose they do this? It is because they have taken their denomination back to adoption of OT shadows. They have reinstituted the priesthood. They bring their congregations to commemorate and reenact the crucifixion.
> 
> This is wrong on many counts; but perhaps no more obviously than that--instead of commemorating and reenacting the Last/First Supper--there is no Table in Rome's setup where Jesus is (still) sharing a meal with his people. Instead, there's an unauthorized "altar" (cf.Dt.12:13-14)
> 
> Where is the true altar? Heb.13:10, it is in heaven itself, where the Priest who never dies (Heb.7:3) presents himself to God, as both Priest and Sacrifice. There was only one (legitimate) altar in Israel, not stand-in altars all over the land, with priests imitating the major offering in Jerusalem. Rome's multiplied altars and priests are foreign even to the outmoded system they think to imitate.



I have no problem with the idea that the true altar is in heaven. In Roman thought, the cross of Christ was an altar. Would you take issue with this?



> Israelite OT feasts such as Passover did not save the people out of Egypt all over again, or reprise the paschal sparing of the first-born (in fact, an entirely different ritual, Ex.13:11-16, was used in that connection). But all the feasts were for tying every generation to the original events inaugurating their elect existence and solidarity.



I understand the Feast of Unleavened Bread described in Exodus 13 to be identical to the Passover Feast. But this is an interesting point. The Passover Feast certainly involved the killing of a lamb, but I'm not sure that the Passover Feast was regarded as a sacrifice in the same way that the five temple sacrifices are sacrifices. Was the Passover Feast a sacrifice?



> Israel ate--and we eat--the sanctified "residue" of what was already accepted by God. But Rome's position is that their priest and altar are for making/establishing the people's acceptability. This is the reason why their wafer and cup are lifted high and called "re-presentation."
> 
> We sit down in the presence of the Lord, and "eat and drink" and live (cf. Ex.24:9-11). We are accepted and seated because we have been joined in covenant, not so that we may gain or maintain covenant. On the night in which he was betrayed, our Lord already had accepted the disciples around his Table (in spite of the fact they would all forsake him). They partook before there had even been a sacrifice, yet they partook on the basis of it and of Christ himself who was united to them.



Yes but they are eating a cultic meal - the Passover Feast. Would we say that the Eucharist is a cultic meal?



> Likewise, we also partake on the basis of the same sacrifice now past, and on Him who is united to us. Jesus did not perform a sacrificial ritual at the First Communion; he had a meal with his church--one that portended his sacrifice, and by which he fed his disciples in union with him. He does the very same thing today, by which we come as near to our dear Savior as can possibly be, still on this side of eternity.



This would depend on whether or not the Passover Feast was regarded as a sacrifice. I would need to dig more into this.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 17, 2018)

Flowers said:


> the Reformers not only departed from the 16th century Roman Church on this issue. In rejecting all sacrificial language they departed from the early church as well (and the entire history of the church from the second century onward). Without question, the Apostolic Fathers refer to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. They may not have meant it in the Roman sense, but *what did they mean*?


It will be simpler if you supply literal quotes and references.

However, I will simply grant that they did speak thus for prosecuting the point: the Reformers left (some of) the language of the early church behind. And?

And they went back to_ Scriptural_ language. Moreover, the ECFs don't speak in only one_ mode,_ as if such* sacrificial* terms are all they use.

We might say: the Reformers chose the ECFs'_ better_ language, and dropped that which was unhelpful. Development can go in a bad direction, and often did. Which is why we have to keep coming back to Scripture and checking our progress. The early church is a mixed bag; so it has to be measured against the inerrant Word.

Furthermore, early church teaching (such as we have of it) would often simply borrow biblical language and employ it to make their point. This has up-and-down side. If the exegesis behind the borrowing is fine, the language is well used, though quoting doesn't replace teaching the substance of the theology the words are meant to convey. You still must teach the truth embodied in the verses.

