There is no difference in that regard between the Jewish understanding and what we know of the pagan understanding. The three essential parts of sacrifice can be derived from the biblical accounts themselves. It was not an invention of the 5th century. Come on, @Stalwart, you know this.
To a Jew of a 3rd century AD (or 21st century AD for that matter), the atoning sacrifice no longer existed. The messianic Jew would say that it ceased in 33 AD with the resurrection of the Messiah, and the non-messianic Jew would say that it ceased in 70 AD with the destruction of The Temple, but it makes no difference to the argument that after the 1st century AD, it was no longer a part of the Jewish worldview, whether for the talmudic Jews, or the messianic Jews (christians). To then re-insert propitiation, into the institutions they established, is corruption. And it goes against the very clear texts, entire books and sections of the New Testament which repeatedly argue why human propitiation is no longer necessary, and isn't even perfect for that matter. Human propitiation is simply flawed and pointless, and it would be anti-Christian to say that we still need to have a ceremony of propitiation in the 21st century (whatever the sophisms may be presented). Anyway I believe I've made as good of a case as I could, so I'll bow out from further discussions, since it's not on-thread anyway.
Duly noted, thank you. I still don’t see how that conflicts with what I’ve said, so I’m bowing out at this point as well.
Do you have any proof for the western church not accepting the East on images? I saw your other post about it and people said they only rejected the council because it was mistakenly understood. Any books or something you can link me to? I’m pretty sure you’re right I just want to see it for myself. And yes, it seems like the corruption seeped in during the 6th century. I’ve heard the so called desert fathers had a lot to do with this. The monastics had a great deal to do with the pushing of Mary and image worship. It seems they were Nestorian for a good period of time. I honestly think the RC and EO are affecting my perception of history. You see Jerome writing in against vigilantius and being pro martyr veneration. Vigilantius was against keeping vigils for the relics of the martyrs, digging them out of their graves to be carried in processions and be kissed, asking the martyrs for intercession, lighting candles to their relics. All things I’m pretty against too. But since the writings of vigilantius never survived, and all we have is Jerome, and Jerome reflects a seed form of what is taking place today, the “winners” get to tell history. We don’t know exactly how much dissent there was against all of these new developments. It’s just so sad to learn that already by the 6th century the church became arrogant and refused to correct her errors. It’s impossible for people that aren’t even Christian and are steeped in empire politics to be lead by the Holy Spirit in guiding the church infallibly as the Romans and easterners claim. It’s just really hard to defend from a Protestant perspective. We are an innovation. The fact that the reformation lead to 500 sects of Christianity which multiply every year doesn’t help. The East and Romans present a view of history that is distorted because to them, heresies kind of stopped appearing after the condemning of Gnosticism and arians and Nestorians. The only heresy to them after that was “iconoclasm.” There we’re plenty of people against mary worship and they just called them antidicomariantes. They weren’t anti Mary but were labeled so by Mary worshippers. And there is no writings of theirs preserved, just like no writings of vigilantius. I wonder why…. The RC and EO view is flawed, because the church has never stopped combatting heresy. Aside from Papism, which splits both the EO and RC int be current day, the church was in heresy during times of image and saint worship. We just don’t see any strong disagreement to any of this because most of the church leaders were corrupt. You don’t see a single western pope or priest come out decrying Mary worship in the 7th or 8th century. Yet I can’t believe everyone was worshipping Mary or else the church would have been totally lost. It’s just hard to defend Protestantism like i said. It’s hard to look people straight in the face and tell them most of the church basically apostatized and taught erroneous and at times idolatrous doctrines. But the scriptures do say the path to heaven is narrow and the gate to hell wide. The influx of pagans was done in order to “Christianize” them, and they thought they could eventually purify the church. It’s the same thing happening in current day Mexico. The Romans pat themselevs on the back for “ending” paganism, until you realize that Mexicans just replaced their idol shrines with Mary shrines. What difference does it make?
