No it isn't 'clearly' at all in reference to such. It could just as likely be the sacricfice of praise rendered out of gratitude to Christ and God for our deliverance at Calvary or our personal 'living sacrifice' which we will take out into the world to live and work to God's praise and glory, as sent out again by Christ. If, as it states this sacrifice is 'unbloody' then 'praise' and 'devotion to fulfilment of Christ's commission to the world' qualify as the 'sacrifice' being referred to in this eucharistic prayer. If it is indeed 'unbloody' it is obviously not the original sacrifice of Christ, which was very 'bloody', nor the elements which are being referenced, because they are to become for us his body and his blood, and blood (unless entirely symbolic and metaphorical), is always 'bloody' if it has become for us, blood. .
The Confession of Dositheus is NOT binding. Here is Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, from Orthodox Answers.org: "... apart from the dogmatic teachings of the first Seven Councils which have been fully received by the Orthodox, there are no recent councils or synods that have the same level of authority. The more recent councils / synods, such as those you mention, took place in the context of the Roman Catholic-Protestant conflict and reflect a certain Westernization of Orthodoxy, to a large extent because Orthodox clergy were often trained in the West. This councils reflect the life of Orthodoxy at the time and are certainly worthy of our consideration. However, I would tend to recommend the writing of Florovsky, Zizoulas or Staniloe - and most of all the Fathers themselves - as more useful sources. To answer the question directly, the Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) are considered as important and worthy of our consideration, but not as a fully authoritative or as binding source of teaching for Orthodox Christianity." http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/481/ There are several heretical statements in the Confession of Dositheus, such as that the laity are not allowed to read the scripture. Are you going to affirm that too? Weird to be accused of dishonesty from a fellow Anglican. Maybe it is a function of your youth and impetuosity. Here is Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck from OrthodoxAnswers, again: "Dear David, Although this is hard to understand - especially in a Western culture - we can say that Orthodoxy is not so much a set of dogmas and doctrines (to be put in some order in a book) as a spiritual experience which is especially lived in the mysteries / sacraments" http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/481/ -- At least I made you laugh, so that's a plus. Let's be precise about what we are looking for. We are looking for a statement that the Eucharist, the routine series of actions from a broken and corrupt human being, is propitiatory and an atonement for sins before the Holy God himself, and is participatory with the holy omnipotent Atonement of of the 2nd Person of the Trinity upon the Cross. Do you realize that that's blasphemous? Now, you've provided some quotes from the Church Fathers. The question is, do any of them support the idea that you've claimed? The simple and unambiguous answer is: no. Within your understanding (which you impose upon the fathers), there is only one kind of sacrifice: the atoning sacrifice. That comes directly from Roman apologetics, so you're far more indebted to Romanism that you've admitted so far. The 'atoning sacrifice' is not the only sacrifice in Christianity, and there are other sacrifices which are also just as real, significant, grave, important, and you cannot wave them away in order to allow the Roman framework of sacrifice be the dominant. No the Romans are wrong, and you can't assert their framework of sacrifice as the correct one. Here is Bishop Burnet to teach you: "Though we deny all propitiatory Sacrifices, but that which our Blessed Saviour offered for us once on the Cross; yet we acknowledge that we have Sacrifices in the true strict and Scriptural notion of that word; for propitiatory ones are but one sort of Sacrifice, which in its general notion stands for any Holy Oblations made to God; and in this sense, Thank-Offerings, Peace-Offerings, and Free-will Offerings, were Sacrifices under the Law; so were also their Commemorative Sacrifices of the Paschal Lamb, which were all Sacrifices, though not Propitiatory. And in this sense our prayers and praises; a broken heart, and the dedicating our lives to the service of God, are Sacrifices, and are so called in Scripture; so also is the giving of Alms. And in this sense we deny not but the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving; and it is so called in one of the Collects. It is also a Commemoration of that one Sacrifice which it represents, and by which the worthy receivers have the virtue of that applied to them. The Oblation of the Elements of Bread and Wine to be Sanctified, is also a kind of Sacrifice; and in all these Senses we acknowledge the Sacrament to be a true Sacrifice, as the Primitive Church did." https://laudablepractice.blogspot.com/2021/03/very-fully-and-formally-given-in-our.html Excuse me, the teaching of the Church Catholic is absolutely clear in the Fathers and the Anglican Divines. I won't let you impute the label of catholic on the poisoned and poisonous Roman church.
