"I fought the Church, and the Church won"

[KingsGambit]

Where would a Lutheran go to Church in AD800?

That's rather anachronistic, wouldn't you say?

[Rusty T]

Probably. I guess my point being this: the Lutheran communities have no continuity to the Apostles. They could never be the answer to the question: which is the Church that has prevailed against the Devil since being founded by Christ? They simply did not exist prior to Luther. It is a serious question, as it was the question that I asked when making my journey to the Church. There are other Churches that can make this claim, but the Lutheran communities can not.

Rusty

[Adrift]

Talking about "reading into" a text.

Oh. Hmm... It seems pretty clear to me that Irenaeus is refuting Gnostic claims here, but okay.

He clearly states that the bread is the body of Christ. Doesn't "represent" His body. That the cup is His blood. Not symbolic of His blood. And you see the complete opposite.

Well he doesn't say that its not not symbolic, he simply mirrors Jesus' own statement concerning the cup and bread, which Protestants obviously don't disagree with.

And the second quote? Where he uses the Old Testament prophecy of Malachi and teaches the Eucharist as the fulfillment of this prophecy? The Eucharist as a sacrifice is rejected by many Protestants (most I know of).

Eh, I suppose. I guess when reading it in context, it doesn't seem so black and white to me. It seems to me he sees the metaphorical implications in offering Communion as an oblation, especially when he clarifies that God does not seek sacrifice but faith, obedience and righteousness. The fact that he uses John's metaphor of incense and prayer seems to correlate.

Against Heresies

4. From all these it is evident that God did not seek sacrifices and holocausts from them, but faith, and obedience, and righteousness, because of their salvation. As God, when teaching them His will in Hosea the prophet, said, I desire mercy rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings. Besides, our Lord also exhorted them to the same effect, when He said, But if you had known what [this] means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless. Thus does He bear witness to the prophets, that they preached the truth; but accuses these men (His hearers) of being foolish through their own fault.

5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body., etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent; — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.

6. But what other name is there which is glorified among the Gentiles than that of our Lord, by whom the Father is glorified, and man also? And because it is [the name] of His own Son, who was made man by Him, He calls it His own. Just as a king, if he himself paints a likeness of his son, is right in calling this likeness his own, for both these reasons, because it is [the likeness] of his son, and because it is his own production; so also does the Father confess the name of Jesus Christ, which is throughout all the world glorified in the Church, to be His own, both because it is that of His Son, and because He who thus describes it gave Him for the salvation of men. Since, therefore, the name of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the omnipotent God the Church makes offerings through Jesus Christ, He says well on both these grounds, And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice. Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that the incense is the prayers of the saints.

© source where applicable

But, eh, I don't know.

[Maxentius]

Lutherans do not deny the church status of RCism. We deny that they are "the" Church, and we assert that they corrupted the original teachings of the Apostles. In this we are not alone, q.v. the Eastern Orthodox.

Embed in your question is the assumption that RCism today is the same Church as the Medieval and ancient church. It is precisely the point of the "conservative" reformers that it is the RCC, which we take to begin with the Council of Trent, is the one who lacks continuity with th medieval and ancient church. Of course you disagree, I just wanted to show that continuity with the Church in 800 AD is not really an issue for Lutherans, and I suspect for Calvinists, too. The RCC claims Luther started a new church, but we deny it. Indeed, from my POV, I could ask how you could commune with people in 800 AD who denied papal infallibility.

[Maxentius]

They simply did not exist prior to Luther. It is a serious question, as it was the question that I asked when making my journey to the Church. There are other Churches that can make this claim, but the Lutheran communities can not.

It is not a serious question, it is a rhetorical device with a host of embedded assumptions. All you have done is assert RC claims regarding Lutherans. And as I stated earlier, having read quite a few Fathers, including Irenaeus, I came out more convinced we are right than when I went in--contrary to expectations, BTW.

[Rusty T]

Max, do you only come out to play when I post?

[One Bad Pig]

Max, do you only come out to play when I post?

No, I've tangled with him once or twice.

