Nor I. I was also just setting out the facts as I understand them. Article 3 THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST 1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord's own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist. 1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'" I. The Eucharist - Source and Summit of Ecclesial Life 1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch." 1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit." 1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all. 1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking. Catechism of the Catholic Church I understand that many RCC people have firm and indelible understandings, often seeming polar opposite to anything many Anglicans might believe. In my estimate, the most reliable source, when appropriate and available if the Catechism of the Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
Heb. 10:10 makes a valid point, as far as I can see, regarding the why we do it, of us meeting together to memorialise the 'Once, and for ALL' sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is a timely reminder that human sin has already been atoned for by that 'Once and for ALL' act of God, in Jesus Christ, not during the act of commemoration or 'sacrifice' performed by a priest in the present. Freedom from the penalty for sin derives only from the original Good Friday sacrifice 'Once and for ALL' of the Son of God. The absolute assurance that that original sacrifice actually applies to us as individuals, here and now, in the act of receiving the sacraments hinges on how, by faith, we each appreciate and apprehend Christ's original atonement. This is what makes it the key moment in history, the crux of the matter of salvation and that alone is what ensures that no intermediary other than Jesus Christ has the power to perform the Holy Mystery of the forgiveness of sins. Intermediaries, celebrants, priests, etc can only recall and remind us of that original atoning sacrifice of Christ on our behalf. They cannot repeat it. .
I will reflect on others and this, Tiffy. Thanks for sharing. Here's a cross reference chain relating to Hebrews 10:10; God's Covenant and general holiness: Gen 17:1; Ex 19:6; Lev 11:44, 19:2, 20:7, 26; Amos 3:3; Mt 5:48; Lk 6:36; Jn 17:19; Rom 1:7, 3:22; 1 Cor 1:2, 8:6; Col 1:28, 4:12; 1 Thes 4:7; Heb 10:10; Jas 1:4; 1 Pet 1:15-16; Rev 22:11, 14 Sent from tablet
What I'm seeing here is a validation of the point I made earlier, when I wrote: "The RC answer would be that every one of their Eucharists is a continuation of the one sacrifice." The CCC confirms this fact, for it says that Jesus "instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice...in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages..." This goes far beyond anamnesis. The Roman Catholics "continue" and "perpetuate" Jesus' sacrifice via an altar sacrifice called "the sacrifice of the Mass." Now, how does one continue to sacrifice Jesus on an altar without 'crucifying the Lord afresh and putting Him to an open shame' (Heb. 6:6)? How does one continue to sacrifice Jesus on an altar, believing (as RCs believe) that the bread and wine change into Jesus' entire body, soul, and divinity, without 'bringing Christ down from above' (Romans 10:6) and causing Him to be physically seen prior to the Second Advent in contradiction of Scripture? These are a couple of the glaring errors in RC Eucharistic theology. To use a baseball analogy, if anamnesis is 'home plate,' the Romans are in deep 'left field,' way back near the 'warning track,' if not completely over the fence! That sounds well and good, except for the fact that the RCC has been extremely careful to word some portions of the CCC in light of their recent history, specifically their loss of power and status in the last 200 years. Before the 19th Century, the RCC was the political powerhouse of the western world if not most of the globe, and their words were law. But now, they no longer wield the clout necessary to make kings cower in fear, plus the increases in communication of Bible knowledge and sound theology have forced them to backpedal and 'make nice' with non-Roman churches (and golly, just lately they've even tried to cozy up to the Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, and so on!). Just one example: for centuries the RCC has stated unequivocally that "outside the RCC there is no salvation," but in the CCC they have equivocated substantially and have watered down their stance to avoid offending the rest of Christianity. And of course they are trying to re-frame history itself, claiming that they never, ever said, "no salvation outside the RCC," which will become true after enough elderly folks (who know better) die off and after the lie is repeated enough times. They'll also have to burn all the copies of My Catholic Faith (the text I alluded to earlier) and all other books that contain the historic truth, but give them enough time and they'll get it done. The Jesuits have been re-writing history for hundreds of years, so they're good at it. In many instances, it's more accurate to find and quote an old, pre-Vatican-II RC Catechism any time we want to know what the RCC is really about. In fact, the older the Catechism, the better.