That’s not an Anglican problem,.. it’s a protestant problem, for which reason many Anglicans don’t fully identify with the label of protestant Namely, we have nothing in common with the likes of Joel osteen, and are not responsible for what he or the mega churches do and think.. Steven Furtick and Anglicans are not both ‘protestant,’ they keep breaking into pieces while we having our internal tensions keep plugging along… we struggle to identify with the people that don’t have an apostolic form of church government that holds them together as one body, and prevents them from constant crumbling
This is the same argument Roman Catholics use for indulgences, purgatory, assumption of mary, immaculate conception, sinlessness of mary. “Well the church fathers never said anything against indulgences!” Because they didn’t exist….. I can provide you with more proof they never thought of such a thing pre mid 4th century if you want, I’ve read great book on those first 3 centuries and the Eucharist. The point is if they describe the Eucharist and never mention “propitiatory atonement” is because it didn’t exist to them. It’s like asking them to mention computers don’t exist during their time. What you would have to do is prove the positive, that they did believe in a propitiatory Eucharist atonement. And it’s impossible to do that, because they didn’t. I would honestly ask you to read the Bible and ask yourself anywhere Jesus Christ instituted the lords supper to be an Atoning sacrifice. What Paul said in corinthians has nothing to do with an atoning sacrifice. The Eucharist is the memorial sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ shown forth by the power of the holy spirit, it can be sacrifice and altar without you offering it back to God. This is seriously insulting to God, in my opinion, it is no light matter. You are saying human priests dare offer the Lord Jesus Christ to the Father, and dare take his place as ministering priests, when Christ is our one and only priest. I very very much doubt God is pleased with any of this. It’s an insult to him, and thoroughly presumptuous to assume mere human beings can offer Christ to God without any warrant in scripture.
No offense, but the Anglican churches have several sects too. Like the Anglican province of America, Anglican Catholic Church, episcopal church. The episcopal church especially is an embarrassment because it accepts homosexual marriages. Again, no offense. But to say Anglicanism isn’t split is just ignoring the reality… I have an Anglican Church near me that is associated with some sort of oratory movement, and they have like 10 churches all over the country in total. I have tons of “accepting” episcopal churches. I have 2 ACNA churches and 2 Anglican province churches. One Anglican Catholic Church a few hours away. This is not unity. I do think the Anglican Church is the best of Protestantism, but it is not United as it should be, by any means. You even have so called Anglo Catholics that don’t hold to the 39 articles and think it’s ok to believe in things they explicitly condemn, like saint invocation, purgatory, etc. Until the Anglican Church demands conformity to the 39 articles and breaks communion with all unorthodoxy, it will never be United. People need to be taught they don’t know better than the church. But you can’t do that when the church itself seems to be confused…
well, by that standard Rome has about 54 different denominations which aren’t in communion with each other (eg the Polish National Catholic Church and others), and the Eastern churches have about a hundred different jurisdictions some of which are in communion with some but not others we aren’t looking for perfection this side of heaven, all we’re looking for are the trends and the historical data.. Sure Anglicans have their rifts as would others, but they for some reason merge and erase those rifts as well, whereas protestants have no mechanism for erasing rifts; it only gets worse, while we have has numerous examples where what were previously more Anglican denominations, over time become one big one For example the Anglican Continuing churches were 4 before and are now in communion moving toward becoming a single one; in ACNA what were previously half a dozen churches, during 2008-2020 have become one.. that is remarkable, a truly significant achievement in our divisive polarized world
I think the difference is Romans and EOs have their congregations believing most of the same things. All Roman Catholics believe in praying to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc. Ask an Anglican if he thinks it’s ok to invoke Saints and you will get different answers despite what the 39 articles say. But yes, if it’s how you say then that’s great progress. But from the outside it doesn’t look too good. Is TEC in communion with acna? That is terrible in my opinion. I hesitate to become member of a church that is in communion with a church that condones sin. Also getting churches to unite in name does nothing if people don’t adhere to a common set of beliefs. Anglicans are Protestants, and Protestants are way too liberal in their church view. Romans and EO almost worship the church. If the church says to hop on one foot they will hop on one foot. Whereas Protestants think they can do whatever they want, and this includes anglicans. So really, what it would take to achieve unity is people changing their erroneous views about church authority which is never going to happen unless the church puts its foot down and decides what in the world it’s going to believe.
