I recently listened to the debate “What is the “Eucharist Sacrifice?” between Timothy F. Kauffman and Angelo Romano. The debate focuses on when and whether the early Christians viewed eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice (an offering to God for the forgiveness of sins).
The format of the debate was this:
- 7 minute positive statement (Angelo)
- 7 minute negative statement (Tim)
- First 5 minute rebuttal (Angelo)
- First 5 minute rebuttal (Tim)
- Second 5 minute rebuttal (Angelo)
- Second 5 minute rebuttal (Tim)
- Third 5 minute rebuttal (Angelo)
- Third 5 minute rebuttal (Tim)
- 10 minute cross-examination (Tim)
- 10 minute cross-examination (Angelo)
- 5 minute closing Statement (Angelo)
- 5 minute closing Statement (Tim)
The following is written as a 5 minute rebuttal to Angelo’s first rebuttal (see the transcript below). It is a completely fictitious (and unrealistic) response with the benefit of a week of hindsight. But it’s how I would have responded if I had “infinite” time to respond.
As the negative position, Tim was tasked with the unrealistic burden-of-proof. In my opinion, Angelo “won” the debate because all he had to do is spam the debate with talking points that sounded true to the mostly Roman Catholic audience. The only way to stop this is to quickly identify why those talking points are irrelevant to the discussion and to laser focus the discussion on a single key point.
Angelo has given a number of early citations and quotations from the Didache, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Eusebius. There are too many to respond to each of them individually in five minutes, but perhaps I’ll be able to discuss one or two in one of the upcoming rebuttals.
What these citations all have in common is how Angelo uses them to decontextualize the Eucharist away from the native historical context. Focusing on this context should rightly be the central focus of this debate.
Take, for example, the word “Eucharist” itself. This word simply means “thanksgiving” and typically refers to a simple tithe offering. But to the Roman Catholic, this word is imbued with a vast depth of meaning. When Angelo reads “Eucharist” in the words of the Didache, Justin Martyr, and other early writers, he concludes implicitly that it includes all that baggage. He has decontextualized those words.
In the modern literature and entertainment this is known as “retroactive continuity” or “retconning” for short.
When an early writer, such as Justin Martyr or Irenaeus—says that the offering/oblation of the bread and wine in the tithe comes before the consecration through the Words of Institution, the context demands that this strict ordering is mutually exclusive to the Roman Catholic teaching. After all, you can’t making an offering of Christ’s body and blood if you are offering the sacred elements as a sacrifice before they become the body and blood of Christ. Once it becomes the body and blood of Christ, you can still eat it, talk about it, or even touch it to your eyes, ears, and nose as Cyril of Jerusalem did (Catechetical Lecture 23), but you can’t offer it as a sacrifice.
This point is so important, I’ll say it again. The early church always offered the Eucharist before it was consecrated by the words “This is my body and this is my blood.” The sacrificial offering always took place before the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ through the spoken consecration.
We are not merely having a back-and-forth disagreement over what Eucharist means. It isn’t about how strong my argument is or how strong Angelo’s argument is. Rather, the way Eucharist is used in the early writings logically excludes the Roman Catholic understanding. Contextually, the Roman Catholic understanding cannot be true.
Angelo has—and will—retroactively decontextualize this in order to claim that the early writer really was using the word ‘Eucharist’ in the way that it is used today. But no matter how strong and correct his arguments seem to be, the ordering of the early church liturgy precludes the relevance of any other argument.
When the writings of the first 300 years of the church are contextualized, you find one thing only:
This is true of the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian of Carthage, Origin of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, Dionysius of Alexandria, Lactantius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Aphrahat of Athens, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzus the Elder, and Basil of Caesarea.
The first time a writer offers Christ’s body and blood to the father is Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechetical Lecture 21, paragraph 3 (c. 350AD). Sure, he also says that the anointing oil is the advent of the Holy Spirit, and he understands the body and blood to be symbolic. So, he isn’t Roman Catholic. But he is, at least, sacrificing the body and blood of Christ…. starting at the latter half of the 4th century.
