Format: Alternating posts beginning with the affirmative and ending with the negative.
Time limit between posts: 7 days.
Maximum length of each post: 5000 words not including quotes.
Sources: All relevant sources are allowed.
This is a formal debate between Athanasias and BreadAlone. No one else is allowed to post in this thread. All rules of CF and Theology apply including the 20% quote rule meaning that no outside quotes over 200 words will be allowed. Please post links to your quotes.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
I appreciate Breadalone, my worthy opponent and brother in Christ Jesus for taking time out to debate this important subject with me. May the Lord bless and keep both of us in this friendly dialog.
I ask the Lord to help me defend his doctrine with charity but boldness and clarity in teaching. This is a deep subject both biblically and historically.
To begin with there is no one explicit phrase that says, “The Eucharist or the Mass is a Holy Sacrifice” in the New Testament. In the same way there is no phrase in the bible that says God is a Trinity or that infants should be baptized. The doctrine that the Mass is a Holy Sacrifice as well as the Trinitarian concept of God and infant baptism are in the bible implicitly. With these doctrines Christians put the pieces of the puzzle together and get the doctrines they do. First I must explain what the Catholic Church means by the sacrifice of the Mass since many Protestants misunderstand. To begin with Catholics view the Mass as one in the same as the Sacrifice of Calvary. The Mass is not another sacrifice done by Jesus. It is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary. Jesus died once and for all(Heb 9:26), and he dies no longer and suffers no longer in the Mass. The mass is not a bloody sacrifice like Hebrews talks about. Christ is not re-sacrificed in the mass. What happens in the Mass is that Christ makes present to us(in this age through time and space) his once and for all sacrifice he did on Calvary but this time he presents it to us in time and space in a unbloody way (through the mere appearances of bread and wine). In this way his faithful followers at every Mass can take part in the new Passover sacrifice as the Israelites did with the old covenant Passover sacrifice. He does this for our benefit. Calvary was redemption accomplished. But the Eucharist is redemption applied personally to us.. Catholics do this in his memory as a memorial sacrifice as he commanded us to do (Luke 22:19). The Sacrifice of the Mass then is the real present day application of the 0nce and for all sacrifice Christ did on the cross to individuals today and throughout the ages. It should be noted that all non-protestant Christians whether they be Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic, or Abyssinian all adhere and teach the Eucharist to be a holy sacrifice. The majority of Christians worldwide for the past 2000 years always held the Mass to be a sacrifice. In fact everyone before the reformation universally held this doctrine. Our good hearted protestants brothers and sisters then misinterpret scripture when they deny this biblical and historical teaching of the sacrifice of Holy Mass.
The New Passover Lamb:
Looking at Jesus on a typological level and seeing how Jesus fulfills the type of old covenant Passover Lamb will help one understand why he instituted the Mass as a the New covenant holy Passover Sacrifice.
Christians of all denominations recognize Jesus as the new Lamb of God. St John makes astonishing comments about Jesus in his Gospel to show how Jesus fulfills the role of Lamb . For example when John calls our Lord Jesus the “Lamb of God” who will take away the sins of the world.(John 1:29) he makes direct connection to the Passover covenant,. John also calls Jesus the Lamb over 28 times in the book of Revelation. St Peter calls Jesus “Lamb”(1 Peter 1:19) in his epistles. St Paul also relates to Jesus as the new Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7-8), which has been sacrificed and then commands us to keep the feast of unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Jesus is the bread of life and truth and he presents himself to us in the Eucharist under the appearance of unleavened bread. St John and the other apostles show us that beyond a shadow of a doubt Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old testament Passover Lamb. In the Old Testament the Passover sacrificial Lamb saved the Israelites from the Angel of death. The Passover lamb was just a inferior type compared to Christ. The Passover Lamb could only save the Israelites from physical death but it could not save Gods people from eternal death the way Jesus can. Jesus is superior Lamb.
It is important to realize that all New Testament fulfillments are greater and more real and powerful than their Old Testament types. Jesus is superior to the Old Testament Lamb of God.
