Posted on 10/25/2009 9:52:48 AM PDT by narses
This is a very bizarre spin. At the time of the Last Supper the sacrifice -- the giving of the body -- is still in the future. So how can a command to do something in commemoration refer to the present, when the time of commemorating lies in the future?
Further, this is not how the Holy Apostles understood Him, because from history and from 1 Corinthians 11 we know that they offered the Eucharist, just as their heirs do today.
There is not a single verse anywhere in scripture that says we are to regularly offer Jesus in sacrifice
The words of the institution in all synoptic gospels "this is my body given up for you" plainly mean that the Eucharist at the Last Supper was offer of sacrifice, and since the Apostles took that command seriously, they did the same, -- see 1 Cor 11 again.
no where in the NT are any believers designated priests
We discussed it earlier. Use Greek, search for "presbyter" and keep in mind that "episcopos", bishop, is also a priest.
there is no longer any offering for sin
Indeed. The Mass is offering for sin, but that is not a new offering, just like Hebrews 10 explains. That, too, was discussed earlier on this thread.
is no hint here of offering Jesus in sacrifice
If the body of Christ is really present in the Eucharist then it is the sacrifice of Golgotha that is happening, and St. Paul plainly teaches that it is present.
The usage in St. Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 387) is not exactly 1c. There is no doubt that the switch to "ιερεύς" meaning Christian priest occurred at some time, and that paragraph shows that it occurred as early as late 4c.
The question is, do "episcopos" and "presbyteros" in the New Testament refer to consecrated Christian clergy or not. I think it is plain that they do, in light of Acts 6:6 (consecration of deacons), 1 Timothy 4:14 (Timothy ordained into priesthood, although later we understand that he also functioned a sbishop, ordaining others), 1 Timothy 5:22 (Timothy to select carefully whom to ordain) Titus 1:5 (specific instruction to "ordain priests in any city", followed by instruction on how they are to be selected). 1 Timothy 3:1-2 speaks of the "office of a bishop"; Acts 20:28 refers to bishops "ruling the Church". "Episcopos" and "presbyteros" are indeed used, it seems interchangeably (cf 1 Timothy 4:14 and 1 Timothy 5:22), but the hirerarchical nature of the Early Church is evident from these verses.
If a priest offers sacrifices - and that certainly was their role in Judaism - then the Christian has no need for priests, for we have no sacrifice to offer. Jesus did it himself, once for all.
Being ordained a deacon doesn’t mean you offer sacrifices. Being ordained an Elder does not either. That is where my objection to the word ‘priest’ comes from.
That is why the NT knows nothing of Christian priests, except in 1 Peter, where all believers are said to be “a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
No sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, since there was only one, and it was past and not to be again.
It is also true that every baptized Christian is priest, prophet and king in his family, as St. Peter teaches. The word he used, by the way, "ιερατευμα " is not of the same root as "presbyteros".
“If the body of Christ is really present in the Eucharist then it is the sacrifice of Golgotha that is happening, and St. Paul plainly teaches that it is present.”
Really? Where does Paul suggest Jesus is still being offered as a sacrifice at Calvary?
Yes, the Apostles and early church participated in the Eucharist...and gave it the name, ‘Thanksgiving’, not ‘Atonement’. Do this in remembrance of me...
Where he condemns those who do not discern His body, 1 Cor. 11:29. Also see 1 Cor. 10:16, the entire discourse there is about different understanding of the altar sacrifice:
16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. 18 Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? 19 What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? 20 But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.
Note that he doesn't say "Israel eats of the sacrifices and we don't"; he compares the two sacrifices and says that one precludes another.
That the Eucharist is an act of thanksgiving is Catholic teaching: we come to thank Christ for His sacrifice. If no sacrifice were occurring at Mass, we could just as well do the thanking at home.
You may wish to head over to http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.vii.html where St. Ignatius ca. 100 says things like:
"Chapter VII.—Let us stand aloof from such heretics. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,10161016 Theodoret, in quoting this passage, reads προσφοράς, “offering.” because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.
The flesh and blood. Sacrifice. The difference with the different rites is the point of balance between worship and sacrifice.
Ignatius supports Catholic Theology on this point. Others do not. Martyr called it a sacrifice of thanksgiving, IIRC.
