Follow

With this post, we conclude our series on the creative but unconscionable rewriting of the early liturgies to make them conform to the late-4th century novelty in which Christ is said to be offered to the Father in the Eucharist. From the earliest days of the Church, the Eucharist was a sacrifice of thanks and praise to the Lord, a tithe offering. It was followed by an “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) and then bread and wine from the thank offering were taken and consecrated for the Lord’s Supper. The moment of Consecration originated as a simple recitation of Christ’s words of institution: “This is My body, broken. … This is My blood, shed…”. It later came to be called “the Epiclesis,” literally, the Invocation, the liturgical moment when God—the Spirit, the Son or the Trinity—is asked to make the bread and wine into a spiritual meal for His people. And thus, a very simple liturgy prevailed for three hundred years: A Eucharist. An Amen. An Epiclesis. At the end of the 4th century, the order changed and the Epiclesis was moved before the Eucharist offering, which changed a simple tithe offering for the poor into a sacrifice of consecrated bread and wine. Thus was born the abominable Roman Catholic liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. That discontinuity in the history of the liturgy puzzled and confounded scholars, historians, translators and apologists who could not explain why the early liturgy was so fundamentally different from the medieval one. Attempting to establish retroactive continuity, the academic community therefore engaged in a reprehensible campaign to edit, redact, mistranslate and subvert the early liturgies to “correct” the ancient writers and force them into conformity with the late 4th-century novelty. The effect of the historical revision has been to make the ancient Eucharist consecratory, essentially collapsing the ancient Eucharist into the Epiclesis, and thus creating the appearance that the ancient Eucharist offering of the early church was itself the Consecration.

Continue reading The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 5 →

Follow

Follow

As we have noted in this series, from the earliest days of the Church through the end of the 4th century, the Eucharist was a thank offering to the Lord, a tithe, an expression of gratitude for the Lord’s provisions to His people. It was followed by an “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) and then bread and wine were taken from the tithe offering to be consecrated for the Lord’s Supper. That Consecration came to be called “the Epiclesis,” or invocation. And thus, a very simple liturgy prevailed for three hundred years: A Eucharist. An Amen. An Epiclesis. But by the end of the 4th century, the order was changed and the Epiclesis was moved before the Eucharist, turning a simple tithe offering into a sacrifice of consecrated bread and wine. Thus was born the abominable Roman Catholic liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, an offering utterly foreign to the Scriptures and the Apostolic Church. That sudden 4th-century shift in the liturgy puzzled and confounded scholars, historians, translators and apologists who could not explain why the early liturgy was so different from the medieval one. So the rewriting of history began, and the academic community participated in a painstaking campaign to establish retroactive continuity. Early liturgies were translated, edited, reinterpreted, mistranslated and even rewritten to “correct” the ancient writers and force them into conformity with the late 4th-century novelty. The effect has been to give the appearance that the ancient Eucharist offering was itself the Consecration, essentially collapsing the Eucharist into the Epiclesis.

Follow

Follow

As we have noted in this series, for three centuries, the Eucharist—which is to say, the thanksgiving or the tithe offering—was followed by an “Amen” in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:16, at which point bread and wine were taken from the thank offering and consecrated for the Lord’s Supper. A Eucharist. An Amen. An Epiclesis. But that order changed at the end of the 4th century, and the Eucharist was moved after the Epiclesis so that consecrated bread and wine began to be offered as a liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. As a result, the “Amen,” instead of a corporate affirmation of gratitude to God, became an affirmation of the Consecration. The academic community could find no explanation for the shift, and so through creative editing, translation and redaction of the ancient evidence, revised the early liturgies to conform to the later novelty. That editorial revision of history created the false impression that the medieval Roman Catholic liturgical sacrifice of consecrated bread and wine had been handed down from the Apostles.

The mode of the revision was to collapse the early Eucharist into the early Epiclesis, essentially combining two distinct, ancient liturgical events into one. The effect has been to hide the evidence and give the impression that the ancient Eucharistic prayer was actually the Consecration, suggesting that the ancient tithe offering was really a liturgical sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. It was not.