Now in the Old Testament there were two parts to a sacrifice. 1) the killing 2) The communing or sharing personally in that sacrifice. The Passover Lamb was to be sacrificed. But just because the Lamb was sacrificed did not mean that the Israelites were then automatically saved from the Angel of Death. The sacrifice itself and the flesh and blood of the sacrifice had to be personally applied to the people in order for them to be saved from death. The blood was applied to them personally by putting it on their doorpost and the flesh was applied personally to them by them eating the actual flesh of the Lamb(Ex 12:8). When the Israelites faithfully believed Gods word and sacrificed the Lamb and communed with it by eating its real flesh and applying its real blood to their doors the Angel of the death would Passover their houses and they would be saved. The same is true for the New Passover. Just because Jesus was sacrificed on the Cross-does not mean that we are just automatically saved. We must have a living faith in Christ and his word and we must seal the new covenant pact and commune with the new lamb just as the Israelites did with the old. We must share in his real body and blood by eating it in this New Passover meal. This is why Jesus himself gave his church the Eucharist as a New Passover (Luke 22:15). In this new Passover, as new Lamb of God he gives us his real blood and body to eat miraculously under the form of bread and wine( Luke 22:19-20) . So the Christian now could commune with his sacrifice on Calvary personally. Remember that one could not just eat a symbol of the lamb in the Old Testament, if one did that they would die and the Angel of Death would not pass them over. One had to eat the real flesh of the real Lamb. Jesus knows this and that is why he gave us his real flesh and blood, not a symbol, but the real thing. But God gives it to the Church in a miraculous way so as not to frighten individuals. He gives his real body and blood to eat under the appearances of bread and wine.
This is also why in the context of the Passover (Jn 6:4) Jesus, the new Lamb of God, tells us me must have a living faith in him (Jn 6:35) to be saved but we must also eat his real flesh and drink his real blood to have eternal life(Jn 6:51-59). For the bread Jesus will give would be his real flesh for the life of the world (Jn 6:51). Jesus then shows us that He truly fulfills the Passover sacrifice with his own . The fact that the Passover was the sacrifice and Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist as the new Passover with him as the new Lamb is enough to show that the Eucharist or the Mass is a sacrifice that Christians partake in namely the new covenant Passover sacrifice.
The Pauline evidence:
Secondly. St Paul alludes to the Mass being a Sacrifice in 1 Cor 10: 16-22. Paul says “
“Is not the cup of blessing, which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread, which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?”
Here St. Paul compares the sacrifices brought to the table or alter of demons to the one the Holy Sacrifice that Christ gave us in the table or alter of the Lord in the Eucharist. One cannot partake in the table of the Lord and the table of demons. They must put aside false sacrifices and only adhere to the one sacrifice of the Eucharist, which Christ instituted. Paul also admits in this writing that this sacrifice of the Eucharist is a real sharing in Christ real Body and real Blood and not just a symbolic thing as some protestants would believe.
Jesus very own wording proves the mass to be a sacrifice:
When looking at the words that Jesus used to institute the Lords supper one can also tell that Jesus was implying it was a sacrifice. Jesus used sacrificial language to describe the Eucharist. For example, in Matthew 26:28 Jesus says that the Eucharist “is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. Here Jesus again uses sacrificial language to relate the Eucharist to the Old Testament sacrificial covenant. In the old testament Moses sprinkled the blood of the sacrificed oxen on the Israelites saying “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you”( Ex 24:8) . Jesus according to the Prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34) will offer a new covenant, a better covenant than the one given in Egypt, and that this new covenant will forgive their sin and bring reconciliation to God. This new covenant of Christ is the Cross-where Jesus was sacrificed in a bloody manner for the forgiveness of all. But, Jesus also shows us that this new covenant in his blood is applied to us, and given to us in the Eucharist. Hence this is a sacrificial meal were one partakes of the real sacrifice of the new covenant done in his memory.
Jesus also uses more sacrificial language in describing the Eucharist. When Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of me”(Lk 22:19) He is using specific sacrificial language the Greek Septuagint version of the old testament uses when describing sacrifices. The phrase “do this in remembrance of me” can also be translated from the Greek in English as “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice”.
Scripture scholars both Catholic and Protestant admit that Jesus specifically chose and used sacrificial language when instituting the Lords supper.
The word “do” in Greek can mean to “offer sacrifice” if the immediate context is sacrificial in nature.
In Exodus 29:39-41 they were to offer the lambs as sacrifice. The word used for offer sacrifice is “do” in Greek In the verse. The same can be said for other verses, which translate “do” as “offer”. Such as Ex 29:36 were one shall “do” or “offer” the bulls in sacrifice as a sin offering. In comparison Jesus is new Lamb (Jn 1:29) who is our new Sin offering (Matt 26:28). Other passages, which use the word “do” to mean offer sacrifice, are (Ex 10:25, Lev 14:19. 30; Lev 15:15,30; Lev 16:9,24; Lev 17:8-9; Num 6:11,17; Num 15:3,14; Jud 13:16; 1 Kings 8:64; 2 Kings 5:17; Jer 33:18; Ezek 43:25; Ezek 45:17; Ezek 46:1-15)
Given that the word “do” in Greek can be translated and mean to offer (sacrifice) as long as the context is sacrificial in nature, the Eucharist must be a sacrifice because the Lords supper is in the context of the Passover, which is sacrificial in nature.