The remaining time is yours.
For reference, I have provided a partial transcript of the debate below. I’ve added markup here and there and lightly cleaned up a few verbal stumbles for improved readability. My commentary is in the footnotes, clearly separated from the transcript itself.
Every last church father from Saint Ignatius of Antioch to Saint John Damascene believed that the Eucharist is indeed a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ to God the Father which effects the remission of sins for both the living and the dead which are those who of course have died in Christ and are being purified. What Tim might not know is that this is indeed the position of the Protestant Reformers. He is not only arguing against the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but he’s arguing against the Protestant Reformers as well.
Martin Luther for example said In the Bondage of the Will. We must also get rid of another scandal which is a much greater and very deceptive one. That is, that the mass is universally believed to be a sacrifice offering to God. With this opinion, the words of the Canon of the Mass appear to agree, such as these gifts, these offerings, this oblation. There is also a very distinct prayer that the sacrifice may be accepted like the sacrifice of Abel. Hence, Christ is called the victim of the altar. To this we must add the sayings of the Holy Fathers, a great number of authorities, and the usage that has been constantly observed throughout the world.
I will endeavor to defend the position of Martin Luther and John Calvin as Tim argues against the Protestant Reformers. As John Calvin said, this is not merely the opinion of the vulgar, but the very act (referring to the Mass) has been arranged to be a kind of propitiation by wish satisfaction is made to God for both the living and the dead. In the United States we have seen the rise of Restorationist cults such as Mormonism and the JW’s. What distinguishes them from the Protestant Reformers according to many historians is that they believe that Christ failed and the church was lost for many centuries before Christ restored it through their founder. Sadly there are actually no Protestant Reformers, only Restorationists, the predate Joseph Smith and the Mormon’s by roughly 300 years as the Protestant Reformers themselves recognized that none of the church fathers taught their religion at all, let alone believed that the Eucharist was not a propitiatory sacrifice. The earliest church manual, the Didache, which many historians date to be written decades before St. John the Apostle died, says:
The Didache is of course referring here to Malachi 1:11 which prophesied that one day a pure and perfect propitiatory sacrifice would not only be offered in Jerusalem but in every nation in God’s name.[2] This prophecy was fulfilled with the institution of the Eucharist by Christ at the Last Supper.
This debate came about when Tim quoted Saint Justin Martyr, a church father from the 100s who knew the disciples of the Disciples. Writing c.130 AD[3] Justin Martyr wrote:
As a member of a Byzantine Catholic parish, we use the divine liturgy every Sunday and the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom which is written by Saint Chrysostom c.390AD. The priest says before the eucharist is distributed
we offer God the Son to God the Father because only a perfect sacrifice would be acceptable for our sins against an infinite God. Only God is acceptable to God and we are acceptable insofar as we are in Christ. We join ourselves to Christ via baptism and we renew our new covenant vows every time we receive the Eucharist just as a couple renews their marital covenant via the marital bed.
So it is silly to think that any church father did not believe that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice, let alone after 390AD. If it was not, then St. Chrysostom and before him St. Basil[4] and many others would have been run out of Christianity and viewed like the Gnostics, Donatists, Arians, Nestorians […unclear..] Because what Tim will imply is that church fathers who knew one another held to different gospels and never argued at all about it.
This is a group of holy men that condemned even the most seemingly minute deviations on Christology or the Trinity. In Catholicism we teach that one is saved from the fires of hell through baptism. Baptism makes one a son or daughter of God and we are saved and we are saved by our relationship with Christ as long as we refrain from sins so severe that it ruptures our relationship with Christ we are guaranteed heaven. If we do commit a severe sin which St. John calls a mortal sin in 1 John 5,[5] we can be restored by returning to the Lord and making a good confession to a priest sitting in the person of Christ as Saint Paul references in 2 Corinthians 2:10.[6] Christ did not come merely to declare us righteous, he came to heal us entirely and to make us actually righteous through the sacraments. The chief among these is the Holy Eucharist where we eat and drink of Christ which imparts grace to heal our souls over time.