[Rusty T]

Max and I go way back. I don't know what possessed me to start posting again, but I found it funny that he came out of the dormant state as well.

It seems to me he sees the metaphorical implications in offering Communion as an oblation,

He states plainly that the Eucharist is an oblation - not a "metaphorical implication." And he's hardly alone among early Christians. He says plainly, that in the Eucharist, the Church, makes an offering of Christ, back to God - as it is God who gave us the First Fruit (Jesus). And only the Church can make this offering. Not "metaphorical sacrifice", but he says, "there are sacrifices in the Church." Some say that the Eucharist is, as a memorial, only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. But that is not the sense one sees in Scripture and the Fathers.

I don't know about you, but my Praise and Thanksgiving can never be perfect. My sin and my failures, my distractions and selfishness - they all get in the way of me ever (this side of Heaven) making a pure sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving. The Eucharist is perfect because it is an offering to God of that which is perfect - Christ Himself. In Him, we join ourselves - our praise and thanksgiving - and offer to God the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. We can do this because of the promise of Christ - "This is my body. This is my blood." Short of this reality, the Eucharist would always fall short as a mere metaphorical meal, in memory of the cross. Our praise and thanksgiving, though eagerly and earnestly given, would never in a million years and with a million voices ever equal the perfection of Christ crucified. The Eucharist is the fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy precisely because it is Christ Himself we offer, or rather Christ Himself through His Church is offered to the Father continually. As it is in Heaven.

Rusty

[RBerman]

He states plainly that the Eucharist is an oblation - not a "metaphorical implication." And he's hardly alone among early Christians. He says plainly, that in the Eucharist, the Church, makes an offering of Christ, back to God - as it is God who gave us the First Fruit (Jesus). And only the Church can make this offering. Not "metaphorical sacrifice", but he says, "there are sacrifices in the Church." Some say that the Eucharist is, as a memorial, only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. But that is not the sense one sees in Scripture and the Fathers.

So what would you say to the Roman Catholics who say that the Eucharist is not an offering of Jesus, since Jesus was only sacrificed once?

[Rusty T]

So what would you say to the Roman Catholics who say that the Eucharist is not an offering of Jesus, since Jesus was only sacrificed once?

Firstly, I'm not Roman Catholic. I'm Catholic. I suppose if I lived in Rome I could be a Roman Catholic. Secondly, no Catholic who understands their faith would say that the Eucharist is not an offering of Jesus. They would say that Jesus is not re-crucified. That the Eucharist is the one and eternal sacrifice of Christ.

1330 The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

This is the Catholic teaching.

God bless,

Rusty

[Rdr. Arsenios]

He states plainly that the Eucharist is an oblation - not a "metaphorical implication." And he's hardly alone among early Christians. He says plainly, that in the Eucharist, the Church, makes an offering of Christ, back to God - as it is God who gave us the First Fruit (Jesus). And only the Church can make this offering. Not "metaphorical sacrifice", but he says, "there are sacrifices in the Church." Some say that the Eucharist is, as a memorial, only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. But that is not the sense one sees in Scripture and the Fathers.

In Him, we join ourselves - our praise and thanksgiving - and offer to God the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. We can do this because of the promise of Christ - "This is my body. This is my blood."
Rusty

"Take... Eat...
This My Body IS...
Broken for you, for the remission of sins..."

"Drink of this all of you...
This my Blood IS of the New Covenant,
Which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins..."

"Having in remembrance therefore this saving commandment
And all those things which have come to pass for us...
The Cross
The Grave
The Third Day Resurrection
The Ascension into Heaven
The Sitting at the Right Hand
And the Second and Glorious Coming..."

"Thine Own of Thine Own...
We offer unto Thee...
In behalf of all...
And for all."

These are the prayers just prior to the consecration of the Lamb...
Christ is the Eternal Pascha, sacrificed once for all...
His sacrifice is Eternal...
Our remembrance of it is obedience to His commandment: "Be ye doing this..."
He was recognized on the road to Emmaus by the Disciples "in the breaking of the bread"...
And this because He broke it as He had taught them to break it...
He did not just grab a loaf and rip off hunks as we all do at the dinner table...
His teaching at the last supper was very specific...
And instituted the Mystery [Sacrament] of the Communion of the Body and Blood of the New Covenant...