More Sacrificial language:
One more word that the Lord used that is sacrificial is the word “remembrance” which in the Greek is anamnesis. When Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” He again hints to this Eucharist as being a sacrifice. Every time this word Anamnesis/memory occurs in the bible it occurs in a sacrificial context. For example, in the Old Testament this word is used in Numbers 10:10 to refer to a memorial sacrifice. Incidentally Christ gave us the Eucharist Passover as his new memorial sacrifice. This is just one more sign that the Mass is a real sacrifice.
Prophets of old display the Catholic teaching:
The Old Testament Prophet Malachi formally predicted the Mass as a the new covenant sacrifice that would replace the old food offerings in Mal 1:7-11.
“By offering polluted food upon my altar. And you say, `How have we polluted it?' By thinking that the LORD's table may be despised....For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.”
Here a new pure food offering or sacrifice is predicted to be made by the gentiles. The early Christian Fathers such as St Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr(Mid to late 2nd century) always saw this pure food offering or sacrifice as being fulfilled in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the sacrifice that Christians have and present on their alters (Heb 13:10) that those Jews who serve at the tent have no right to eat. Note that Christians have too have an “alter” that eat at. This is a big hint to the Eucharist being a sacrifice and not just a mere meal.
A priest after Melchizedek’s Order:
Christ is seen as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6:20). Melchizedek was a Priest and King of Salem who offered a thanksgiving sacrifice of bread and wine (Gen 14:18-20). Jesus is a priest after his order. Jesus is our High priest (Heb 3:1) and King(Rev 19:16) of the new Jerusalem , the Church. As a priest after the order of Melchizedek his sacrifice must be one of bread and wine. One knows he sacrifices himself in a bloody way on the cross but how does he then fulfills Melchizedek’s order of sacrifice? He does this by offering himself in the Eucharistic sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. Jesus gives thanks at the Lord’s Supper just like Melchizedek, and Christ now offers himself under the simple appearances of bread and wine.
Church History proves the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Every early Christian fathers taught the Eucharist/Mass(Lords supper) to be a sacrifice. This presents a big problem for the protestant side. Why would a protestants then deny a doctrine that has been taught unanimously in Christianity by all Christians in the early Church and from age to age? Would that not be just as bad as certain groups(who call themselves Christians) deny the unanimous historical teaching that Jesus is God?
The earliest document outside of the bible is known as the Didache. It was used as a early catechism and believed to be the teachings of the apostles. It was written in the year 70 A.D. In referring to the Lords supper it calls it a sacrifice using the Greek Term “Thusia” which means sacrifice. St.Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by the apostle John himself also considers the Mass to be a sacrifice. The list can go on and on. You are hard pressed to find any early Christian teaching against this.
Last edited by Athanasias; 21st June 2008 at 04:30 PM.
Hentenza, I had more to post in my first post but it would not let me. It said I had to many characters. Umm, My computer said I had under 5000 words though. So I am confused as to how this works. Sorry for the question.
Last edited by Athanasias; 21st June 2008 at 01:10 PM.
Your initial post has only 2635 words. Please continue your post using a new post but make sue the you do not exceed 5000 words combined.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
As I was cut off from finishing my opening statement by the computer, I will continue where I left off in my first post with my reasons for believing in the sacrifice of Mass from a historical perspective. I would simply like to quote a few of the many Fathers of the Church who spoke of this doctrine for edification.
Consider St Ignatius of Antioch. He was a Bishop who was handpicked and taught by the apostle John himself. He wrote in the year 110 A..D.
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).”
Consider also the writings of St. Justin Martyr in the year 155A.D. He was the first Christian apologist (one who defends the faith). He makes the connection between Mal 1:7-11 and the eucharist.
“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).”
St Irenaeus another early father also make the same connection to the Mass and to Malachi’s prophecy :
"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).
St. John Chrysostom in his homilies mentions the exact scripture passage that I gave when Paul describes the Mass as a sacrifice”
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthy and awesomely does he [Paul] say it. For what he is saying is this: What is in the cup is that which flowed from his side, and we partake of it. He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out, but also for his sharing it with all of us. ‘If therefore you desire blood,’ he [the Lord] says, ‘do not redden the platform of idols with the slaughter of dumb beasts, but my altar of sacrifice with my blood.’ What is more awesome than this? What, pray tell, more tenderly loving?" (Homilies on First Corinthians 24:1(3) [A.D. 392]).
St Augustine, a favorite father for Lutherans especially, teaches the mass is a sacrifice by Jesus being a fulfillment of Melchizedek.
“For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).
Again this is just a very small sample of the fathers writings but if one reads the fathers they will discover that the unanimous consent of the early Christians was that the Eucharistic celebration is a real sacrifice and participation in Calvary, hence a new passover. They even use the same scriptures I quoted earlier.
What I find curious is how the Protestants beleiver can reject this fact given the scriptural and patristic evidence for it. Well that concludes my opening statement. May God bless Breadalone in his opening statement and may almighty God be with this debate in the Spirit of truth and Charity. Thank you.