“All Roman Catholics believe in praying to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc.” Have you seen Fr James Martin promoting gay marriage? pope francis promoting a dozen things against the previous pope? I have not seen any unity in Rome, only in their wishful words and fantasies of what their church was really like… “Is TEC in communion with acna?” No, never!! This is one of our strengths, that while we coalesce around doctrine we also sever bonds over heresy, and thus ACNA will never be in communion with the episcopal church, nor will any of us her loyal sons ask her to be “Protestants think they can do whatever they want, and this includes anglicans.” All the doctrines that the Continuing Anglican churches fought for, they all believe, and if someone steps out of line they will be pushed out pretty quickly… same goes for ACNA, all doctrines that underpin our recent struggles, you will not be able to violate.. I am reminded of some Anglican postulant who recently decided to post a letter promoting LGBT identity, well his bishop demanded that he take the letter down, and the next day he was no longer a postulant either
I’m not interested in the slightest what the Fathers in the first three, four, or five centuries - or prior to any other arbitrary cutoff date - said or didn’t say about the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The question was specifically about the Eastern Orthodox. I used to be Eastern Orthodox. I patiently explained what the basis of the teaching is said to be, borrowing language and examples from well known Anglican authors, and acknowledged that some Anglicans have revisited the matter over the last two centuries and found the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions to be persuasive. And then, everybody lost their minds and forgot how to read thoughtfully, and started jumping to completely unwarranted conclusions, such as: Ok, this is just beyond the pale. I said no such thing. And yes, at least some of the early Fathers did testify to the propitiatory nature of the Eucharist, before the fifth century. Here is a quotation from the 23rd Catechetical Lecture of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Was St. Cyril of Jerusalem “insulting God”? Do you think he just made it up, or was being “presumptuous”? Are you willing to condemn the entirety of the world’s 2nd largest body of Christians over a subject you’re still struggling to understand yourself?
So then why are continuing churches split from acna ? And yes, I’m aware the Romans are inflected with liberalism. Pretty much post Vatican 2 hippies have taken over the church. It’s just from an outsiders perspective, again, I see a lot of people that don’t adhere to the articles. It just makes no sense. It’s like catholics that don’t believe in the pope. So I’m glad to know that at least acna is not in communion with TEC that makes me feel much better. But doesn’t acna ordain women? I’m very against women being priests or deacons or whatever else. I have yet to see a Roman church allow this. You see, Rome may be taken over by liberals, and fr so and so can promote homosexuality, but the day they change doctrine on women’s ordination is they day Rome falls for good. They have dogmatized themselves into a corner. So while im glad the Anglican Church is better off than I thought, it still has a long way to go. I’ve yet to go to one, but I’ve been watching the services for churches near me. Sad to see female “deacons.” Im scared to walk in a church and see a female priest lol. For all the errors of Romanism, that will never happen in a Roman church. That will also never happen in a baptist church which I happen to be a member of. So I think once I do make the transition to the Anglican Church I will need to in some way combat the unorthodoxy in the church. All I can do now is pray. Pray for the Anglican Church and maybe even for the romans as well. They seem to stray farther from God every day…
I condemn no one. Scripture does. Again, there is no proof for what you have said about Jesus continually offering atonement to God for sins. If you can find me where it says that, I’ll be glad to change my opinion and admit I am wrong. I don’t see how “condemning” the EO is any different in saying the Roman pope is insulting God because he dares claim power over all the churches and infallibility, when it was never given to him in the first place. If I had anything to “condemn” the EO about it’d be over their image “veneration” and Mary “veneration.” So I don’t really care if three fourths of Christendom is committing idolatry or whatever else, I will call it for what it is. I already know what Cyril said and yes, I disagree. I never said he made it up, it’s a development over time. He’s the only one that I know personally that says the Eucharist is propitiatory. Do we know if this is the view held by the majority of the church? I think not. Does it have any proof from scripture which clearly says Christ offered himself once? No. If you read the second link I provided it clearly shows it’s a development over time. You can say you don’t want to see proof it’s a development, ok. But this is the same thing that happened with image and saint “veneration.” Now just because chrysostom or so and so from the 4th century is ok with patron Saints I’m supposed to be ok with it? I meant no insult in what I said to you. But it is absolutely an out there belief to think that a mere human being dare offer Christ to propitiate God. Jesus never told us to do this, neither did the apostles. The letter to the Hebrews was the perfect time to insert that and they never did. So you’re left with a tradition which has no warrant in the teaching of the apostles. I personally happen to think it’s insulting to say that Jesus is 24/7 atoning for sins because it denies that the atonement was offered once and is completed, something the scriptures cry out. To fall back and say “it’s a mystery!” does nothing. I struggle to understand it because it makes no sense. Memorial sacrifices to Jews were not propitiatory. They communicated the effects of the sacrificial victim, but they were not propitiatory. And this isn’t me being insane trying to insult you or the EO. The very church you go to says the same thing. That is , if you adhere to the 39 articles: XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross. The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits This is a sentiment among pretty much all Protestants, so I’m not out of the norm for believing if. Also I don’t see where you sited any anglicans saying what EOs believe is ok… Individual opinions shouldn’t be an argument anyways. I think the consensus is the articles teach the Roman and EO doctrines are wrong.