I would think it safe to interpret the words "unbloody sacrifice" as the Church Fathers of that era did, and that is in reference to the actual elements on the Altar. That is the logical and consistent interpretation, as this is in the prayer of consecration.
I think you are getting quite vitriolic in your responses. As for the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem, it is most certainly binding. If you don't like that, then check out the Pan-Orthodox synod of Jassy that is also binding, which teaches the same doctrine. You can of course find examples of people who do not agree, but that doesn't really defeat the point. But if that doesn't answer you adequately, let's examine the venerable liturgy of the Eastern portion of the Catholic Church, shall we? The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom "Priest: No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw near or to serve you, O King of Glory;for to minister to You is great and awesome even to the heavenly powers. Nevertheless through Your unspeakable and boundless love for mankind, You became man, yet without change or alteration, and as Ruler of All, became our high priest, and committed to us the ministry of this liturgical and bloodless sacrifice. For You alone, O Lord our God, rule over those in heaven and on earth; who are borne on the throne of the Cherubim; who are Lord of the Seraphim and King of Israel; who alone are holy and rests in the saints. Therefore, I entreat You who alone are good and ready to listen: Look down on me, a sinner, Your unprofitable servant, and cleanse my soul and my heart from an evil conscience;and by the power of the Holy Spirit enable me, who am endowed with the grace of the priesthood, to stand before this, Your holy table, and perform the sacred mystery of your holy and pure Body and precious Blood. For I draw near to you, and bowing my neck, I implore You: Do not turn Your face away from me, nor cast me out from among Your children; but make me, Your sinful and unworthy servant, worthy to offer gifts to You. For You are the Offerer and the Offered, the Receiver and the Received, O Christ our God, and to You we ascribe glory, together with Your Father, who is from ever— lasting and Your all-holy, good and life-creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen." Again, as the unfailing teaching of the Faith and the Church presents, the elements are consecrated and offered to God in persona Christi. The sacrifice is bloodless or unbloody, as it is not a killing of an animal, but the spiritual re-presentment of the one sacrifice of Christ 2000 years ago. We see the Priest offering this to God, while affirming it is in fact Christ offering the sacrifice in heaven. I mentioned this in the previous thread, the twofold action of Heaven and Earth united during this Liturgy. Hence the Sanctus - "Heaven and Earth are full of thy Glory". But again, if that is not enough - let's examine the actual moment the Gifts become Consecrated in the Byzantine rite. Let's see what Chrysostom has to say here. Priest: Again we offer to You this reasonable and bloodless worship, and ask You and pray to You, and call upon You: Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here offered. Priest: + And make this Bread the precious Body of Your Christ. People: Amen. Priest: + And that which is in the Cup, the precious Blood of Your Christ. People: Amen. Priest: Making the change by Your Holy Spirit. All: Amen. Amen. Amen. Priest: That they may be for those who partake for the purification of soul, for the remission of sins, for the communion of Your Holy Spirit for the fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven, for boldness towards You, and not for judgment or condemnation Again, we see the use of Unbloody being in reference to the actual Gifts on the Altar, as the unanimous teaching of the Church. While I am sure you will be quick to note that the Holy Spirit is invoked on the faithful - which is true. However, you can't just ignore the clear words that both aspects - faithful and Gifts are united in this unbloody act. It isn't just praying since "you don't bleed when you pray" as some protestants may think. The "rational and bloodless" refers to the gnomic change in the elements and the fact that the sacrifice isn't being re-sacrificed, but represented, hence it is not bloody. No new sacrifices here, just the one sacrifice made manifest. I could keep going with most every Liturgy of the Church at this point, because it is ubiquitous. You seem to brush over every piece of evidence I presented to prove my claim. How is Cyril of Jerusalem not "Primitive" enough? Am I to take Bishop Burnet over Saint Cyril? I think I'll take the Propitiatory language of the Early Church over Burnet. I will take the words of St. Chrysostom's Liturgy. Basil says the exact same thing. I have never claimed that humans make atonement for sin, that is your own reaction. I have claimed that we represent the one sacrifce here on Earth in the Mass, and Christ is continually presenting his one atonement for sins as the Great High Priest in Heaven. It is the Sacrifice that does not get exhausted - hence the fellowship meal at the end of the liturgical drama. I have demonstrated quite clearly the teaching of the Church, and you just don't like it - so you do two things. 