If this healing cannot be completed before we die, the Lord finishes our healing in what the Roman Catholic church calls purgatory. And East we do not use the term but we likewise believe in post purification. All that the Catholic church teaches that is required to be believed about purgatory is that there is a post death purification for most Christians and our prayers help those undergoing it. All those undergoing it are undergoing a last rush of sanctification to prepare them for glorification.
Since the Mass is a prayer and the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice, the Church fathers affirm that the Mass assists those undergoing purification. The Church fathers universally confess the Catholic gospel and Martin Luther struggled with this. Today Tim struggles with this and tries to interpret them in what I would consider an off-the-wall manner instead of being honest like Martin Luther and John Calvin were.
In a sense, Tim is being logical though because if Martin Luther was right, Christianity is a false religion. If Christ can fail the bride for centuries and everyone from Saint Augustine to Saint Patrick of Ireland professed a false gospel, and even converted an entire nations with a false gospel, then what the apostles began failed as Joseph Smith alleged in the 1800s.
[1] The following paragraph in the Didache reads “Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons…not lovers of money…to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.”
[2] Malachi 1:11 reads: “For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, my name will be great among the nations. And in every place there will be incense burned for my name, and offerings made that are pure, because my name will be great among the nations,” says Yahweh of Armies.
[3] In Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter 117
[4] NOTE: Basil and Chrysostom were 17 years apart in age. Basil lived from 330-378 and Chrysostom lived from 347-407. Even though they were contemporaries, John was only first appointed as a deacon in 381, after Basil had already died.
[5] 1 John 5:16-17 reads: “If anyone sees his brother or sister committing sin that does not result in death, he should ask God, and he will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not result in death. There is sin that results in death; I am not saying that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and yet there is sin that does not result in death.”
[6] 2 Corinthians 2:10 reads: “But to whom you forgive anything, I forgive it also, for what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven it in the presence of Christ for your sake,”
…Tim cites Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho Chapter 117 as well…
…Tim cites Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Athenasius, Justin Martyr, Didascalia…
…Tim mentions that the eucharist is offered, but the offering was not consecrated, but in the later 4th century this changed…
…Tim cites Jerome and Ambrose…
…Tim cites Hippolytus and Apostolic Constitutions…
Tim asserts that before the late 4th century that nobody viewed the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice, but that’s easily easy to prove false.
Tertullian, for example, said in 200AD:
And he was talking about the eucharist specifically.
Saint Irenaeus of Lyon said
The oblation of the church he declares to be a pure sacrifice.[3] Irenaeus is, of course, referring to Malachi 1:11 there.
Saint Justin Martyr c.155AD said:
So he doesn’t say grapes or olive oil or anything like that is the eucharist. He specifically says that the bread, the body and blood of Christ, Jesus who is made flesh, is indeed the eucharist. So we see these quotes long before the end of the 4th century and you know frankly if what Tim is saying is true, you would expect to see somebody objecting in the late 4th century to a fundamental change in the gospel, but we don’t see anybody objecting to it. We don’t see Saint Augustine who of course you know ministered from 390AD so all the way up to 430AD we don’t see him objecting to it. We don’t see Saint Chrysostom objecting to it. We don’t see Saint Jerome objecting to it. So if what Tim is saying is true we would expect to see some kind of objection. But we don’t. Now a common objection to the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice is that Christ’s once and for all sacrifice saves us and he cannot be continually re-sacrificed every day. But what the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach is that each mass or divine liturgy is simply a participation through eternity and the one eternal sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Note that the last supper was a Passover meal. What was eaten during the Passover meal. A lamb. Was a lamb eaten at any point during the last supper? Yes, as Christ changed the bread and wine into his flesh. What is all the more remarkable about the Passover Seder is that the Jews likewise today believe themselves to be participating in the original Passover through eternity. The language of even the modern of course Passover reflects this.