You are of course right, Rusty... Irenaeus confirms... Just as we were in olden times to give of the first fruits of our harvest - eg the very BEST of it - as a sacrifice to Him Who gave to us the entire harvest - And this a Type whose fulfillment is Christ - So now, within the Body of Christ Who is Her Head, we OFFER the Holy Oblation to God which we have received, and of which we partake, giving Thine Own, which is OF Thine Own, to THEE... For Christ is Himself the First Fruits of the Dead... And God of God... And we do this on behalf of all, and for all...

What we do does not re-sacrifice the Lamb...
It re-members His sacrifice for us...
And receives it for us...
And offers it to God for us all...
And partakes of it for our Food and Drink...
That we have Life in us...

Only Christ within His Holy Body...
Can Consecrate His Own Body...
Can change the bread and wine
Into His Very Body and Blood...
Man cannot do this,
Which is why Christ did...
And still is doing...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

No, I've tangled with him once or twice.

Be nice to Max - He is a family man now, with kids and a wife and all the self-sacrifice that this entails... He is a staunch Lutheran and deserves our prayers, even when he gets short with us - you would be short too if you had all his responsibilities - Just for lack of time...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

So what would you say to the Roman Catholics who say that the Eucharist is not an offering of Jesus, since Jesus was only sacrificed once?

See post 26 in this thread...

A.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Lutherans do not deny the church status of RCism. We deny that they are "the" Church, and we assert that they corrupted the original teachings of the Apostles. In this we are not alone, q.v. the Eastern Orthodox.

Max, God Bless you! I pray all is well with you and yours, and I trust that you are discovering the joy of self sacrifice for wife and family...

I would but add to this that you have no friend in your opposition to the Latins in the Eastern Orthodox Communion, for we are much closer to the Latins than to Luther and his children... And this because Luther's children, the Reformation, are not an Apostolic Church, and do not carry the Grace of one... Rome IS an Apostolic Church, however prodigal She may be in our Orthodox eyes, so that we regard her as our prodigal sister... Luther, as you know, is one of her illegitimate offspring... eg A self-birther via conscience...

So that because your objections to Latin Rome are pretty much the same objections you have to the Greek Rome, and because the Lutherans have already tried to reform Constantinople in an effort to support their opposition to Latin Rome, and failed, perhaps it is a tad disingenuous to invoke the EOC's disagreement with Rome in your efforts to prove Rome wrong...

But God bless you, my friend...

May your little ones not get that whooping cough that is getting passed around...

Arsenios

[Maxentius]

Max, God Bless you! I pray all is well with you and yours, and I trust that you are discovering the joy of self sacrifice for wife and family...

Everyone is fine, here. Thanks!

I would but add to this that you have no friend in your opposition to the Latins in the Eastern Orthodox Communion, for we are much closer to the Latins than to Luther and his children...

I was not looking for a friend, just pointing out that claims the RCC corrupted the Apostolic faith did not originate with the Reformation. There are a lot of facile arguments going around, which in turn are based on hidden or, worse, unexamined assumptions. This is why everyone talks past one another so often. Ig does an RC (or, I might add, EO) no good to simply assume his is the real Church (tm) and then basically wonder why everyone does not simply accept his propositions based upon that. By the same token, it does a protestant (and I do not speak in a confessional sense) no good to simply point out his church's interpretation of Scripture and wonder why the RC doesn't agree with him.

Beyond the facile srguments, there is a reluctance by the RCs to even take counter points seriously: for example, having read the Fathers, as a whole they are not really RC, EO or Lutheran. Typically they are thrown around as "the Fathers say..." when in fact the Fathers said a lot of things which are difficult for RCs (and EOs) to deal with. When what the Fathers say is actually discussed, they are simply re-written to comform to RC theology no matter what they say.

So, that is why I do not participate as much.