1. Set the bar of what I am demonstrating, after I have put forth the evidence. This tactic is used to discredit the evidence presented rather than actually discuss the topic at hand. I simply have never made the claim that you are arguing against. So when you redefine the claim of the opponent halfway through a discussion - it becomes impossible to actually discuss the original claims. 2. Shift the discussion. We were clearly discussing if the Church had taught that the Body and Blood were offered to God in the Eucharist. That is all. I have demonstrated this East, West, North, and South. If you wish to discuss the atonement as it relates to the Sacrament, we can do that. But the evidence I presented in the previous response was to the previous challenge you made. Your claim was it was not found in the Church nor Anglicanism. I demonstrated both. As it stands now, I personally think it best to move on from this topic - as we both have come to our formed conclusions regarding this matter, so there is no sense in grinding gears. What say ye?
Regarding the Euchologion of Sarapion wherein you find that phrase, it seems to be very eastern-oriented in its prayers according to https://twbe.webs.com/sarseismic.pdf . For example, there are prayers for chrismation prior to baptism as well as a second chrismation after baptism. The document also has this to say: Maxwell Johnson sees in the eucharistic prayer at least very two different understandings of the eucharist corresponding to different layers of tradition the Prayer Book preserves. In the older tradition, corresponding with the theology of the baptismal prayers, the eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God for having reconciled God’s people and seeks God’s power through the participation in the body and blood to re-equip God’s people for their spiritual warfare. In the more recent layer, the eucharist is a material propitiatory sacrifice of bread and wine, offered as a re-presentation of the death of Jesus, in order to obtain reconciliation with God again. If this is accurate, then we might conclude from it that the "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" view of Eucharist was more original and likely more faithful to the practices of the Apostolic age since it predated the newer, more radical view of "re-presentation" which was being adopted by the time of the writing (middle of the 4th Century). The portion you quoted undoubtedly is of the latter; such prayers should be viewed as less informative to us. I have pointed out in the past, and would like to point out again, that the early church practices would have been most true to form at the time of the Apostles, with a gradual lessening of accuracy and proper intent the further in time from the Apostolic Age. This is a better view than assuming that everything in the early church was hunky-dory and fully orthodox for precisely 500 years, after which things fell off. In reality, errors began creeping in rather quickly, and heresies had to be fended off even before the death of the Apostles, as one can see from Paul's letters; by the 2nd Century all sorts of challenges to orthodoxy were cropping up. Also, we always have to remember as Anglican Christians that the written word of God (the Holy Bible) is our authoritative source, and that the writings of the early fathers are useful in helping us interpret the meaning and intent of the Bible; but those writings are not authoritative, in that they can never contradict the Bible nor should they be used to produce elaborate new teachings that are not present within the word of God. This most definitely applies to Chrysostom, among others. And as for these "pan-orthodox councils," upon whom are they supposedly binding? Certainly not upon Anglicans. If you really want to show us that the Eucharist should be taken as a re-presentment of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, I encourage you to build your case from the Bible, and then relate the church father's writings to show how they support what the Bible teaches.
