The Eucharist Liturgy

The original liturgy of the Eucharist is this…

1. Dismissal — of the unbeliever, the catechumen, and the backslider.
2. Eucharist — The offering (or sacrifice) of praise, thanksgiving, tithes, and firstfruits for the poor.
3. Oblation — The presentation of the Eucharist to God with prayer and spoken “Amen.”
4. Epiclesis — The Consecration of the bread and wine: “this is my body” and “this is my blood.”
5. Lord’s Supper — Meal; Communion; Consumption of the bread and wine mixed with water.

…while the Roman liturgy alters the order to make Christ a sacrifice:

1. Epiclesis — The Consecration of the bread and wine.
2. Eucharist — “Jesus” is offered as the sacrifice.
3. Oblation — The “Amen” is spoken; transubstantiation is affirmed.
4. Lord’s Supper — Meal; Communion; Consumption of the bread and wine mixed with water.
5. Dismissal — Believers are dismissed

As you read the many citations in this series, you’ll see that Roman Catholics often cite cherry-picked quotes that make it seem like they fit the latter, when they more naturally fit with the former. This will be clear even in our first citation, the Didache (which Fisheaters left out of her post).

But before we begin, let’s “set the table” to prepare for what is to come.

The Roman Catholic Testimony

We begin with the Catholic Encyclopedia, which acknowledges that the ancient and Roman liturgies were different:

This represents a sober and accurate summary of the evidence from history from a Roman Catholic source. And so we should be skeptical of Fisheaters’ highly selected quotations that make it appear that the Roman liturgy is older than the 6th century, rather than a non-apostolic medieval innovation.

Throughout this series, we expect that the Catholic Encyclopedia’s statement will be proven correct, and our thesis…

…will be proven justified. This chief difficulty in the history of the liturgy will prove critical.

On Thanksgiving

Perhaps the biggest hurdle to historical analysis is the word eucharist (“ευχαριστειν”) which means thanksgiving. In the Roman liturgy it means something completely different than what the word itself means in its natural and biblical contexts.

Notice how smoothly Paul speaks of the (2) Eucharist followed by the (3) Oblation (with the corporate “Amen”). When we discuss Irenaeus later in the series, we will see him reference this passage in this exact context.

So when examining these ancient sources, every time the word comes up in a sentence, apologists think “Oh, there is where the consecrated body of Christ is sacrificed.” All that baggage is placed onto the lips of the ancient writers, even though those selfsame writers make no mention of those details. ‘Eucharist’ just means thanksgiving, and it refers to the thank offering of the Old Testament, in which the early church instead offered their praises and collected the tithe offering to help the poor.

Consider this article by Stephen Beale at the Catholic Exchange. There he states:

Only a person who has already predetermined that Eucharist does not mean the thankgiving offering of the tithe could conclude that Irenaeus was speaking of the “Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.” Anyone else would scratch their head over why “perfect bread” and descriptions of Jesus breast-feeding us are not a collection of rather obvious figures-of-speech for being taught and believing the perfect Word of God.

When we discuss Irenaeus later on in the series, we will see how truly out of context this quote is to use it to defend the Roman liturgy.

For now, suffice it to say that the presuppositions that Roman Catholics bring to the patristics are a far larger impediment than what the patristic writers themselves actually wrote.

On Citations

Throughout this series, I will make many lengthy citations. I will be adding markup (such as bold, italics, and quotation marks around scripture citations) to highlight the critical portions of the citations. Let it be clear that I am adding these editorial marks, they are not found in the originals! My highlights are not intended to change the meaning or emphasis in the original, but rather to draw attention to portions that I believe are especially significant. I encourage everyone to check each and every one my references, both to see the primary source—or rather the translation of the primary source—for yourself, and to avoid any accusation of misrepresentation or out-of-context citations.

In some cases I will replace “Thanksgiving” with “thanksgiving” and “Eucharist” with “eucharist” or “thanksgiving” because “Thanksgiving” and “Eucharist” are, in most cases, not faithful translations. Both capitalizing and transliterating the Greek word, rather than translating it as “thanksgiving”, is a frequent error intended to act as an implicit equivocation between unequal things: the Roman Catholic Eucharist (capitalized)—a medieval ritual or sacrament—and the Greek word eucharist (not capitalized)—meaning thanksgiving. These are not the same thing.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:16…

…Paul is not saying “Eucharist” in the sense meant by medieval Roman Catholic liturgists, and it would be a blatant mistranslation to put those words on his lips.