Vatican II brought enormous change to the RCC, including very specifically liturgy in the vulgar tongue. There are conservative moves to undo parts of V2 and other bodies trying to extend it, something we as Anglicans should understand, only too well. If I formally want to understand what the RCC teaches today, then it seems to me that CCC is the document. If the language has changed and the approach to some issues softened, this may indicate a church in change. The V2 is more in line with the rest of the Church than it was at say Trent or V1. Be it clear I am not an RCC apologist, and I fully recognise the difference between anamnesis and words such as continue and perpetuate. They have however come a long way from word I remember speaking of 'making God on the altar'. Salus extra ecclesiam non est These are the word's of Clement 1, late first century Pope, and it is a claim that Salvation outside the Church does not exist. This basic principle of the primitive church is generally accepted, however how that is understood and how loudly it has been blasted has changed though various periods and various parts of the Church. The Eastern Churches seem generally happy with it, and would understand it perhaps to mean that anyone whom God saves is part of the Church - and the limitations to that would be ineffable, because God is ineffable. The RCC post Schism, and perhaps even more immediately post Reformation, were prepared to understand that they were the whole Church, and salvation was dependent on being in communion with the Pope. That view is still common post v2 among many RCC adherents, however I am not sure that was to true intent of V2, and the CCC does take a softer voice. Unity is not found in submission and subjugation, but in mutual respect and acceptance .
When the RCC officially agrees that people are saved only by grace through faith in God and not by works, then I will respect and accept the RCC as a true Christian church. As it now stands, the Trent anathema upon we who so believe (in salvation by grace through faith and not by works) has never been rescinded and is still a part of official RC doctrine. The RCC does not need to submit to us. They need to submit to God and to the truth contained in the written word of God. The RCC does not consider us their brothers in the Lord. Yet there are some who are so consumed with the sweet, wonderful concept of ecumenism that they overlook the harsh realities. We cannot be in brotherhood with a 'church' that holds to a heretical concept of salvation; it is impossible! (We can, however, be brothers with those individuals still within the RCC who have seen the light and have placed their trust solely in our Lord, not trusting their priests or their pope or their own good works, even when they have not yet grown sufficiently in understanding to come out from the RC organization.)
I believe I said in post #98 that the RCs practice a continuation of the one sacrifice, so I agree with that part. However, continuing the one sacrifice by re-presenting it is not the same thing as "pleading the merits of Jesus." Not by a long shot. The latter is universally Christian; the former is not. I would hope that continuing the one sacrifice of Jesus' crucifixion is a peculiarly Roman practice, but if Anglo-Catholics also have the same mindset then I think that's unfortunate. After all, Jesus never told His disciples to "do this as a continuation of My sacrifice so that it goes on for all time," but instead He said to "do this in remembrance of Me." And when Paul taught on the subject and recounted this verbiage, he followed up by saying that whenever we partake of this bread and cup we show, or proclaim (not 'perpetuate' or 're-present'), the Lord's death until He returns. Some people make a big deal of the Greek anamnesis, but the Greek scholar Zodhiates says the word means "remembrance... a memorial, as applied to the Lord's Supper." Every Bible version I've checked is pretty consistent in rendering anamnesis as "remembrance" or "in memory," and none of them translate the word so as to indicate a perpetuation or re-presentation. Therefore it seems fair to conclude that continuing Jesus' sacrificial death on an altar at every Mass is a distorted practice that is not supported by Scripture. Furthermore, the concepts of re-presentation or continuation are completely absent from John Jewel's excellent and thorough treatise on the subject, and this suggests that these ideas were completely outside the realm of Anglican beliefs during his day.
So by continue, I do not mean re-sacrifice. We continue in the sense of the presentation, and the application of the merits of the sacrifice. If the sacrifice is what accomplished the merits, and the Communion is a means of applying that grace, some element of that sacrifice must be continually be made present. The word "remembrance" must imply the one making the remembrance, and the one called to remember. It is quite evident the priest is making a prayer to God the Father calling him to mind about the events of salvation history on the cross, this is the logical understanding of what is being remembered. Hence why it is a prayer to God, and not an acclamation to the faithful like one of the many Exhortations we have in the Prayer Book. I find the case that is merely a remembrance for us to be lacking, as the prayer is addressed to God the Father. You may say, why does God need to be reminded? 1. Jesus said do It in anemnesis of him. 2. Why does God need our prayers anyways? He says so, so that is what we do. As for John Jewel, he doesn't speak for everyone. I think the Prayer Book here is a higher authority, and I don't see any other interpretation of what is happening sacramentally in that prayer than what I just described. I'm not alone in this, Fr. Paul Edgerton, a REC Priest, in his book "What Goes Up Must Come Down: Incense as the Prayers of the Saints and the Glory of God" explains this sacrificial aspect numerous times. I would provide quotes but I'd rather you read the book, since it is so awesome! But if you are not available to do so, I could share some excerpts to tease this out.