In opening, I would like to also thank Athanasias for his willingness to debate this subject openly and seriously. I also would like to ask for the Lord’s blessings on our discussion, in that he may make certain that our ultimate aim is maintaining His will while we examine His Scripture, so as to uphold them in their truth and purity. If I may, I’d like to do so in the form of a hymn; God’s Word is Our Great Heritage, written by Nikolai F. S. Grundtvig (We sang it in church this past Sunday, and this debate was actually brought to mind during the Service, so I found posting it here especially fitting.):
God’s Word is our great heritage And shall be ours forever; To spread its light from age to age Shall be our chief endeavor. Through life it guides our way, In death it is our stay. Lord, grant while words endure, We keep its teachings pure Throughout all generations.
In the course of my research for this debate, I must confess that I have come across some doctrines in both Roman Catholicism and in my own cherished Lutheran confessions that have caused me to revaluate my stance on the subject of the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist. So let me first briefly address a couple of the conclusions that I’ve come to on a personal level. First, the matter of the Catholic doctrine which states Holy Communion directly connects the Church (invisible) to the propitiatory sacrifice of Calvary. This I do not raise an immediate objection to, despite my previous impressions and connotations regarding this and other doctrines of Roman Catholicism implemented by my Lutheran schooling (now approaching its 14th year, preschool and kindergarten included! Where does the time go!?) In fact, this doctrine is quite similar to one in the Lutheran church when it comes to our other Sacrament, Holy Baptism. We take the words of St. Paul in Colossians 2:11-12 quite seriously: In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. Other places, like Galatians 2:20, indicate that we have been “crucified with Christ.” Also believing in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper (though, admittedly, in a way different than both Catholics and other Protestants alike), I can respect the Catholic belief that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper supersedes both space and time and connects the participant in a real way to the sacrifice of Christ for sin.
That being said, this is where I believe my connection with the Catholic doctrine ends, and a whole skew of objections and differences begins. But let me also say right now, unless you indicate to me that you hold a belief contrary to the doctrines of your church Athanasias, I will be addressing my thoughts in this topic to the doctrines of Roman Catholicism as a whole. If you for some reason do not agree with your church, then that will certainly save us typing in our next posts!
Without getting much farther ahead, and before I address some of the specifics of Athanasias’ points, I think it is of utmost importance to address exactly what a sacrifice is. Oddly enough, the authors of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, a foundational article of the Lutheran church, felt this was a good point to address while beginning this discussion also. So without trying to tamper with an already well-written document, I’ll let the Apology’s words speak for themselves, and I’ll elaborate from there.
Theologians are rightly accustomed to distinguish between a Sacrament and a sacrifice. Therefore let the genus comprehending both of these be either a ceremony or a sacred work. A Sacrament is a ceremony or work in which God presents to us that which the promise annexed to the ceremony offers; as, Baptism is a work, not which we offer to God, but in which God baptizes us, i.e., a minister in the place of God; and God here offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to the promise, Mark 16, 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. A sacrifice, on the contrary, is a ceremony or work which we render God in order to afford Him honor. (Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV:17-18)
While I can see the connection to the Sacrifice of Calvary, the choice of wording used by Roman Catholicism causes me to be leery of their true sentiments. The Lord’s Supper is a Sacrament in that the Lord is the one servicing us; we are not and cannot service God by such a means. God does not benefit or grant the participant reprieve because of their participation in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. Christ himself becomes present at the word of his own promise, and that promise also entails the “forgiveness of sins.” While the Sacrament does not impart forgiveness in and of itself, its connection to Calvary does give the participant the most personal assurance of his forgiveness through Christ’s actual presence. However, and I cannot stress this enough, WE are not presenting Christ’s body to God as an act of propitiation. The Holy Spirit is presenting Christ to us as a part of this “Means of Grace” (as us Lutherans like to call the gospel in Word and Sacrament.) It is the Word of God (both in word, and in this case literally in Christ!) that have the power, not us. This is further demonstrated by Christ’s own words: “This is my blood of the [new] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins“(Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20). Unless we have bigger doctrinal grievances than I thought, the “new covenant” certainly is not in reference to us offering ourselves to God, but God offering himself to us, thus the definition of a “Sacrament.”
Now, before I get too far, the above is in reference to the nature of the Lord’s Supper. However, the “mass” as a whole (the celebration of the Eucharist) has the potential to be a Sacrifice. ‘But wait,’ you’re thinking, ‘you’re the negative in this debate! You can’t agree with the affirmative!’ Alas, I think you’ll find that I’m not in agreement with the affirmative (but please feel free to call me on it if we are!!) You see, just as I had to make a distinction between Sacrament and Sacrifice, I now feel compelled to draw a separation between two types of sacrifices: propitiatory sacrifice and eucharistic sacrifice (a term used by the Apology’s author, Melanchthon.)