The Passover was not a propitiatory sacrifice. Exo 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. Exo 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. Exo 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Nowhere in the Exodus account does it say that the lamb's blood placed around the doorways was being shed or placed as a propitiation for the sins of the Israelites. It was shed and placed around the doors as a "token" or sign that the people were under God's protection from the 'plague of the firstborn sons.' Then there's the fact that the Passover meal did not include drinking the lamb's blood. The meal was instituted, not as propitiation or as a sacrifice, but as a memorial (v. 14) of their deliverance from the death plague. The killing of the lamb and shedding of it's blood was, however, a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of the Messiah. The eating of unleavened bread with roasted lamb and bitter herbs was a prophetic foretelling of the Messiah's coming, for He was the sinless "lamb of God" (leaven a/k/a/ yeast represents sin) whose suffering and crucifixion was a bitter, horrific way to die. Before the meal the unleavened bread is broken in two and one-half is wrapped in linen and 'hidden,' then near the end of the meal it is 'found' (with fanfare) and brought forth; similarly, Jesus' body was wrapped in linen and placed in the tomb, only to come forth on the 3rd day. Thus the Passover meal was a type, not of a different meal, but of the Person of Christ in His earthly life, death, and resurrection. The blood of Jesus is placed by God Himself on the 'doorway' of the Christian's spirit (the inner man) by grace, through faith. The Last Supper was the occasion when Jesus took the Passover meal, a memorial of God's deliverance of Israel from the plague of the firstborn, and changed it's meaning and purpose. It's new meaning and purpose is a memorial (Do this in memory of Me) of God's deliverance of disciples from the guilt of sin (by the then-imminent death of Jesus). Although the shed blood of Jesus was propitiatory, the blood of many lambs shed in Egypt was in no way propitiatory; it was signatory. There is no reason why a type must be equal to the antitype in terms of the type's effectualness or other characteristics. For example, the manna in the desert was a type of Jesus, but whereas the antitype could (by faith in Him) nourish one unto eternal life, the type could only nourish the body. (And the bread and wine likewise nourish the body, but the Lord and Savior whom we have accepted by faith nourishes us for eternity.)
I never said Passover was a propitiatory sacrifice. However, something can be both a memorial and a sacrifice; the two are not mutually exclusive.
LOL. I am interested. I just don't necessarily take what they said as "gospel." So I guess we agree, somewhat!
You're right. I recalled (in part) your earlier statement, "the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice on behalf of the living and the dead..." but by the time I began writing my post I'd forgotten the rest of your sentence: "...in Eastern Orthodoxy." But some later posters did seem to accept the notion of Passover being propitiatory, so I still think it was good to address the issue.
I suppose. I meant that, with regard to the purpose of answering the question I was asked, i.e., what is the basis for the teaching and practice (of Eucharistic Sacrifice). If the basis only becomes clear only in 4th century teaching, then I have to cite 4th century teaching. To try to read a 4th century concept back into the 2nd or 3rd century would be irresponsible and perhaps even dishonest as well. But whether it became clear in the 1st century or 4th century or 12th century makes little difference to its intrinsic plausibility; I was only explaining the arguments for it and giving examples that stated the matter clearly. Now if we're talking about extrinsic plausibility, i.e., what the earliest Christians actually believed on the subject, scholarly opinions vary. Some dependence on specialized scholarship here is necessary since not all the primary sources are created equal. Kelly, for example, in addition to citing Cyril of Jerusalem, also cites John Chrysostom: And Gregory Nazianzen: Now, sources from this same era (St. Basil, for example) do say that Christians did not discuss these things publicly before Christianity was tolerated by the Empire. If true, that might explain why we don't find much on the subject until then. On the other hand, St. Cyprian (whom Kelly also cites), writing in the 3rd century, also makes some statements on the subject that are interesting, and give the impression that not only is the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice not limited to the East prior to the 5th century, but also that the teaching may be earlier than the 4th century, assuming this particular text of Cyprian hasn't been tampered with: All I know is that understanding the Eucharist as a sacrifice goes back to a fairly early period (I consider the 3rd-4th centuries to be "early enough" for these purposes), and in any case has been the continuous understanding for most of the subsequent history of Christendom. Whether it's literally true or not doesn't interest me that much. It is a time-honored historic expression of the Church's faith and I personally have no desire to jettison it just to satisfy puritanical scruples. (Personally however, with regard to the Eucharistic presence, I lean more toward memorialism as the most plausible reading of the Institution narratives.) In any event, ultimately I am a Christian, not a "Biblean".