The issue is not anamnesis, but what is the anamnesis of. In the Church Fathers and Anglicans, the Holy Communion is a re-presentation of the Last Supper. But the error the Romans made in the middle ages (among many others which show their fallacy) is they conflated the Lord's Supper with the Crucifixion. So for them, Holy Communion became Calvary and the atonement of Jesus for the sins of the world. If you apply anamnesis to the Roman mass, then you are trying to re-present the atonement of Jesus. This is really bad. It is also face-palmingly illogical, considering what is said and done during the liturgy. But applying anamnesis to the Last Supper is perfectly logical and compatible with the divine service; take, eat, this is my body; the altar where we offer sacrifice praise and thanksgiving (etymology of "eucharist"!). Etc.
It is indeed a presentation of the last supper, but the claim that re-presenting the one sacrafice of Christ to the Father is unanglican...well that is false. Saepius Officio "Further we truly teach the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice and do not believe it to be a “nude commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross,” an opinion which seems to be attributed to us by the quotation made from that Council. But we think it sufficient in the Liturgy which we use in celebrating the holy Eucharist,—while lifting up our hearts to the Lord, and when now consecrating the gifts already offered that they may become to us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,—to signify the sacrifice which is offered at that point of the service in such terms as these. We continue a perpetual memory of the precious death of Christ, who is our Advocate with the Father and the propitiation for our sins, according to His precept, until His coming again. For first we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord’s Passion for all the whole Church; and lastly we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already signified by the oblations of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take its part with the Priest, we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic sacrifice." 1. This quote is clearly in reference to the "commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross" and not merely The Last Supper. The Archbishops affirm that there is a continuance of the memory of the death of Christ. (Christ is not dying over and over). Christ is identified as the Advocate with the Father in the next sentence. The sentence that connects these two together is what is key. "we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross.." What is this referring to? Since the first sentence of the paragraph denies a "nude" commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross, and then immediately identifies a continuance of the memory of the sacrifice to the Father through the elements consecrated. To say this view is somehow not Anglican is just false. Both the Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop of York explicitly taught it against the Bull Apostolicae Curae. The Great Exemplar - Jeremy Taylor "As it is a Commemoration and Representation of Christ's death, so it is a Commemorative Sacrifice. As we receive the symbols and the mystery, so it is a Sacrament. In both capacities, the benefit is next to infinite. First, for whatsoever Christ did at the Institution, the same He commanded the Church to do in remembrance and repeated rites; and Himself also does the same thing in Heaven for us, making perpetual intercession for His Church, the Body of His redeemed ones, by representing to His Father His Death and Sacrifice. There He sits, a High Priest continually, and offers still the same one perfect Sacrifice; that is, still represents it as having been once finished and consummate, in order to perpetual and never failing events. And this also His ministers do on earth. They offer up the same Sacrifice to God, the Sacrifice of the Cross by prayers, and a commemorating rite and representment, according to his holy institution. Our very holding up the Son of God and representing Him to His Father is the doing an act of mediation and advantage ourselves in the virtue and efficacy of the Mediator. As Christ is a Priest in Heaven for ever and yet does not sacrifice Himself afresh, nor yet without a without a Sacrifice could He be a Priest, but by a daily ministration and intercession represents His Sacrifice to God and offers Himself as sacrificed, so He does upon earth by the ministry of His servants. He is offered up to God as sacrificed, which in effect is a celebration of His Death, and the applying it to the preset and future necessities of the Church as we are capable by a ministry like to His in Heaven. It follows, then, that the celebration of this Sacrifice be in its proportion as an instrument of applying the proper Sacrifice to all the purposes which it first designed. It is ministerially and by application an instrument propitiatory." 2. Well Blessed Taylor speaks for himself so elegantly! Suffice it to say, it it is not un-Anglican to say the Eucharist is a Commemoration of the Crucifixion which is attached to the Atonement. Representing the Sacrifice of Christ that is complete is entirely Anglican.