It is noteworthy if you ask any Protestant when they were saved, none of them cite Good Friday or even the Resurrection. This is because Protestants know that Christ’s one sacrifice is continually applied within time itself at various points. So all Protestants implicitly concede the ancient Christian viewpoint that the atonement is applied continually within time even if they deny the propitiatory nature of the Eucharist itself.
One of their primary arguments against it would disprove their own religion if they held to it consistently. Protestantism like Mormonism is not of divine origin. It has all these weird contradictions that when noticed turn people into agnostics, Catholics, or Orthodox Christians. In Exodus 12:8 we see that it was not sufficient to merely paint the blood of the lamb around the doorposts during Passover in Egypt. One had to actually eat the slain lamb or else the Angel of Death would still have visited their home. This is referenced in John 6:53 where Jesus says that those who do not eat the Paschal lamb themselves have no life in them. What was the Passover in egypt? It was a propitiatory sacrifice of a lamb to God the Father. Our participation in Christ’s atonement is ongoing just as our participation in a marriage is ongoing through the marital bed.
I want to clarify something for Protestants listening. Catholicism teaches that there is justification in two senses. The first is by coming to faith in Christ through baptism, whether it is by water or preemptively by the Spirit. such as Saint Cornelius or perhaps the thief on the cross. We call this initial justification because it reconciles us to Christ and puts us on the ark and as long as we remain on the ark we will not see death.
The second sense is what Protestants commonly call sanctification. What the eucharist is doing is sanctifying us which is why it must be a propitiatory sacrifice. The last supper included the cross which was a propitiatory sacrifice. We all agree on that here.
However, the last supper did not end in the upper room but when Christ drank the final Passover Seder cup, the cup of consummation on the cross via the sponge dipped in wine. When a person is sanctified to the point that they are detached from sin and healed from all its negative effects, we call this final justification. So for Catholics, we believe that we have been justified and we are being justified because Christ saves utterly. We are undergoing this process.
The last thing I want to point out is that Eusebius was distinguishing the Christian sacrifice from bloody animal sacrifice.
[1] Attributed to “The Crown” 3:3. New Advent does not have this source.
[2] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, Chapter 17
[3] This is not a direct quote, but a paraphrase. It comes from Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV, Chapter 18: “The oblation of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world, is accounted with God a pure sacrifice, and is acceptable to Him”
[4] These are little sentence fragment snippets of Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 66 taken from an unknown translation. IMO, this much snipping risks taking the thing badly out of context.
The Catholic Encyclopedia does indeed confirm that as early as the days of Polycarp, Christians gathered at the tombs to offer sacrifices on the anniversaries of the death of the martyrs. What they called their birthdays. It was their birthday into glory. The Martyrdom of Polycarp, paragraph 18:
That doesn’t sound like a propitiatory sacrifice. It sounds like a memorial sacrifice.
To give an example of the offering of thanksgiving to God for someone who has been martyred, this is from Sossoman “Ecclesiastical History” 2:10 when Usthazanes was martyred, the news was brought to the bishop in prison and he offered thanksgiving to God on his account. These are thank offerings and we find the same thing in Cyprian of Carthage when he talks about “we offer thank offerings for the martyrs.” Now what’s interesting is that Cyprian of Carthage who offered thank offerings for the martyrs, on the anniversary of their deaths, believed that the martyrs were translated immediately to heaven and were in the presence of the Lord. There is no further propitiation that needs to be done for someone who is already there in the presence of the Lord. These are thank offerings that didn’t have anything to do with offering propitiation.