If Ignatius contradicts the writer of Hebrews, then it is Ignatius who is wrong.
He is not teaching that Jesus is being offered in sacrifice. He is teaching about not associating with idolaters via eating food sacrificed to idols. In similar manner, we are identified as followers of Christ via Eucharist.
So just as taking Eucharist identifies us as Christians, eating food sacrificed to idols identifies them with demons.
Mega bad idea.
From Barnes, who ties it all together in a context spanning multiple chapters:
(3.) Whether, when invited to the houses of the heathens, they might partake of the meat sacrificed to idols, and which was set before them as a common meal. I regard this chapter as having a very close connexion with \\1Co 8\\. In the close of chapter 8, (1 Corinthians 9:13,) Paul had stated, when examining the question whether it was right to eat meat offered in sacrifice to idols, that the grand principle on which he acted, and on which they should act, was that of self-denial. To illustrate this he employs the ninth chapter, by showing how he acted on it in reference to a maintenance; showing that it was this principle that led him to decline a support to which he was really entitled. Having illustrated that, he returns in this chapter to the subject which he was discussing in chapter 8; and the design of this chapter is further to explain and enforce the sentiments advanced there, and to settle some other inquiries pertaining to the same general subject. The first point, therefore, on which he insists is, the danger of relapsing into idolatry—a danger which would arise, should they be in the habit of frequenting the temples of idols, and of partaking of the meats offered in sacrifice, 1 Corinthians 10:1-24. Against this he had cautioned them in general, in 1 Corinthians 8:7,9-12. This danger he now sets forth by a variety of illustrations. He first shows them that the Jews had been highly favoured, had been solemnly consecrated to Moses and to God, and had been under the Divine protection and guidance, (1 Corinthians 10:1-4;) yet that this had not kept them from the displeasure of God when they sinned, 1 Corinthians 10:5. He shows that, notwithstanding their privileges, they had indulged in inordinate desires, 1 Corinthians 10:6; that they had become idolaters, 1 Corinthians 10:7; that they had been guilty of licentiousness, 1 Corinthians 10:8; that they had tempted their leader and guide, 1 Corinthians 10:9; that they had murmured, 1 Corinthians 10:10; and that, as a consequence of this, many of them had been destroyed. In view of all this, Paul cautions the Corinthians not to be self-confident, or to feel secure; and not to throw themselves in the way of temptation by partaking of the feasts of idolatry, 1 Corinthians 10:12-14. This danger he further illustrates (1 Corinthians 10:15-24) by showing that if they partook of those sacrifices, they in fact became identified with the worshippers of idols. This he proved by showing that in the Christian communion, those who partook of the Lord’s Supper were identified with Christians, 1 Corinthians 10:16,17; that in the Jewish sacrifices the same thing occurred, and those who partook of them were regarded as Jews, and as worshippers of the same God with them, 1 Corinthians 10:18; and that the same thing must occur, in the nature of the case, by partaking of the sacrifices offered to idols. They were really partaking of that which had been offered to devils; and against any such participation Paul would solemnly admonish them, 1 Corinthians 10:19-22. Going on the supposition, therefore, that there was nothing wrong in itself in partaking of the meat that had been thus killed in sacrifice, yet Paul says (1 Corinthians 10:23) that it was not expedient thus to expose themselves to danger; and that the grand principle should be to seek the comfort and edification of others, 1 Corinthians 10:24. Paul thus strongly and decisively admonishes them not to enter the temples of idols to partake of those feasts; not to unite with idolaters in their celebration; not to endanger their piety by these temptations.
There were, however, two other questions on the subject which it was important to decide, and which had probably been submitted to him in the letter which they had sent for counsel and advice. The first was, whether it was right to purchase and eat the meat which had been sacrificed, and which was exposed indiscriminately with other meat in the market, 1 Corinthians 10:25. To this Paul replies, that as no evil could result from this, as it could not be alleged that they purchased it as meat sacrificed to idols, and as all that the earth contained belonged to the Lord, it was not wrong to purchase and to use it. Yet if even this was pointed out to them as having been sacrificed to idols, he then cautioned them to abstain from it, 1 Corinthians 10:28. The other question was, whether it was right for them to accept the invitation of a heathen, and to partake of meat then that had been offered in sacrifice, 1 Corinthians 10:27. To this a similar answer was returned. The general principle was, that no questions were to be asked in regard to what was set before them; but if the food was expressly pointed out as having been offered in sacrifice, then to partake of it would be regarded as a public recognition of the idol, 1 Corinthians 10:28-30. Paul then concludes the discussion by stating the noble rule that is to guide in all this: that everything is to be done to the glory of God, 1 Corinthians 10:31; and that the great effort of the Christian should be so to act in all things as to honour his religion, as not to lead others into sin, 1 Corinthians 10:32,33.