I would like to center in on the part of your reply that I've underlined. To clarify, I think you were saying that you see the Eucharist as a re-presentation of the merits of Jesus' sacrifice, not a re-presentation of the sacrifice itself. With that distinction stated, I would agree and have no issue. But in a reply to Stalwart you quote Saepius Officio, an 1897 reply to Pope Leo XIII from the CoE archbishops: "...we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord’s Passion for all the whole Church..." This concept I personally have a problem with. But obviously my problem is with the viewpoint of those archbishops, isn't it?! I feel that they were trying much too hard to gain approval and ecumenical brotherhood with the Romans, and that they exaggerated how similar the Anglican Eucharistic viewpoint is to the RC one. I'm wondering if there is anything else, anything at all, further back in Anglican writings that would lend justification to their statement. To my mind, the concept of re-presenting the sacrifice itself is entirely too close to the Roman mindset (which I left long ago and can't see myself ever returning to). I also take some issue with the concept that Communion "is a means of applying grace." When it's stated that way, it makes it sound like Communion is a 'container full of grace' and it's going to dump that grace into us in an active fashion. It makes the Eucharistic elements into something akin to a power-carrying talisman of some sort, in my view. I feel like the RCs have an unconscious tendency to see their Eucharistic elements in that way; they place too much emphasis on the importance to salvation of receiving regular efficacious doses of something called 'grace' (which they don't understand very well) that accumulate over time and make them more pleasing to God just by having received those many doses. While Communion should be seen as an anamnesis we take part in, and while God is well pleased with our partaking and will continue to bless us with His unmerited favor and grace, and while the partaking serves to strengthen our faith and thereby help us persevere in our Christian walk, I feel loathe to go further. We who partake receive Christ by faith and with thanksgiving, with the emblematic but physically unchanged (although their purpose and meaning have changed) bread and wine, and we are reassured that we are (already) members of His body on earth, the church, and heirs through hope; but we who partake are not ingesting anything akin to a magic pill or a packet of power, and (having been RC) I feel it is important for Anglicans to stay well distant from any viewpoint that might cause brothers to stumble into the Roman sort of Eucharistic mindset. So, to reiterate, my beef is not with you, but with some long-dead church leaders who might have strayed into dangerous territory with their language and thereby have opened the door to some Anglicans having Roman-like (or might I say Romanesque? ) ideas about Anglican Eucharist. That's my opinion... and of course, my opinion plus $2 will get you a cup of coffee...
I want to zero-in on this point. There was a strong tendency in the late-19th century for some Anglican prelates to see the Roman church as the gold standard of doctrine. This is where the mythology of Anglicanism as 'soft Roman Catholicism' originates: from the soft (mostly anglo-catholic) prelates of the late 1800s, and early 1900s, who saw themselves sharing with Rome the same substantial theology, but being weaker than Rome in implementing it (against contraception, toward physical eucharist, in enforcement of juridical discipline and penance. Etc). There's a very real sense in which the Anglo-Catholics saw (and continue to see) themselves as a softer version of the Romans. I don't know the composition of everyone who played a part in composing Saepius Officio, but it's entirely plausible that the declining Church of England would appoint "Anglo-Catholics" to rebut the "Roman Catholics". Still, the document in its broad outlines is very admirable in defending Anglican holy orders from nefarious Roman attacks; BUT, the historic Anglo-Catholic tendency has always been there, and is to this day; I personally know Anglo-Catholics who see themselves as tougher than maybe the average Novus Ordo, but with the Latin Mass, those priests they absolutely simp for. As for Jeremy Taylor, can you show me where in his text he says those words? Here is volume 1: https://books.google.com/books?id=BW9LAAAAIAAJ And volume 2: https://books.google.com/books?id=fy5MAAAAIAAJ I'm not denying that he said that, and it would put him in a vast minority if he did. But I have searched through both volumes and came up short:
I was addressing Stalwart's view that it is un-Anglican to hold my view - which I have shown to be not true. You may not like or agree with Saepius Officio here, or Taylor there, but to say that it is a novel view conjured up - totally un-Anglican and "Roman" is just untrue. A great deal of Anglican Divines speak thus about the Sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, and it is ENTIRELY Patristic. As someone who does not view the English Church as beginning with Henry, or Elizabeth - other English Christians play a big role in my theological viewpoint. I am alarmed by your lack of faith in the real Mystical presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the earthly elements of Bread and Wine. I recommend reading St. Aelfric's work on the Eucharist. He denies Transubstantiation and affirms a real mystical presence in the Bread and Wine after the consecration, and he discusses the Sacrifice of the Mass there as well. He is a pre-norman invasion Anglo-Saxon saint, so any biases against the Normans should not be an issue in his theological convictions. Just to summarize, I am not trying to argue that my view is right, just that it isn't "Un-Anglican". I think I have sufficiently defended that.