Now, Angelo mentioned Against Heresies, Irenaeus “The created thing; the oblation of the church” and I agree he did talk about instituting an oblation on the night before he died Jesus instituted an oblation the night before he died, but what’s important to remember about his work Against Heresies, he didn’t think that the Gnostics had changed the liturgy, he thought that they were imitating it and imitating it made them inconsistent. They were offering created things as well. Just like the Christians were offering created things in their sacrifices. After all it is Irenaeus that said “we offer the first fruits of his created things to the Father.” Of course the Gnostics did not believe that Jesus’ Father was creator of the universe, whereas of course Christians do believe that Jesus’ Father is the creator of the universe. Therefore, when we offer created things to him we are offering to him things that are his own. We are offering to him his own created things. That’s what Irenaeus says. In well-grounded and fervent love, offering the firstfruits of created things. And the church alone offers this pure oblation. He’s talking about first fruits. The reason he criticized the Gnostics is because the Gnostics did not believe that Jesus’ Father was the creator. And therefore when they offered created things to Jesus’ Father, they were offering things that did not belong to him. They were offering things that belonged to a different god, the creator God who was assumed by the Gnostics to be evil and wicked. And therefore, Irenaeus criticism of the Gnostics was that when they offered created things to the Father of their Lord, they were instead of offering gratitude, they were insulting him because they were offering to him the things that belonged to the Creator God, a different God, as if Jesus’ Father was covetous of someone else’s good. The entire construct that he’s setting up here in Against Heresies Book IV Chapter 18 is that Christians offer created things to the Father, Gnostics offer created things to someone who did not create them. That’s why he says they need to stop offering the things just discussed because they are being inconsistent. That’s why he says our opinion is in accordance with the eucharist and the eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. We offer created things to the Father because the Father created those things. We offer to him his own.
Now I agree, late in the 4th century it began to be assumed that Irenaeus had not been talking about “we offer to him his own created things, but we offer to him his own son.” Announcing consistently the fellowship of the union of flesh and spirit. The fact is Irenaeus believed the fact that Jesus used created food throughout his life was evidence that he had been incarnated and it was proof of the union of the flesh and the spirit in the incarnation.
So again as Saint Irenaeus
We offer it showing forth the communion of flesh and spirit. So again, Saint Irenaeus is definitely not talking about offering things to God other than Jesus Christ who is the first fruit of creation. It’s the only thing truly worthy that we can offer to Christ for the forgiveness of sins. And by eating the Eucharist we join ourselves to Christ for in Christ.
And so we need to offer something to God that is perfect. And again if we look at the Didache, it says to confess our sins before receiving the eucharist before mass so that our offering may be pure. And again this mirrors the language of Malachi 1:11.
How are we going to have pure sacrifices, well we have to have a pure sacrifice and we ourselves must be pure how do we do that? Of course, through confession and reconciliation. Now, when we look at the ancient liturgies: liturgy of Saint James, Saint Basil, Saint Chrysostom, the ancient Roman canon, of course the eucharist is offered for both living and the dead. There is absolute liturgical uniformity here. And Protestant scholars agree. Phillip Schaff, Reformed, agrees. JND Kelly, Anglican, agrees. Since sacrifice necessarily implies propitiation, a sacrifice not offered for sins is a contradiction in terms in Jewish and also Greco-Roman context. The father’s understood Christ’s cross as the once for all propitiatory sacrifice as Hebrews 9:26 references. Christ’s priestly role is actively ongoing though, its actively being applied and carried out until the culmination of the age. Priestly role is not over. Again Protestants believe this too as not a single Protestant ever cites Good Friday or Resurrection Sunday as the day they got saved. The Eucharist is the ongoing application of Christ’s once sacrifice and of course Irenaeus, Tertullian, all of the early church fathers and ecclesiastical writers recognize this fact and its unmistakable when you read through them. I would of course recommend everyone here actually go on New Advent and read through these works. I think its unmistakable that you’d come to the same conclusion that I have. But every single church father who said eucharist is offered for the dead which is nearly all must believe the eucharist had propitiatory value or else they could not do it, right? They could not say that. Saint Justin Martyr believed it had propitiatory value. So Tim and all Protestants can instantly rule out about 90% of all the fathers being on their side including Saint Justin Martyr. By applying this commonsensical criteria. And of course, precluding Tertullian as we mentioned earlier. But if we look at St. Justin Martyr he once said: God speaks by the mouth of Malachi. One of the 12 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 sacrifices at your hand, for from the rising of the sun ’til the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles. And then every place incense is offered to my name a pure offering for my name is great on the Gentiles. He then speaks of those Gentiles, mainly us, Christians, who in every place offer sacrifices to him. That is a bread of the eucharist and also the cup of the eucharist. This is body and blood of Christ that Saint Justin Martyr is talking about. And if you read the Dialogues of Trypho that becomes abundantly clear.