The former type involves a work that one must do for the remission of sin in order to reconcile one’s self to God. The latter type, in direct contrast, consists of the good works of those who have already been reconciled. To detail it further, the propitiatory sacrifice has been and only can be performed once for all time in the sacrifice of God’s Son on Calvary, yet the second style of sacrifice can be and should be performed daily by the priesthood of all believers. Eucharistic sacrifices are the good works of the elect, acts not done to merit the performer credit or higher place with God, but rather performed because they are what God has prepared in advance for us to do, as Ephesians 2:10 surmises. These acts are done out of thanksgiving and in praise of an almighty God who has done all the propitiation necessary for our salvation. To detail it even further, and to give some specific examples, I’ll again quote from the Apology:
Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise, Lev. 3, 1f.; 7, 11f.; Ps. 56, 12f., namely, the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of saints, yea, all good works of saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable on behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, the remission of sins or reconciliation. For they are made by those who have been reconciled. And such are the sacrifices of the New Testament, as Peter teaches, 1 Pet. 2, 5: An holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Spiritual sacrifices, however, are contrasted not only with those of cattle, but even with human works offered ex opere operato, because spiritual refers to the movements of the Holy Ghost in us. Paul teaches the same thing Rom. 12, 1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, which is your reasonable service. Reasonable service signifies, however, a service in which God is known, and apprehended by the mind, as happens in the movements of fear and trust towards God. Therefore it is opposed not only to the Levitical service, in which cattle are slain, but also to a service in which a work is imagined to be offered ex opere operato, The Epistle to the Hebrews 13, 15, teaches the same thing: By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually; and he adds the interpretation, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. He bids us offer praises, i.e., prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the like. These avail not ex opere operato, but on account of faith. This is taught by the clause: By Him let us offer, i.e., by faith in Christ.(Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV:25-26)
You see, the Lord’s supper, and the Mass as Catholic’s celebrate it as a whole, potentially can and should be a Eucharistic sacrifice. (Quite a fitting name, really!) Alas, in my experiences with Roman Catholicism (and quite obviously in the experience of Melanchthon) the mass is conducted to reprieve the sins of the attendee, and even in some instances of the dead. This is in clear violation of the mandate of the Word. The mass should be a celebration indeed, a thanksgiving to God for the sacrifice of his Son those many moons ago. In so doing, it could rightfully be called a “eucharistic” sacrifice. It would be equitable in such a way (assuming that it taught scripture in its truth and purity) to a Lutheran, Baptist, etc. worship service. But if used in some half-witted attempt to grant the propitiation of sin, it is sadly going against the clear scriptural concept of justification by faith alone. Alas, this like all other subjects boils down to the age old subject of the Theology of Glory vs. Theology of the Cross. (Or more simply; works V. faith.)
To summarize, the only type of sacrifice WE should ever be doing is that of the eucharistic nature; good works which God has prepared for us in advance to do, which we do out of and for HIS glory. Yet Catholic doctrine takes this too far and attempts to remit sin. In the Lord’s Supper, God is servicing us, and we should indeed respond “sacrificially” with worship and praise. But not because we want to erase sin, because we want to thank God and do what He has prepared in advance for us to do.
I’m sorry if I didn’t answer your points as directly as intended, Athanasias! But this was more of an opening statement on my part. We can get into more specific detail with the next few rounds. I will, however, address a couple of the ECF quotes you brought up, as I believe you did not give them fair consideration:
Consider St Ignatius of Antioch. He was a Bishop who was handpicked and taught by the apostle John himself. He wrote in the year 110 A..D.
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).”
This does not even directly address the Mass! There was “one altar of sacrifice” as you yourself explained with the “Lamb of God” thought. Christ indeed was the one sacrifice to remit sin; but who offered this sacrifice? Us? Certainly not! Christ tells us that no one takes his life, he lays it down of his own accord. God is sacrificing himself for US!!
Consider also the writings of St. Justin Martyr in the year 155A.D. He was the first Christian apologist (one who defends the faith). He makes
the connection between Mal 1:7-11 and the eucharist.
“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).”