I just referenced Taylor because I knew where he was at, this view is certainly not standing alone amongst Anglican Divines. I think you may be taking some biases out against Anglo-Catholics here by trying to discredit the teaching of Saepius Officio, and discount it as somehow "un-Anglican". If that is not your intention, forgive me for reaching that conclusion. I am not seeking to prove this to you or to anyone here, but I am going to contest that my view is "only Roman" or "un-Anglican". The Taylor quote is from Volume 3, chapter 15. It is interesting to note, that when EB Pusey was accused of "novelty" and "Romanism" by Protestant detractors, he cited Taylor here as well. I certainly hope we can at least walk away and agree this view has some legs in Anglicanism, and isn't just a larp by 18th century Catholic revivalists. Lastly, as an Anglo-Catholic - I do not look to Rome. You raise a very fair critique of the movement. Why not look East for Catholicity as well? I think that is a very fair argument for some Anglo-Catholics. However, I was NEVER Roman Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox. I have never felt a need to "Romanize" or anything like that. So I do not look to Latin Mass priests with any level of envy, I think Anglicanism itself has the tools needed to be entirely Catholic without Roman additions. I'm very much in favor of Percy Dearmer and his Philosophy of Liturgy, much more than what Dix was doing. Hope that helps clear up my motives, intentions, and influences. IN Christ,
So do I. I seems to me to be pleading to the Father to accept Christ's sacrifice for sin. That seems to imply that God might be reluctant to do so or to have done so, which in itself is an implication that a rift existed in The Trinity, whereas in fact God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself so no appeal by Christ to God to accept that sacrifice was necessary since The Father was already in Christ, providing that sacrifice to Himself on behalf of The World, not just some in the Church or even for the whole Church, but for the world, not holding their sins against them. 2 Cor.5:19. It also seems to be an attempt by the Church, as represented by those doing the pleading, to abdicate human responsibility for Christ's death and the need of God, in Christ, to die. Whereas we as humanity are responsible entirely for the death of Christ, because were it not for the sin of entire humanity Christ would not have needed to die, and there are none on earth so righteous as to be able to claim innocence of sin and therefore none able to claim innocence of Christ's self sacrificial death. The notion that we can plead His death in order to obtain forgivness of sins is tantamount to thinking that 'God has pleasure in sacrifices for sin', yet scripture is clear that 'in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin God has had no pleasure. Heb.10:5-10. .
Let me ask this: what's at stake for you in establishing this doctrine? We know the Romans teach this, but you've said that you are not aping the Romans. With your background was in Eastern Orthodoxy, the EO not having a universal dogmatic system on this can't say that the "all of EO out there teach this". Furthermore the Church Fathers most definitely didn't teach this. One after another they teach the Anglican perspective of eucharist as the sacrifice or praise and thanksgiving. When Taylor makes the statement he cites St. Cyprian on the margins, but the cited quote definitely doesn't say what he does: And finally it has such a strong testimony among the Anglican fathers against it. So I'd just like to know, why insist on it, what's at stake for you if it were rejected?
I've been re-reading this and pondering, and I think perhaps there's a misunderstanding underlying the premise. Saepius Officio used the word "represent" but you use the word "re-present." There's a difference in meaning. To re-present means to present again. To present (verb) means to give or provide (examples: present a report, present medals to recipients, etc.) to represent means "to have as a meaning, suggestion, or association; stand for or symbolize." If we take the latter definition as the one the writers intended when they said, "we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross," then they intend to indicate that our Eucharist stands for and symbolizes the sacrifice of the cross, and that the sacrifice of the cross gives the Eucharist its significance and meaning. I think the act of "pleading and representing... the sacrifice of the cross" may quite simply be this portion of the Liturgy: "All praise and glory is yours, O God our heavenly Father, for in your tender mercy, you gave your only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption. He made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and he instituted, and in his Holy Gospel commanded us to continue, a perpetual memory of his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again. So now, O merciful Father, in your great goodness, we ask you to bless and sanctify, with your Word and Holy Spirit, these gifts of bread and wine, that we, receiving them according to your Son our Savior Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.(I took the liberty of quoting from the 2019 BCP because it's what I have on hand; your version's language may vary.) In this portion we are not providing again the actual sacrifice, but we are (at this point in the Liturgy) representing Jesus' past (once for all, done and finished) sacrifice by means of the symbolic stand-ins, the bread and wine (note that they are as yet unconsecrated; I am not herein denying the Real Presence, but we're not to that point in the Liturgy yet). In this part of the Liturgy we are taking our plea before the Father ("we plead") to "bless and sanctify" the elements, we thank Him for giving His Son for our sakes, and we indicate a representative association between "these gifts of bread and wine" and the past, accomplished, finished, "full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice" for our sins. As for the language that "we truly teach the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice," this can be seen in the document's explanation that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving as well as a "sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator." It is not necessary to read into their statement an assumption that they meant to incorporate a 're-presenting' (a provision or giving) of Jesus' past sacrifice again and again upon our altars. Does that help at all?