And one of the amazing things about the eucharist is that it combines all of the old testament offerings into one, right? The miracle of Malachi 1:11 is that it prophesied that combining of the Passover and the thanksgiving sacrifices would eventually occur and it would be celebrated all over the world. This of course is fulfilled in the Eucharist as the grain becomes the lamb. And you and I would both agree, Tim, that the last supper was a Passover meal. We have to ask ourselves at what point did Christ and the disciples eat a lamb during the last supper. At what point did they eat a lamb. Because if the Eucharist is not Christ, and if it is it must be a propitiatory sacrifice. Then there must be some other lamb that the disciples and Christ himself ate during that meal. but again the meal was Christ. That’s really emphasized by the overall narrative of the gospels of the account of the Last Supper. And of course by the church fathers speaking on it.
I want to turn back and address to Justin Martyr talking about the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of the Eucharist being the fulfilment of the Malachi 1:11 prophesy. I totally agree that’s why I said in my opening statement that the ancient writers included bread and a cup in their Eucharist offerings because they were going to celebrate the Supper after they completed the Eucharist offering of food, bread, wine, grapes, oil, honey, milk, cheese. That’s my whole point in saying that just because we go back in time and we find them offering the Eucharist or offering the cup and offering the loaf doesn’t mean they were offering consecrated bread and wine. And in fact that’s you know when Irenaeus talks about the fulfillment of the Malachi sacrifice he says yes Jesus instituted an oblation of the church the night before he died and he equates that to the widow casting money into the treasury. He equates that to feeding the hungry. Philippians 4:18 giving… the Philippians sending needful things to Paul through the hands of Epaphroditus. Who provides for the poor, lends to the Lord. These are all verses that he uses to talk about the fulfilment of the sacrifice. Now of course the bread and the cup had primacy in the Eucharist offerings because they were preparing to celebrate the Supper and you couldn’t celebrate the Supper unless you had bread and wine in your offerings. Now, yes, Justin Martyr talks about in Trypho 117 and also in First Apology 65 and 67 that bread and cup are brought forward but he also talks in First Apology 13 that the eucharist… the Malachi sacrifice… is when we instead of burning what is provided to us for sustenance, we use it for ourselves and provide to those who are in need. And that’s the only acceptable sacrifice that we offer.
So that would include more than just bread and wine. Cyprian of Carthage talked about the importance of using wine in the Supper because if you use bread and water you don’t have anything that could represent Christ’s blood. And therefore you have to use red wine in the supper. You have to use red wine in your offerings. That would give the impression that maybe Cyprian thought that the only thing we offer is bread and wine. But in epistle 69, Cyprian says that the oil that we use in baptism comes from the eucharist offerings. And so obviously Cyprian of Carthage believed that it was not just bread and wine that was being offered in the Eucharist. the same thing goes with Tertullian of Carthage. He talks about the importance of… I’m going to skip over Tertullian for just a second and go to Hippolytus because Hippolytus in his Apostolic Tradition he talks about offering a bread and cup and he says that on the day that someone is baptized they come and they are required to bring the eucharist of the oblation because it is important that everyone bring their oblation at the same hour. And then he gives some instruction on how to offer the bread. And he offers the bread and he talks about the symbol what the bread symbolized and so forth and then he says if someone makes an offering of oil the bishop shall give thanks in the same manner as the oblation of the bread and wine but not with exactly the same words. He says sanctify this oil as you give holiness to all those who are anointed and receive it. Very similar, in fact, to what Cyprian of Carthage was saying that we use the oil from the Eucharist to anoint people who are baptized. Then Hippolytus continues and he says likewise if someone makes an offering of cheese and olives, the Bishop shall say, sanctify this coagulated milk. Just as you bring us together in your love, let this fruit not leave your sweetness this olive which is a symbol of your abundance which you made to flow from the tree for the life to those who hope in you. These are eucharist offerings of bread, wine, oil, cheese, milk, and Hippolytus… sorry, back to Tertullian, he talked about when someone is baptized they immediately are given honey and milk in order to remind them of that they are now entering the land flowing with milk and honey. And so they are baptized, they are allowed to participate in the offerings. that’s what Justin Martyr talked about in First Apology 13. The offerings are obviously more than just bread and wine although bread and wine had primacy because it was important to offer bread and cup in order to be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper after you finished the Eucharist offerings for the poor.