This actually proves my point! Let me throw another quote from the Apology at you to address this:
And of these sacrifices Malachi 1, 11 speaks: From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto My name and a pure offering. The adversaries perversely apply this passage to the Mass, and quote the authority of the Fathers. A reply, however, is easy, for even if it spoke most particularly of the Mass, it would not follow that the Mass justifies ex opere operato, or that, when applied to others, it merits the remission of sins, etc. The prophet says nothing of those things which the monks and sophists impudently fabricate. Besides, the very words of the prophet express his meaning. For they first say this, namely, that the name of the Lord will be great. This is accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel. For through this the name of Christ is made known, and the mercy of the Father, promised in Christ, is recognized. The preaching of the Gospel produces faith in those who receive the Gospel. They call upon God, they give thanks to God, they bear afflictions for their confession, they produce good works for the glory of Christ. Thus the name of the Lord becomes great among the Gentiles. Therefore incense and a pure offering signify not a ceremony ex opere operato [not the ceremony of the Mass alone], but all those sacrifices through which the name of the Lord becomes great, namely, faith, invocation, the preaching of the Gospel, confession, etc. And if any one would have this term embrace the ceremony [of the Mass], we readily concede it, provided he neither understands the ceremony alone, nor teaches that the ceremony profits ex opere operato. For just as among the sacrifices of praise, i.e., among the praises of God, we include the preaching of the Word, so the reception itself of the Lord's Supper can be praise or thanksgiving; but it does not justify ex opere operato; neither is it to be applied to others so as to merit for them the remission of sins. But after a while we shall explain how even a ceremony is a sacrifice. Yet, as Malachi speaks of all the services of the New Testament, and not only of the Lord's Supper; likewise, as he does not favor the pharisaic opinion of the opus operatum, he is not against us, but rather aids us. For he requires services of the heart, through which the name of the Lord becomes truly great. (Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV:31-33)
That’s it for now.
Last edited by BreadAlone; 24th June 2008 at 04:18 AM.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
First of all I want to thank BreadAlone, my worthy opponent for such a beautiful prayer. Secondly I must say I am shocked that you agree that the mass is a sacrifice. The fact that you agree that the mass is at least a kind of sacrifice(one of thanksgiving and praise) makes my heart happy. And since you agree with at least this point my job is easier. I do have to say that it seems that given you believe this then half of the debate is won already for the Catholic side as we Catholics teach that the Mass is truly a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving also. However saying that I must say that the mass is truly a propitiatory sacrifice as well. It is not a "either or" situation, either the Mass is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise or its one of propitiation. No, the mass has a fuller understanding biblically and historically. It is a "both and situation". The mass is both a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise and a propitiatory sacrifice.
First it might help to clear up some misconceptions that you had in your initial presentation about the Mass, its propitiatory aspect, and ex opera operato. I feel this will help us understand each others side better. Protestants and Catholics for the past 450 years or so have often times split hairs over terminology and phraseology. Because of ultimately abuses on the Catholic side, and pride and prejudice on both sides, both camps began to use different terms and both camps have prejudiced themselves to listening to what one another means in their use of terminology. I must say that the past 40 years have been a blessing to both our churches as the Lutheran and Catholic scholars have sat down and listened to one another and discovered that they were not as far off as they originally thought once were. The joint declaration on justification shows this.
However lets get to why the Mass is propitiatory. The Mass is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise to God no doubt. However, because the Mass is a present application of the once and for all sacrifice of Calvary in time and space, the Mass is propitiatory also. If the Eucharistic elements were merely symbolic and the mass was done in mere 20th century understanding of "memory" then it could not be propitiatory. But we both know that Christ real Body and real Blood are made present at the consecration by the power of his word and promise(Matt 26:26-27, Jn 6:54-58). Christ in essence by doing this gives us a real sharing in his real propitiatory passover sacrifice of the Cross(1 Cor 10:16-22) and applies this to us at mass. This is how Christ allows us to take part in the new passover sacrifice. It is more than just mere memory as the word "anamnesis" has a fuller meaning to the Jews. It makes present for us the sacrifice of Calvary as Paul indicates and applies to us the propitiation of his sacrifice but this time in a unbloody way. He dies no longer and suffers no longer in the mass. Rather he offers himself to God as a living sacrifice on our behalf(Rom 12:1).
Here is the Catholic understanding. Christ is our propitiation(1 Jn 2:2) for sins. He does this by the Cross in a bloody suffering way(Jn 19). But because Jesus told us that the Eucharist IS the actual new covenant (of sacrifice) in his blood which will be poured out for the "forgiveness of sins"(Matt 26:28), He also shows us that the Mass is same sacrifice as that of Calvary only under the appearances of bread and wine. It is a present day application of the same sacrifice of Calvary. And because it really Is the blood that is poured out for the forgiveness of sins as Matthew talks about (relating it to the old covenant sacrifice where the people would take part in the sacrifice of Moses who sprinkled them with blood), this sacrifice then makes propitiation also when Christ priest celebrate it. Again it is truly propitiatory because it is Calvary re-presented in a unbloody, undying way as Christ shows us and because Jesus himself said that the Eucharist is given for the remission of sins which we both believe is biblical. The Augsburg confession confuses this by asserting that we ourselves offer this Eucharistic sacrifice to God as a good work to merit eternal life or at least this is the main thought of what the Lutherans were thinking when this was wrote. This I believe is why the Lutherans divided the meaning of sacrifice and sacrament instead of looking at the bigger picture scripturally and seeing that the Eucharist is both.