Again, the only way that the passage in 1 Cor. 10 regarding sacrifice to idols makes sense, is that all three: pagan sacrifice, Jewish sacrifice, and the Lord’s Supper — are forms of sacrifice. Nothing prevented St. Paul to say, simply, that pagans and Jews offer sacrifice and we don’t because Christ has delivered the last sacrifice and now we are only remembering it. But he did not say that, and instead went on, in Chapter 11, to drive down the idea that at the Last Supper the sacrificed body of the Lord is present. So, he accepts the premise that all three forms of worship are sacrifices, but delineates between them.
One of the things that must be understood is that Scriptural interpretation and Catholic doctrine is usually a matter of 'and'. Justin Martyr is right and Ignatius is right and the writer of Hebrews is right. They are all right. That is how the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass came to be; the balance between East and West is slightly different. That is how all of our doctrines came to be: the powerful mathematical operant AND.
His point was identification, not a sacrifice for atonement - which not all Jewish sacrifices were, and I suspect not all heathen ones, either.
I freely grant the Eucharist - Thanksgiving - is a ‘sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise’. I deny it wins atonement for sins by participating in the actual sacrifice of Jesus, still ongoing in spite of what scripture says...
Except Ignatius cannot be right that it is a sacrifice for atonement if the writer of Hebrews is right in saying there is no more sacrifice for atonement.
Note the inconsistency: the Eucharist condemns the unworthy to hell but it cannot lift the worthy to heaven?
Like Mark said, it is an AND proposition. There is no future or latter-day jesuses to come and further atone for our sins. It is done, one perfect sacrifice and a historical fact. Hebrews is saying that and the Catholic Church teaches that.
But Christ gave us a miracle: through the Eucharist He gave us a way to apply that sacrifice to ourselves and through it let Him abide in us not merely intellectually but literally, not through exercise of memory but across time. That is the “memorial” he spoke about.
Bump for later reading
Peter never used a flush toilet, either. What other irrelevancies would you like to discuss?
Peter did however settle the famous dispute in Jerusalem which saw turmoil in the Church until he stood and spoke giving the "doctrinal" understanding of gentiles, for which James gave "local" rules.
By extension, the same is true of their successors.
What "extention" is that? I know of no "extention" for you to toss around like corner church theologian.
And you are engaging in teaching something the Church never taught. Talk about vanity...
Postulating is not "teaching" but I wouldn't expect you to recognize the difference between rolling grain in ones hand, and "harvesting."
Patristic commentaries never ever suggested it had anything to to even remotely with the Bishop of Rome. Your statement is not hypocrisy by my standard; it is simply not what the Church taught and would therefore qualify as heresy, by definition, if you are actually an ordained cleric.
So your argument is still from silence, and your definition of "heresy" is protestant except your totem is patristic instead of scriptural.
How ironic.
It seemed a reasonable conjecture at the time.
Clearly, you and your faction expect deferrence, but have consistently avoided answering my questions in the context they were asked. I have to speculate SOME reason for such duplicitous conceit.
I hate to ask how long were you at a university considering that you seem to think Greek is written in lower-case letters for some strange reason—consistently!
Bwahahaha!
And I hate to think how much you learned about Greek considering that it never occurred to you that presvyia could be transliterated as presbeia, while complaining that presvyia returns only 4 hits.
You seem to miss the fact my opposition claimed the term known far and wide.
Anyone who speaks more than one language knows very well that some things simply cannot be expressed in another languages directly, but only approximately.
Nobody said anything about "directly." And anyone familiar with languages knows "this can't be translated" is the same as "you can't get there from here." i.e. nonsense.
By saying something means "x," only "x," and nothing but "x."
Anything else is simply a variation on the reformation claim "anything not included in scripture is a contradiction of scripture."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.