To be honest, I could see how Stalwart could have felt like he was being belittled via some of your comments; I'm sure it was not your intent but the overall tone of post #121 (including comments about "not honest" and "laughable") seemed like he was being "talked down to." Absent facial and vocal expressions, such misunderstandings arise from time to time.
I am not a Protestant, so I do not hold the notion of "sola scriptura" as say Luther would have. I am much more Prima Scriptura, for instance, I hold that ecumenical councils are indeed infallible. As to the idea that somehow the Church got it wrong from 300AD-1552 is just not where I stand. That is a "restorationist" view of Church History that I just do not subscribe to. I also do not subscribe to the "triumphalistic" view of Rome that holds the Church is right at any point in History no matter what. I am much more in line with the Vincentian canon of Catholicity, and the points I have covered meet that test. While you aren't going to find intensely developed ideas about the Eucharist until the 4th century, that doesn't mean it is somehow wrong. Again, I do not deny that there is a Sacrifice of Praise. You don't find intensely defined ideas about the Hypostatic Union until we hit Cyril of Alexandria and so forth. The Church had other issues to worry about and other emphasis to make known. For instance, instead of writing to Jews and Pagans attacking the Church, like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus did, we see Christians having children and adults converting so they need to be educated. That is where these Catechetical lectures come from. I cited Cyril of Jerusalem's famous lectures above, which it makes sense the Eucharistic teaching is unpacked here - that is precisely what the entire point of the Catechetical lecture was! The Christians would sneak out at night to the Church to hear the Bishop speak in riddles, and then would be Baptized and take Eucharist Easter Vigil, and then the lectures would be given to them to explain what just happened. So we have teaching those outside for the first few hundred years, and then there is a shift to teach those inside.
Then it would also be safe to interpret the words body and blood metaphorically and not literally, because transubstantiation requires absolutely that the element of wine becomes absolutely 'bloody' because real blood has always been, is, and will always be, 'bloody' and according to this Eucharistic Prayer, this sacrifice being referred to, is not 'bloody'. .
I agree that there was a degradation of a true understanding of the true faith of following The Way as it was taught by Christ, through his Apostles, inspired by the Holy Ghost and recorded in scripture. Though we may claim to be Apostolic in our faith, we cannot claim to have full knowledge of Apostolic teaching because we do not have access to everything the Apostles taught and even that contained in scripture requires to be understood under the guidance of The Holy Spirit, and not according to our own, (perhaps erronious), religious sensibilities. The Church, being humanity, (wherever it has been without due respect for The Holy Spirit), has suffered the same tendency towards idolatry and 'religionising' that it did, ever since cast from the Garden of Eden. Whenever human beings separate themselves from God by entertaining sin, and deciding for themselves the difference between 'good' and 'evil', and not respecting God's definition, or getting their cue from the Holy Spirit, they separate themselves from truth and true religion. Thus we see a gradual accumulation of empty and vainglorious ritualisation coupled with a gradual decline in 'Christlikeness' wherever this process of spiritual atrophy holds sway, even within the church. Godly love and Christlike moral fibre replaced by mere ritual and enthusiastic piety, however well supported it might be by quotations from former worthies. .
Anglicans look to the Bible, informed by the first 4 Councils and the first 500 years of the church. They do not look to any later Councils or church developments with any great confidence or deference. And Article 6 (of the 39 Articles of Religion) states, "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." I hope you can adjust to this concept eventually. Seminary certainly should help.