Here is where I beleive the Lutherans got it wrong because they misunderstand the term ex opera operato. That term means "By the work having been performed". Now its true the Mass is propitiatory by the work of the mass itself being performed. But, who performs the work of the Mass? Christ Priest do! To a Lutheran this sounds scandalous. One might say "Eph 2:5-10 tell us that we are saved by grace and not because of anything we have done, certainly the Mass then is disqualified as a work done by its priest for the forgiveness of the community". At first this may sound good but looking deeper into the bible shows us the Catholic truth of this subject.
First of all Catholics understand and the early Christians did too, that when Christ commanded the apostles to offer the Mass as his memorial sacrifice, he made them his priest and he gave them authority to do so. How could they offer a sacrifice for sins if he did that himself. The answer is this: It is not the Priest himself that offers the sacrifice of Mass, it is Christ himself that offers himself at every Mass through his priest. It is not the work of the priest himself but the work of Christ himself and his saving sacrifice. Christ offered himself once in a bloody manner on the Cross and now he applies that same sacrifice to us and offers himself ex opera operato in the mass under the appearences of bread and wine through his priest. It is Christ who works this through his ministers. Not the ministers themselves. It is totally Christ and his work not the priest.
Why is this true? It is true because when the Priest of Christ acts or performs sacramental actions he does not do it himself but rather he acts in persona Christi, or in the person and presense of Christ. Christ acts through him. St Paul when offering the sacrament of reconciliation acted in the person and presence of Christ(2 Cor 2:10-11). It was not Paul's actions themselves that forgave the sins of others it was the actions of Christ the priest through Paul that forgave those sins and applied the graces of the Cross to the person in this sacrament. The same can be said for baptism. Just because one "performs" the act of baptism does not mean that that person himself had power to work the baptism. It is Christ who sends the Holy Spirit to the baptized person through the water and word pronounced over the baptized to redeemed them. But it is not the Person or priest himself that redeems them.
The same is true for the Eucharistic sacrifice. The Eucharist, like all sacraments work ex opera operato only because it is rooted in the work of Christ and the cross and not becasue of the work of the priest himself. It is Christ the priest who does the work through his priest in persona Christi as Paul shows. I hope this makes sense. We may eventually need to also debate Justification and salvation at a later date.
Ignatius does address the Eucharist/Mass as a sacrifice directly. If you read right before he mentions the alter of sacrifice Christians have he mentions the Eucharist in context. The Fathers especially Irenaeus have a real handle on this. In the future I may quote a few protestant early church scholars who also show the connection to this with the Fathers.
Well I hope that at least clarified a bit. I am enjoying this debate. You are a great thinker and will make a great theologian some day. We could use your mind in the Catholic church. God bless you always!
I must begin this post by apologizing to Athanasias for taking the fullest extent of the time limit to complete my reply! I have been bogged down with many things in the past week, so I appreciate your patience with me!
For this response at least, I am going to attempt to reply to your thoughts paragraph at a time, in order to most fully respond to all of your points. I may or may not continue in this style in the future..I'll see where it goes from this point.
First it might help to clear up some misconceptions that you had in your initial presentation about the Mass, its propitiatory aspect, and ex opera operato. I feel this will help us understand each others side better. Protestants and Catholics for the past 450 years or so have often times split hairs over terminology and phraseology. Because of ultimately abuses on the Catholic side, and pride and prejudice on both sides, both camps began to use different terms and both camps have prejudiced themselves to listening to what one another means in their use of terminology. I must say that the past 40 years have been a blessing to both our churches as the Lutheran and Catholic scholars have sat down and listened to one another and discovered that they were not as far off as they originally thought once were. The joint declaration on justification shows this.
Sadly, I must say that generally confessional Lutheranism had no part in the Joint Declaration on Justification. Yet, this does not mean that our terminology is the root of our doctrinal differences. Quite to the contrary, I would say our doctrinal differences stem from a faulty interpretation of the Scriptures at hand. But we'll get into that in the paragraphs ahead..
However lets get to why the Mass is propitiatory. The Mass is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise to God no doubt. However, because the Mass is a present application of the once and for all sacrifice of Calvary in time and space, the Mass is propitiatory also.
Here is where I again must stop you. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Christ did not say "Perform the Mass." He said "Take and eat. Take and drink." The Sacrament may indeed have a real connection to the Cross of Calvary, but the celebration of said Sacrament is not connected to Calvary in the least. The ultimate Sacrifice can be recognized and praised in the Mass, but it is not and cannot be literally connected to it.