The discussion of the Episcopal Church has been moved here: https://forums.anglican.net/threads/discussion-of-the-episcopal-church.4436/
Nobody is denying it’s a sacrifice, I deny it is an atoning sacrifice. If you mean propitiation, there are 2 steps. First, appeasing divine justice. Second, reconciliation. I don’t mind saying the Eucharist is the memorial sacrifice of Christ, so it helps sanctify and reconcile us to God. So to say, God look upon this sacrifice in propitiation is fine, if you mean to reconcile with him (since reconciliation is a life long process), not to continually offer atonement. The atonement theory needs a physical presence of the Eucharist, and many church fathers did not believe in a physical presence like transubstantiation. So any offering of the body and blood really cannot be to them an atonement. If you accept this atonement theory then you should accept praying to Saints too, because in the same book schaff talks a lot about saint invocation in Gregory’s orations, Ambrose and Jerome are also mentioned as being staunch supporters of invoking martyrs. You have to admit the church was being plagued with weird ideas by this time already. I don’t really care what Augustine or Jerome personally believed, what I care about is what the apostles taught. And they never once mention propitiation in correlation to anything but the cross. To make our atonement dependent on the Eucharist celebration is to go backwards into the Jewish sacrifices. We become dependent on priests at that point to officiate the sacrifice and make atonement for our sins. Instead, the scriptures always say the atonement of Christ is completed and he has sat down, and does not minister as a priest offering sacrifice any longer. The only one es recorded saying the Eucharist is propitiatory are Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the great (I think) and Origen. So not much there. And the sort of “mystical” immolation can be easily inferred from the separation of the body and blood. I have no issue with this. Especially if we use the term anti type, like used in Hebrews, where in heaven there resides the greater fulfillment of earthly things, so Christ is in heaven physically, but the the power of the Holy Spirit his body and blood and communicated to us. The early fathers also made a distinction between the bread and the body. Theodore, for example, says to confuse the bread with the body is Monophysitism. So you see to a lot of them the bread was sort of the vehicle for grace and joined itself to it, so in a real sense it was the body of Christ. taking all this into account, I don’t see where many of them believed it was a sacrifice that atoned for sin every time it’s carried out. This is what the Romans believe, so I assume the EOs believe the same thing. Sure, it’s “the same” as the cross, and yet each time you offer it, it atones for sin? It’s illogical, and i can’t accept it. As much as you say it’s the same sacrifice, if every time you carry out the rite it atones for sin, then it Means the previous mass didn’t atone for sin fully, and so on and so forth. And the best way to see it is it is an application of the already fulfilled atonement. So that sin has been nailed to the cross, and yet when entreating God with the anti types of the sacrifice, we may receive remission for sins since we are offering a memorial. And remission doesn’t mean atonement. And this is basically what schaff says too. So yes, I still disagree, and I still think it’s very wrong to believe that a human priest can take over the offering of Christ to atone for sins. It’s only as a way to represent the offering and I’m asking for the remission of sins that id agree. The view of Gregory on the sacerdotal priesthood i clearly disagree with. We know as a fact the apostles never acted as a priestly class. I think these doctrines of the Eucharist really depart from the original meaning. Paul said Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us, so let us keep the feast in direct correlation to the lords supper. So clearly Paul, a Jew, thought the lords supper was the new Passover for Christians. And the Passover was not a sacrifice which atoned for sins, it was a memorial sacrifice and a peace offering. Cyprian said that Jesus did not offer his sacrifice during the lords supper, because he hadn’t been killed yet. So if Jesus didn’t offer his body and blood as atonement that day, then how could the apostles go and do that, when Jesus told them to do what he had just done in remembrance of him? So what is it Christ himself offered? Thanksgiving… When you read the Jewish prayers for Passover it is all about thanksgiving. This is precisely what you see in the didache. No mention of an atoning sacrifice. So while it may have been a “reasonable” development I don’t believe it’s a proper one. It’s overly convoluted too. And No, it’s not ok to think the atonement of Jesus needs to be continually offered by priests. No matter how old the idea is. It reverts back to a sacrificial priesthood, when Christ is our only high priest. The idea is not apparent at all in the 3rd century, schaff attests to this. Finally, when you keep in mind that Jesus intercedes for the remission of our sins on the basis of the already completed atonement, then it makes sense to ask for the remission of sins while you are handling the anti types of his body and blood on earth. You may think it’s hair splitting but it’s really not. Sacrifice doesn’t always need to atone for sin. Propitiation can be entreated on the basis of a finished atonement and not a continuous one as the EO and RC believe. It is a fundamentally different understanding of the plan of God for humanity’s redemption. One side believes the atonement for sin is completed, and the other relies on priests to continually offer and re atone the “one” sacrifice for sins.