Sure thing, because sadly you don't seem to be open to rational evidence. I've presented clear evidence from the Eastern Orthodox saying their 1672 Synod wasn't binding. Your only reply was, "No I insist it was. Let's ignore Eastern Orthodox voices." I next showed the existence of numerous types of sacrifices which exist for a Christian. I have also showed the etymology of the word "eucharist" / "eucharistos" which by the grammar of it, is translated as "sacrifice of praise" [and thanksgiving]. All this was to show that the multiplicity of Christian sacrifices is how the Patristic and Anglican references to sacrifice should be understood. Your only reply was, "No I insist that it's wrong" without further argument. Finally you've brought in the Liturgy of Chrysostom, trying to claim that a mere mention of "remission of sins" makes the liturgy propitiatory. Yet in our own 1662 BCP liturgy, the priest says, "Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins" And he also says, "O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins" So in short, unfortunately you have come up entirely short. And yet you tried to blitzkrieg every discussion with quasi-Papal claims of trying to present "The Universal Church" and "The Church Catholic" while parroting Roman and Tridentine formulations. (taking hostage catholicism to the Church of Trent and of Rome) It gives Anglo-Catholicism a bad name. --- Right, he does unpack the Eucharistic teaching there. It's many volumes, very lengthy and detailed, in which he discusses "The" sacraments and proceeds to list only two (a point for another time...). And in his work there is no trace of your theory of propitiatory sacrifice, as formulated in the middle ages and captured in Trent. You're promoting a very specific Tridentine theory, while trying to impose it backward onto the Fathers, and forward onto the Anglicans.
That is so crystal-clear, it goes without saying! We'd sooner mistake you for a Jesuit than a Protestant.
Neither is any true Anglican. We are a Reformed Catholic church, having ditched Romish doctrines which could not be justified by scripture, reason and church history. At least that is what I believe I have been led to believe. .
This may be true but we are also a reformed Protestant church as the spiritual head of the church (A. of Cant.) asks the temporal head of the church (monarch) in the Coronation oath " Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?".
Yes, but we don't look at later councils (such as the one cited from 1672 A.D.) to shed much additional light on what we learn from the early church (let alone call such a council's statement 'binding'). And we do believe that the greater part of the church did get a lot of things wrong, gradually at first but with increasing momentum as the centuries rolled by, whereupon the Anglican church restored much truth and distanced itself from the errors of the Orthodox and Romans.
I am not sure what type of Anglican you are, but in the ACNA we look to the first 4 councils canonically and the last 3 as clarifications to Christology. Therefore we accept the teachings of all 7, just in different applications. This is expressed clearly in the Jerusalem Declaration. As to the issue of the Scriptural challenge, I don't think you must hold this for salvation. But that doesn't mean it is not true or right or salutary. I hold the Assumption of the BVM but I do not think it a dogma.
I'll admit, I have only been in the ACNA for about 2.5 years and a member of this forum for 2 years. But most of the Anglicans here have been in the church for a long time and I've learned quite a bit from them. I think anyone who has a suitable sense of humility and willingness to learn could do the same. Anyone coming into this forum with what seems like a chip on the shoulder from the get-go and an absolute certainty of one's perfect correctness is not likely to get much out of the discussions, though. In the time that I have been a part of Anglicanism, I have never (until now) heard this claim that Anglicans look to "the last 3 [councils]" for anything. Now I am told that it is clearly stated in the Jerusalem Declaration. Well, perhaps you would care to quote the pertinent language from the Jerusalem Declaration https://www.gafcon.org/resources/the-jerusalem-declaration to help me out, because my eyesight must be going bad and I do not see it. Where is it? I'm willing to believe what I'm shown when that showing includes firm evidence, but I need more than someone's bare assertion. So far, the closest pertinent thing my old eyes can spot this evening is point #3: 2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading. 3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. 4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today. Where is this endorsement of the last 3 councils? One of the things I admire about my rector is his ability to gently correct, while hardly seeming to do so. It is a skill to be most valued in a pastoral setting, I think, and one that any person who feels called to full-time ministry might yearn to cultivate. I can only imagine how negative my response would have been on that first sit-down talk we had together if my rector had said, "I don't know what kind of Christian you are, but Christians believe thus-and-such..." I suspect I would have gotten up and walked right out.