If the Eucharistic elements were merely symbolic and the mass was done in mere 20th century understanding of "memory" then it could not be propitiatory. But we both know that Christ real Body and real Blood are made present at the consecration by the power of his word and promise(Matt 26:26-27, Jn 6:54-58). Christ in essence by doing this gives us a real sharing in his real propitiatory passover sacrifice of the Cross(1 Cor 10:16-22) and applies this to us at mass. This is how Christ allows us to take part in the new passover sacrifice. It is more than just mere memory as the word "anamnesis" has a fuller meaning to the Jews. It makes present for us the sacrifice of Calvary as Paul indicates and applies to us the propitiation of his sacrifice but this time in a unbloody way.
I've highlighted "this time" for emphasis. Once again, the choice in terminology here brings you, in my perspective at least, on shakey ground. If the Lord's Supper is directly connected to the Cross of Christ, that is one thing. However, there is no "this time." There was one time, 2,000 years ago, which God is connecting us to in a Spiritual way. And this is not done to propitiate sin. All sin has been paid for in full. We don't need to continue to recieve the Sacrifice to cancel out our sin. If such was the case, this would be doing works for salvation. And I'm sure you're quite familiar with the Ephesians verse I could quote to nullify such an attempt.
He dies no longer and suffers no longer in the mass. Rather he offers himself to God as a living sacrifice on our behalf(Rom 12:1).
Christ does this daily anyways, even without the LORD'S SUPPER. (Again, the Mass is the equivalent of a worship service. The Lord's Supper is where the power lies.) There is no "new Sacrifice." Either We are being connected supernaturally (as it were) to the Cross of Christ 2,000 years ago, or we're not. There is no middle ground here.
Here is the Catholic understanding. Christ is our propitiation(1 Jn 2:2) for sins. He does this by the Cross in a bloody suffering way(Jn 19). But because Jesus told us that the Eucharist IS the actual new covenant (of sacrifice) in his blood which will be poured out for the "forgiveness of sins"(Matt 26:28), He also shows us that the Mass is same sacrifice as that of Calvary only under the appearances of bread and wine. It is a present day application of the same sacrifice of Calvary. And because it really Is the blood that is poured out for the forgiveness of sins as Matthew talks about (relating it to the old covenant sacrifice where the people would take part in the sacrifice of Moses who sprinkled them with blood), this sacrifice then makes propitiation also when Christ priest celebrate it.
Again you say "this Sacrifice." There is no need for further propitiation of sin! All sin has been atoned for through Christ's all sufficient Sacrifice. While Calvary may be presently applied in the Sacrament, such a means is not necessary to grant reprieve from sin. (Now I sound like I'm a broken record!)
Again it is truly propitiatory because it is Calvary re-presented in a unbloody, undying way as Christ shows us and because Jesus himself said that the Eucharist is given for the remission of sins which we both believe is biblical.
See above numerous times.
The Augsburg confession confuses this by asserting that we ourselves offer this Eucharistic sacrifice to God as a good work to merit eternal life or at least this is the main thought of what the Lutherans were thinking when this was wrote. This I believe is why the Lutherans divided the meaning of sacrifice and sacrament instead of looking at the bigger picture scripturally and seeing that the Eucharist is both.
So you claim we asserted this falsely? Would you say that you do not go to Mass to grant yourself reprieve from sin? Do you simply go to Mass to worship and thank God? If not, then the Augsburg confession proves quite right.
Forgive me for not directly responding to the rest of your sentiments, but they were all pretty much the same as the above!
What I want to address is this: If you believe that Christ's body and blood are re-presented (made present) in our day and age, but not as a new Sacrifice, as a connection to the original Sacrifice of Calvary, we can end this debate right now. Because I can respect that opinion, and while I might not state it quite that way, it is very similar to my own beliefs.
What the core of the issue is (and you really didn't address it) is what the purpose of the Mass is. If it is to sincerely worship and praise God, that is spectacular. Go and worship at all the Masses you want with my blessing.
The problem arises when people want to go to Mass in order to somehow make themselves more justified to God. As if somehow their works can save them. And this is where, when it comes to Roman Catholicism, I must "call them on it." In theory/doctrine, a lot of the Catholic sentiments seem appealing. But in reality and in practice, I don't see them occurring in a Biblical fashion.
So, please address this now. If Christ is simply making the original Sacrifice of Calvary connected to our day and age through the Sacrament as a personal assurance of our redemption and forgiveness, then I can agree with you and we can end the debate early.
But if The Mass MUST be performed in order to grant reprieve from sin, then we have bigger fish to fry.
Well I hope that at least clarified a bit. I am enjoying this debate. You are a great thinker and will make a great theologian some day. We could use your mind in the Catholic church. God bless you always!
Well, thanks for the offer, but I like Lutheranism just fine, thank you!!
Well, thanks for the offer, but I like Lutheranism just fine, thank you!! 
Linear Mode