Follow

Follow

We continue now with our series on the liturgical shift that occurred in the latter part of the 4th century, three hundred years after the Apostles. For three centuries, the Eucharist—which is to say, the tithe offering—was followed by an “Amen” in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:16, at which point bread and wine were taken from the tithe offering and consecrated for the Lord’s Supper. A Eucharist. An Amen. An Epiclesis. What was offered in the Eucharist was simply the unconsecrated first-fruits of the harvest and the grateful prayers of the saints. What was consumed in the Lord’s Supper was consecrated bread and wine. Unconsecrated food was offered as a tithe as a fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 and consecrated food was consumed as a memorial meal, in accordance with the instruction of Christ at His Last Supper. The Apostolic “Amen” separated those two liturgical events. But that order changed at the end of the 4th century, and the Eucharist was moved after the Epiclesis so that consecrated bread and wine began to be offered as a liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. The academic community—men of every stripe—were puzzled and confounded by that sudden shift, and instead of acknowledging and discerning its significance, opted instead to bury it. The early liturgies have for centuries been handled in such a way—through editorializing, mistranslation, redaction and suppression—as to collapse the Eucharist into the Epiclesis, essentially combining two distinct liturgical events into one. The effect has been to hide the evidence and give the impression that the ancient Eucharistic prayer was actually the Consecration, suggesting that the ancient tithe offering was really a liturgical sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. It was not.

Continue reading The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 2 →

Follow

Follow

In our previous post, we observed that the Pauline liturgy placed an “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) between the thanksgiving (the Eucharist) and the Consecration (sometimes called the Epiclesis), and that the Scriptures and the ancient liturgies consistently place the Eucharist prior to the Consecration. We also showed that the Eucharist in the early Church consisted of the grateful prayers and the tithe offerings of the Church. These were offered during the Sunday liturgy in imitation of Christ Who gave thanks to His Father at the Last Supper. Those prayers and tithes were understood by the early writers to be the fulfillment of the “incense” and the “pure offering” prophesied by the prophet Malachi (1:11). Only Christians in good standing could participate in that tithe offering, for only in Christ could one bring “the tithes into the storehouse” (Malachi 3:10) with a pure heart and a clear conscience. The unbeliever, the catechumen and the backslider were therefore dismissed from the service at the time of the offertory. The original Sacrifice of Dismissal (oblationem missa) or what eventually came to be known as the Sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, was simply a reference to the tithe offering that occurred immediately after the Dismissal. It did not refer to an offering of consecrated bread and wine.

Continue reading The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 1 →

Follow

Follow

Ironically, one of the most profoundly divisive practices in the history of Christianity is the Lord’s Supper. It separates denominations, one from another, and divides denominations from within. Protestants and Catholics certainly celebrate it differently, Roman Catholics understanding the Supper to be a sacrificial offering of Christ’s body and blood, and Protestants generally, though not universally, understanding it to be a memorial meal rather than a sacrifice. Within the broader classification of Protestants, there are divisions. Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists and Presbyterians all celebrate it differently, some weekly, others monthly or quarterly. Yet even within denominations there are differences of opinion. Anglicans, for example, historically have been divided on whether the Lord’s Supper, or “the Eucharist”, is a sacrifice or a commemoration.

Follow

Follow

One of the more curious implications of the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass is that Jesus actually did not offer Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Instead, they say, He offered Himself as a sacrifice at the Last Supper. For example, Roman Catholic apologist Art Sippo at the Catholic Legate, explains:

“The Last Supper was the real sacrificial offering of Christ for sin and it certainly was unbloody. Without the Last Supper I defy you to find any reference to the Body and Blood of Christ being offered as a sacrifice for sin in the entire of the Passion Narratives. Christ did not offer his body and blood to God during the passion.” (Catholic Legate, Q&A on the Sacraments)

As we showed in week 8 of our series, Their Praise was their Sacrifice, this concept of the Last Supper as a sacrifice came late in time, and actually originated in the latter part of the 4th century when Gregory of Nyssa was trying to calculate the three days between Jesus’ death and his resurrection. In his 382 A.D. oration, On the Space of Three Days between the Death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Gregory of Nyssa got creative in his analysis of Matthew 12:40, which says that “the Son of man” must “be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” By Gregory’s reckoning, he could only account for two.
Continue reading Melito’s Sacrifice →