However, the background exegesis was frequently lacking. Often (as will happen in any age, even our own) the apostles' intent by their words was evacuated, and in its place was substituted Greek philosophy, Gnostic ideas, or any number of errors. We have people today who read some verse of Scripture, and without skipping a beat assign it an anachronistic meaning that would never have occurred to the inspired writer; but actually reflects certain naïve linguistic assumptions of a 20th century interpreter.

Nor is the problem a function of "which century" either, but the early church was just as susceptible as any age. It became even more susceptible when Gentiles not only outstripped the Jews coming into the nascent NT church; but when Jewish entry slowed to a trickle.

An immediate benefit of practical acquaintance with the OT in the apostolic age (in the way of converts straight out of synagogues, many of which were already "elders," ready made for church-leadership, and lost in the following century) was the substantial presence of a "biblical mentality" coming out of an early counter-culture (Jewish flavored) to the dominant one (Greco-Roman).

All which to say: we value the ECFs, but we don't simply prefer a thought because it is old, as if all the ancients said has equal value. Not even Rome thinks that, but cherry-picks them for their own purposes--while claiming to be the ones who take them seriously (and use them correctly, etc.). But Rome also thinks of the Bible as her project, and the Fathers and the whole Magisterium as more of the same. We aren't going to give in on this point, nor assume Rome's "choice quotes" are properly contextualized (which they often are not).

So, again, please offer some specific ECF statement, and its source; and then there's something concrete to work with. But in any case, whatever we think of it, it isn't the Bible itself; and as Presbyterian and Reformed we're beholden to the Word.



Flowers said:


> Can the meal be neatly separated from the sacrifice? For example, can the Passover meal be neatly separated from the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb? Or are they two parts of the same event?


Separation is what we're doing (I don't know what you mean by "neatly"), that is _distinguishing_ the one from another; even if we insist on maintaining the connection between them. The correct questions being: "is it legitimate?" and "what sort of connection?" Furthermore, in your quote I'm not sure why Paschal Lamb is capitalized--unless you are referring to Christ, and in particular the Last Passover.

On that occasion it's obvious Jesus is not handing the disciples "sacrificial residue," when he hasn't even been slain yet; nor (as he is physically whole before them) does what they partake of actually function as his ritual sacrifice. What we consume (as a general observation) becomes part of us; and a shared meal means that those participating are united in the essence of what they share. In the Supper, the Lord eats with his people and shares_ himself_ with them as he connects the elements with his whole Person--who lived, died, and rose again.

The cross is central to this sharing; but the meal is not the sacrifice. It is the sign of the thing that was done, and the union that the done-thing made sure. Without the cross, there would be no people united to Christ; who are united to him chiefly at the point his death (on account of our acute need), but also to his righteous life, and to his resurrection. We are united to Christ, and to his particulars as explained in the gospel.

If all you wish to say is that the Final sacrifice of Christ, over past and done, he sets before you and says, "Peace;" that's consistent with language such as 1Cor.5:7 or Heb.9:11-15. But anything more challenges Heb.10:10-12 and the finished work of Christ. The pastor is not working priestcraft, the people are not _finding acceptance_ with God with the immanent breaking of the body and shedding of the blood of the Savior. But it was (past tense) broken and shed, and we are seated by invitation of Him who loved us and washed us from stain.


Flowers said:


> I have no problem with the idea that the true altar is in heaven. In Roman thought, the cross of Christ was an altar. Would you take issue with this?


The cross is where he was offered up; of course it was an "altar" of sorts. But Jesus is the Temple (Jn.2:21), all the furnishings are signs pointing to himself; so then the earthly instrument rots, burns, is overturned--it's gone; but the true altar is wherever he is. He's already gone into the Holy of Holies and made atonement, Heb.10:19. Now, we draw near, v22, at a Table in the sacred Presence (not at an altar without) in order to eat. These furnishings have very different functions.



Flowers said:


> I understand the Feast of Unleavened Bread described in Exodus 13 to be identical to the Passover Feast. But this is an interesting point. The Passover Feast certainly involved the killing of a lamb, but I'm not sure that the Passover Feast was regarded as a sacrifice in the same way that the five temple sacrifices are sacrifices. Was the Passover Feast a sacrifice?