It’s important to remember that the word eucharist it means thanksgiving, right? So all these things are being offered in thanksgiving to God. That doesn’t mean they are equal to the eucharist, to the body and blood themselves.[1] Really what you’re doing here is confusing Saint Irenaeus’ teaching and the teaching of some other fathers on the Eucharist as a pure oblation with their discussion of spiritual sacrifices like alms and thanksgiving. They speak of both but they are not the same.[2] In fact it is because we receive Christ’s sacrifice in the eucharist that we are empowered to offer our own lives as pleasing sacrifices to God. As Saint Irenaeus says: we offer alms and lives not instead of the eucharist but because of it.[3] That’s Catholic teaching.
Now another thing Saint Irenaeus says is:
Boom.[5] Anyway, and then he continues to say:
He has acknowledged the cup which is part of creation as his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow. And the bread also part of creation he has established as his own body. So Christ is the High Priest the eucharist is his body and blood and everything flows from that one central sacrifice. Calling other things a eucharistic sacrifice doesn’t in any way muddy the pure oblation that is being offered every single Mass.
Now, notice the utter absence of dissent. Tim has had about 20 minutes now to identify a single church father who explicitly denied that the eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice. And there is not one that says “Hey, all the other guys are wrong, the eucharist is not a propitiatory sacrifice. And no one apparently noticed for at least a thousand years. At least eleven hundred years.
This is crucial because it shows literally no contrary tradition existed in the patristic era. Besides the fathers, we should consider the testimony of the ancient heretics. The Gnostics and Manicheans fiercely rejected the Eucharist as a sacrifice and mocked the Christians for believing in it. Later on, so did the Cathars in the Middle Ages, a violent sect that was against procreation and killed people for recovering after being administered Last Rights.
Any Christian who takes Tim’s position is against every church father and on the side of these Gnostics, Manicheans, and Cathars on this matter. I’m not saying Tim is any of these things.
Furthermore, we must consider that the Bible itself uses the language of authors, priests, and oblations. And 1 Corinthians 10:16-21 we read: The cup of blessing we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread we who are many are one body. For we all partake of the one bread. Consider the practice of Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar. What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything or that an idol is anything? No. I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You can not partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Saint Paul is contrasting the Eucharist to pagan propitiatory sacrifices. And also, propitiatory sacrifices from the Old Testament. If it is not a propitiatory sacrifice (the eucharist, that is) then Saint Paul cannot be correct that we are participating in the body of Christ by eating the eucharist. At best, we could only be participating in the spirit of Christ which is Nestorian because it separates Christ from his glorified body. Saint Paul says that the propitiatory sacrifices of pagans on their altars make them partners with demons. Therefore, the propitiatory sacrifice of the eucharist on the Christian altar makes us partners with Christ. If the Eucharist is not a propitiatory sacrifice, it makes zero sense to contrast it to the pagan sacrifices which are universally propitiatory, right? There is the table of demons and there is the table of the Lord. Now, when we look at the early church fathers, going into St. Cyprin of Carthage whom Tim brought up. St. Cyprian once said: if Christ Jesus our Lord and God is himself the high priest of God the Father, and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ. So St. Cyprian is blatantly saying here that the priest acts in persona Christi. And the only way he could be acting in persona Christi is by giving a propitiatory sacrifice, right? Because Christ didn’t offer anything more than himself.
[1] This reads like “the meaning of eucharist doesn’t have to equal the meaning of eucharist.” After acknowledging that eucharist means thanksgiving, Angelo just asserts—without argument—that the eucharist is not equal to thanksgiving but is [only] the body and blood. Tim’s argument, by contrast, is that the eucharist remains—is equal to—the eucharist both before and after a portion of it becomes the body and blood of Christ.