Follow

Follow

This week we conclude our series on The Sacrifice Challenge. Continue reading Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 8) →

Follow

Follow

We continue this week with our analysis of Malachi 1:11 as understood by the Early Church. This series is a response to The Sacrifice Challenge, a challenge issued by Roman Catholic apologists who believe that the only possible fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 is Roman Catholicism’s sacrifice of the Mass. The Early Church, however, saw the sacrifice and incense of Malachi 1:11 to be “simple prayer from a pure conscience,” not a sacrifice of bread and wine. Continue reading Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 7) →

Follow

Follow

We continue this week with our analysis of Malachi 1:11 as understood by the Early Church. This series is a response to The Sacrifice Challenge, a challenge issued by Roman Catholic apologists who believe that the only possible fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 is Roman Catholicism’s sacrifice of the Mass. The Early Church, however, saw the sacrifice and incense of Malachi 1:11 to be “simple prayer from a pure conscience,” not a sacrifice of bread and wine. Continue reading Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 6) →

Follow

Follow

We continue this week with our analysis of Malachi 1:11 as understood by the Early Church. This series is a response to The Sacrifice Challenge, a challenge issued by Roman Catholic apologists who believe that the only possible fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 is Roman Catholicism’s sacrifice of the Mass. The Early Church, however, saw the sacrifice and incense of Malachi 1:11 to be “simple prayer from a pure conscience,” not a sacrifice of bread and wine. Continue reading Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 5) →

Follow

Follow

We continue this week with our analysis of Malachi 1:11 as understood by the Early Church. This series is a response to The Sacrifice Challenge, a challenge issued by Roman Catholic apologists who believe that the only possible fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 is Roman Catholicism’s sacrifice of the Mass. The Early Church, however, saw the sacrifice and incense of Malachi 1:11 to be “simple prayer from a pure conscience,” not a sacrifice of bread and wine. Continue reading Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 4) →

Follow

Follow

We continue this week with our analysis of Malachi 1:11 as understood by the Early Church. This series is a response to The Sacrifice Challenge, a challenge issued by Roman Catholic apologists who believe that the only possible fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 is Roman Catholicism’s sacrifice of the Mass. The Douay Catechism, as well as many Roman Catholic apologists, holds that “All the … Fathers, … of the primitive ages, teach that the mass is the self same sacrifice of bread and wine that had been instituted by our Saviour,” and is the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy that “in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” As we have demonstrated in the last two weeks, Rome’s claims are wholly inconsistent with the data. Rather, the Early Church saw the sacrifice and incense of Malachi 1:11 to be “simple prayer from a pure conscience.” Continue reading Their Praise was Their Sacrifice (part 3) →

Follow

Follow

In our introduction to this series last week, we accepted The Sacrifice Challenge, which is a gauntlet, as it were, that has been thrown down by Roman Catholics who believe that the “incense” and “pure offering” of Malachi 1:11 can only refer to the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass. “All the … Fathers … of the primitive ages, teach,” says the Douay Catechism, “that the mass is the self same sacrifice of bread and wine” to which Malachi referred. According to the Douay Catechism, the Sacrifice of the Mass (in which the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ and then offered as a sacrifice to God for our sins) is the “pure offering” prophesied by Malachi. Continue reading Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 2) →

Follow

Follow

As we explained several months ago in our entry, In Vain Do They Worship Me, Roman Catholics worship the elements of the Lord’s Supper, and because the bread of the Lord’s supper remains bread throughout, we do not hesitate to call our Roman Catholic acquaintances—and yes, even this writer’s own Roman Catholic family members—”bread worshipers.” This term is considered offensive to Roman Catholics but we do not shy away from it. As the Scripture says,

“he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto, …he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, ‘Deliver me; for thou art my god.’ … a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, ‘Is there not a lie in my right hand?'” (Isaiah 44:15-20)

The “bread god” in the priest’s right hand is a lie, and we will no more demur from calling the idol what it is than we will demur from preaching the Gospel, which is equally offensive to them. Much more offensive to us is their insistence that we join them in worshiping the work of their hands. The world cannot be fully converted, they say, until all men bend the knee to their bread idol. Continue reading Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 1) →

Follow