I don't know if you understand what I was getting at. Ex.13:11-16 describes the consecration of every firstborn to God, e.g. done to Jesus Lk.2:22ff, as soon as his mother was purified. This ritual is distinct from the annual memorial Passover celebration; but this place in the Law of Moses was an ideal place to describe it. The Feast of Unleavened Bread mentioned very briefly in vv6-7 is connected to the memorial Passover (followed immediately in the Jewish calendar).

The offering for the Passover was not_ precisely_ the same as the peace-offering brought at will by members of the covenant community. However, such offerings were of the same_ nature,_ and were governed by the same general rules of the altar. There's a reason why the Passover had to be celebrated in the vicinity of Jerusalem; because, the priests killed the lambs and sprinkled their blood, and then the beasts were taken bodily, roasted, and eaten immediately.

We may observe the parts of the Israelite ceremonial system, and the whole of it distinctly. Israel's single altar was a focal point of unification for the whole panoply. The death of Christ is tied not merely to one aspect of Israel's typological worship; but to the entirety. But to reduce our field of vision once more to just the Passover as type: our Supper Table is to the death of Christ as the Israelite Passover Meal was to their passage out of Egypt, even unto the Red Sea passage. That is, sign compared to thing signified.

All this gets a bit distracted from my original point: that Israel's_ in memoriam_ Passover was not for the purpose of being taken again out of Egypt; or that without rehearsing the sacrifice again, the people would be sent back thither. It was to recall how they had been brought out already, and had received the promises made to Abraham.


Flowers said:


> Yes but they are eating a cultic meal - the Passover Feast. Would we say that the Eucharist is a cultic meal?
> ..........
> This would depend on whether or not the Passover Feast was regarded as a sacrifice. I would need to dig more into this.


You may need to define your terms. But to me, it's rather basic to describe the Lord's Supper as a "cultic meal." It is called "the Lord's Supper" in 1Cor.11:20. It was inaugurated on the occasion of one of Israel's primary feasts, not as a one-to-one replacement but essentially to supplant the entire ceremonial raft.

Inasmuch as Jesus sweeps aside the whole typological prefigurement, and puts himself in its place, he fulfills the whole. He has either done this all, and set Moses aside forever; or else... perhaps Rome has struck upon the proper course, and making an "altar" the centerpiece of her ritual she improves the participants, seeking thereby to justify them.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Flowers (Feb 17, 2018)

Rev Bruce thanks so much for the thorough response. It'll take me a while to work through all of that, but I look forward to pondering it all. It looks clarifying!

For now, I'll quote a few Apostolic Fathers for reference.

Here's Clement in 1 Clement (to the Corinthians) Chapter 40:
"*1* Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. * 2* *He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services*, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. * 3* He has himself fixed by his supreme will the places and persons whom he desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to his good pleasure, and be acceptable to his will. * 4* So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, for they follow the laws of the Master and do no sin. * 5* For to the High Priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity."

In context, Clement's purposes are to exhort against potential schism in Corinth. He is comparing the necessity of the orderliness of worship and submission to ordained authorities to the OT Levitical system. But in doing so he refers to Christian worship services as "sacrifices".

Here's Clement again in 1 Clement 44 talking about the same issues:
"*4* For our sin is not small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily offered its sacrifices. * 5* Blessed are those Presbyters who finished their course before now, and have obtained a fruitful and perfect release in the ripeness of completed work, for they have now no fear that any shall move them from the place appointed to them. * 6* For we see that in spite of their good service you have removed some from the ministry which they fulfilled blamelessly."

Here's the Didache Chapter 14 speaking of Christian worship:
"*1* On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure; * 2* but let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled. * 3* For this is that which was spoken by the Lord, “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,” saith the Lord, “and my name is wonderful among the heathen.”"