[2] This begs the question regarding the distinction made in footnote 1. Tim does not assert that they are the same in their entirety, only that they are both the sacrificial eucharist, but one is later consecrated and the other is not.
[3] This appears to be an interpretation, not a quotation or a paraphrase of Irenaeus. I could not find a specific reference.
[4] Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.
[5] Lol.
Yes, it is true the eucharist means thanksgiving and that was my point in my opening statement that the thanksgiving offering the eucharist offering of the church was completed and then immediately followed by a consecration of the bread and wine for the Lord’s Supper. The eucharist that was offered was not consecrated and then the eucharist that was consecrated was not subsequently offered as the oblation of the church was the first fruit offering of the eucharist. That’s why the Didascalia the eucharist of the oblation is to be brought to the Bishop. Of course eucharist means thanksgiving and thanksgiving means eucharist. That’s my whole point. That’s why it’s so important to distinguish between the eucharist that is offered before the consecration for the supper and the eucharist that is eaten after the consecration for the supper.
But to that point, Irenaeus helps me make my point here. In Against Heresies IV 18, he says when the bread receives the summons of God it takes on two realities. Earthly and heavenly. And I’m using summons their advisedly because the Latin said invocation but when the Greek came out when the Greek entered circulation it was discovered much later than the Reformation by the way 1631 is when it was first record published by Peter Halloway and Grabbe put it into circulation in 1743 it turns out that Irenaeus had not said “when the bread receives the invocation of God it takes on two realities” he said “when the bread receives the summons of god it takes on two realities earthly and heavenly.” Now, what’s the significance? The Malachi 1:11 prophesy is about acceptable oblations to the Father and Malachi is all about the Lord summoning the tithes into the storehouse. He says in Malachi 2:10, bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse. That’s why it is no surprise at all that the NT writers, the apostles believed that the oblation of the church was taking care of the poor. Providing for the needs of those who are in need. And then in Against Heresies Book 5, he does not say “when the mixed wine and the manufactured bread receives the word of God it becomes the eucharist.” That’s what the Latin says, but Irenaeus didn’t write in Latin. He wrote in Greek. And the footnote in that section that’s provided by Schaff says “well actually, the Greek doesn’t exactly say that. The Greek actually says that when the mixed wine and manufactured bread receive the word of God, the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ. Yes, Irenaeus says that Jesus took created food in his hand and acknowledged the cup to be his blood and confessed the bread to be his body. That’s right. he said this is my body to bread. He said this is my cup about wine. This is my blood about wine. All you are talking about is the consecration, of course. Jesus took bread and wine at the last supper and consecrated it. Irenaeus saying that Jesus took created food in his hand and consecreated it it doesn’t prove your point at all. All it does is acknowledge what everyone freely concedes that Jesus consecrated bread and wine at the Last Supper. But what Irenaeus does show is that the Lord summons the bread to be a tithe and that’s when it takes on two realities because its the product of our earthly toil now set aside for heavenly purposes. it becomes the eucharist when it is summoned by the Lord. Then when Jesus consecrates it and when we after him speak his words over the bread, the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ. That’s the sequence I’ve been talking about. The Eucharist is offered as the tithe for the poor and then some of that eucharist is taken and the consecration is pronounced over it. In fact we see this quite clearly in Cyprian of Carthage on his work on tithes on alams. he says that when the rich man does not bring a sacrifice to the Lord’s Supper, and then participates in the Lord’s Supper, he is actually eating the poor man’s sacrifice. Why? Because the poor man brought a eucharist oblation so that they could offer the eucharist as a church and then when some of that eucharistic oblation is taken and then consecrated for the supper, the rich man is eating consecrated bread that the poor man brought for his sacrifice. But, it wasn’t consecrated when he sacrificed it and then when it was consecrated it wasn’t sacrificed it was eaten. We find that consistently in the Fathers as they talk about… [time runs out]