Eucharist as Sacrifice

Status
Not open for further replies.

Flowers

Puritan Board Freshman
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
 
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.)
 
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)...:2cents:
 
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.
 
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
 
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/
 
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.)

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?
 

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?
 
First, let me respond to this comment:
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."
 
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.

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 says 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.

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."

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.
 
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:
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.​
 
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.​

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!
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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."
 
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"?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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,
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top