----------



## Flowers (Feb 17, 2018)

Perhaps a more basic question would be in order here. Can we say that the Christian worship service is an offering to the Lord?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 17, 2018)

Flowers said:


> Perhaps a more basic question would be in order here. Can we say that the Christian worship service is an offering to the Lord?



Yes, and in fact we are commanded to present our entire lives as living sacrifices. But the sacrifice spoken of in the mass is of an entirely different fashion. Rome may claim differently, just as they claim not to worship Mary and the saints, but we must judge by what they do and not what they say. It is also true that the ECF were much more liberal in their use of sacrifial language in their discussions of the supper, but this would not be the first time that Rome has ruined a perfectly good term.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Flowers (Feb 17, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Yes, and in fact we are commanded to present our entire lives as living sacrifices. But the sacrifice spoken of in the mass is of an entirely different fashion. Rome may claim differently, just as they claim not to worship Mary and the saints, but we must judge by what they do and not what they say. It is also true that the ECF were much more liberal in their use of sacrifial language in their discussions of the supper, but this would not be the first time that Rome has ruined a perfectly good term.



This is interesting. So you suggest that the ECF were liberal in their use of sacrificial language and that Rome ruined this language by making the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice? Is it then possible for Reformed folks to reclaim a more primitive understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 17, 2018)

Flowers said:


> But in doing so he refers to Christian worship services as "sacrifices".


I do not agree that this is Clement's intent. As I read, it appears that the entire statement _from the second to the fifth sentence_ is a continuous reference to the holy ordinances of the Mosaic Law.

"He has commanded" in Gk. is followed by a_ supplied_ "*us*," (ala Bible versions that supply minor terms needed in English), but the sentence reads fine without it; and the sense is that God did furnish an entire orderly system under the Law. I don't think Clement is going back-and-forth in an effort to parallel Christian services with the OT Temple. And I think ch.41 following bears this interpretation out.

Here are 2 other translations of 44 (relevant snip):
-- "those who have *offered the gifts* of the bishop's office unblamably and holily" (J.B. Lightfoot)
-- "those who have blamelessly and holily *fulfilled its* [episcopate] *duties*."
[193. literally "*presented the offerings*."] (Roberts & Donaldson)
In my view, "offered its_ *sacrifices*"_ is a tendentious translation, but certainly fits a sacerdotal predilection.

Whatever these acts were (and we may easily fit all manner of things: starting with offered prayer, presenting sermons, administering sacraments; the latter two would be "presenting" the "gifts" of God to the people), the idea is that these men fulfilled faithfully their ecclesiastical ministry. The notion that Clement is talking about offering the Eucharist as sacrifice is not compelling to me in the least.

It's helpful if you find an ECF unambiguously discussing the subject at hand; even better, handling a Scripture text which is directly relevant. At least with the Didache reference, there is reference to Mal.1:11&14. This text certainly refers ahead to the coming (NT) age. The OT constantly refers to the future age using the vernacular religious customs of the (OT) age in which it is witnessed. The people who received that revelation would not have related to the prophetic word under any other presentation.

But the changes Jesus wrought were radical; Most often he did not simply borrow the ancient customs and reinterpret them, keeping their form. Jesus doesn't work for Moses, but vice versa. Moses needs to be understood as supplying the people with substitutes and stand-ins, gross and sometimes gaudy symbolism that would in time be set aside like so many childish toys (Gal.4:3; Eph.4:14).

So what is the θυσία, the offering, of Did.14? Is it not the worship of them gathered, 1Pet.2:5? Is it not the people themselves, Rom.12:1? The gifts of the people, Php.4:18? As I said, the earliest writings that survive till now frequently and simply refer or allude to Scriptural language. So we should be looking to the uses in the Bible of those terms to understand what those folk were thinking. Christ himself is the NT sacrifice _par excellence_; and yet a plain "Eucharistic" reference to sacrifice is nil in the whole NT.

Heb.13:15-16, "By him therefore let us offer the *sacrifice of praise* to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. But to *do good* and to *communicate* forget not: for with *such sacrifices* God is well pleased."

Reactions: Like 4


----------