It does. But the words represent and re-present are the same thing here in this context. I am not saying that the elements themselves on the Altar is what is being represented to the Father. It is not a new oblation each time, but a re-presentation of the One oblation of Christ in Heaven as Great High Priest, and a representation to us of the same heavenly reality happening at the same moment on earth. In such way the elements of Bread and Wine are symbols (in the Patristic sense of the word, not the Calvinist). So we represent through the elements and Christ re-presents. Both activities are connected, as Taylor explains. Christ's sacrifice is indeed finished. But it's represent-ment is to renew that covenant relationship we have with Christ. After the Sacrifice in the OT, the faithful and the priest ate the lamb. This is the exact same idea happening. It is not somehow a new offering, but the offering Christ made being re-presented. It is fully sufficient for sin, and we feast on the very Lamb of God afterwards to show not only God accepted the Sacrifice 2000 years ago, but we are "assured of His favor and Goodness towards us". So a long story short, yes. On earth we represent, in heaven Christ the Great High Priest stands continually holding out his Glorified wounds as atonement for sin, and through the union of the represent-ment of the Eucharist, we participate in the forgiveness of sins Christ won for us.
Well what is at stake is the truth for me. I don't think this is a mere accouterments at the local salad bar of theology. As for the EOs, yes the teach this doctrine. As do the Copts, and all other Apostolic Churches. The idea that the East do not have dogma is just not honest. The East has met in numerous synods Decree 17 of the Confession of Dositheus, Synod of Jerusalem, 1672 (Pan-Orthodox and Binding) "Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest manner, and adored with latria [Gk: adoration or worship*]. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord." As for the claim that the Church Fathers did not teach this, well that is just laughable - I'm sorry. It is everywhere! It is more amazing that you have not seen this teaching. Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 41 "My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.' Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]." While the Praises are offered alongside the Holy Eucharist, it is clear as day Justin is referring to the bread and the cup. He calls those Sacrifices to God, so how is this somehow a novel teaching? Justin Martyr sure thought it was much more than our praise and thanksgiving to God, but the bread and wine were what was offered as the Sacrifice. Eucharistic Prayer of Sarapion, 4th Cent. “Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues. Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation." This is clearly in reference to the elements on the Altar, when you examine the placement of this prayer in the actual liturgy of Sarapion. Cyril of Jerusalsem, Catechetical Lectures, 27 “Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need” You can't say this is the "sacrifice of praise" because Cyril says they are "sanctified" by the hymns of praise, the Body and Blood is the Unbloody Sacrifice in this context. Gregory Naziazen, Letter to Amphilochius "Scarcely yet delivered from the pains of my illness, I hasten to you, the guardian of my cure. For the tongue of a priest meditating of the Lord raises the sick. Do then the greater thing in your priestly ministration, and loose the great mass of my sins when you lay hold of the Sacrifice of Resurrection...But, most reverend friend, cease not both to pray and to plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when with a bloodless cutting you sever the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for the glaive." (Be sure to examine what a Glaive is, to get the fullest picture) Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, 17:20 "There is no good for a man, expect that he should eat and drink, what can he be more credibly understood to say, than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament Himself, the Priest after the order of Melchizadek, furnishes with His own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of that which was to come; wherefore also we recognize the voice in the Psalm 40 as that of the same Mediator speaking through prophesy, "Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; but a body has Thou perfected for me." Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, His body is offered, and is served up to the partakers of it. Just to wrap this up, I did not "quote mine" this information. I did, out of convenience, use the internet to help me recall the saints that taught it and where, and only used quotes I personally have read in context from the original work. So these are things I've already discovered, if that makes sense. Unfortunately I'm not the encyclopedia I once was. Again, the Body and Blood of Christ are tied here, not merely praises to God. I could go on and on, as this is a teaching of the Church Catholic.