Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
And this is very significant, not one, not even one of those Eastern bishops disputed or questioned the Pope's authority.
I mean the Eucharistic, let's just say this, the Eucharistic abuses are abuses to Jesus' DNA, his body and blood.
As I continued to study my early church father, older brothers and sisters, I started to realize that God had a plan for me that was bigger than any plan that I'd ever had for myself. And before you know it, it turned to the Catholic Church.
When I made that decision to become Catholic, everything began to fit. It was like a puzzle with the four sides that I put together, with the papacy and the Blessed Mother and tradition in the Eucharist.
Let's say there's a person watching this program right now from where you were. Why should they make the same journey home that you made?
I would say investigate the history for yourself because the famous line from Cardinal Newman is to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. And that's pretty much what happened to me. So I would say take the Catholic Church's claims, investigate them, and as my father always told me, go wherever Jesus leads you.
And maybe it would end up in the Catholic Church.
Hello to everyone and welcome back to The Diving Board, a podcast where we dive deep into history. The Diving Board podcast focuses on the conversion testimonies of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism thinking that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
But getting deep in history is something a Roman Catholic cannot do because Roman Catholicism itself is a novelty 300 years removed from the Church of the Apostles and their followers. This is episode 9, which is our fourth episode on Marcus Grodi, host of the Journey Home show on the Coming Home Network, a Roman Catholic ministry that focuses on the return of wandering Protestants back to the fold of Roman Catholicism.
Marcus Grodi provides citations from the early church fathers that influenced his decision to return to Rome. And he divided his citations into four main categories, the church hierarchy, the Eucharist, which to him is the Lord's Supper and the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass, the primacy of Rome and the unity of the church.
We are only partway through Marcus Grodi's citations on the Eucharist, so if you have not already listened to episode 8, we encourage you to go back and listen to it first. It's not taking us so long because Marcus Grodi provided too many sources.
He provided only two brief citations to make his point. The reason it's taking so long is because the history of the Eucharist is so corrupted, not only by Roman Catholics and their apologists, but also by wandering Protestants who think that the Church of Jesus Christ legitimately offers Christ to the Father in the Lord's.
Supper.
Last week we covered the scriptural origins of a Eucharistic liturgy, a thanksgiving, the amen, the consecration, and the meal, a simple liturgy that was reflected in the scriptures and in the early church and is largely practiced by Protestants today.
We also looked at the apostolic and prophetic origins of the spiritual sacrifices of thanksgiving, praise, prayer, and caring for the poor in the form of the tithe, and how the early church offered those Eucharistic sacrifices in the liturgy.
And we also spent some time on Cyprian of Carthage and how he is often misunderstood by Roman Catholics to support the sacrifice of the mass. But the bulk of last week's episode was spent on showing that in the early church, the Eucharist was the tithe offering, not the Lord's Supper.
And therefore Marcus Grodi is not only in error to think that the Eucharist was the Lord's Supper in the early church, but also to think that the early church believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, neither of which makes any sense once it becomes clear that the Eucharist is the tithe offering, not the supper.
Last week we covered the early Eucharistic liturgies as reflected in the gospel accounts in the 30s AD in which there is a Eucharist or thanksgiving followed by a consecration and a meal, and Paul's depiction of the liturgy in the 40s AD in which there is a Eucharist and amen, a consecration and a meal.
We examined the representations of the liturgy in the Didache in the 50s to 90s AD in which the Eucharist is clearly the tithe offering, and that of Clement of Rome in the 90s AD in which the Eucharist is the gift brought forward by the minister for the tithe offering for the poor.
In Ignatius of Antioch's references to the Eucharistic tithe in 107 AD, and it is important to understand in the early church, the moment of consecration was speaking the word of God over the bread and wine, as in, this is my body broken for you, this is my blood which is shed for you.
So when Ignatius of Antioch says heretics abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, it simply means that heretics do not participate in the tithe offering and prayers because they are unwilling to take the bread and wine from the tithe and consecrate it by saying, this is my body broken for you, this is my blood which is shed for you.
And we also spent some time on Justin Martyr's representation of that scriptural liturgy in which there is a thanksgiving, an amen, a consecration and a meal, just like Paul described. And we concluded with Justin saying that the food of the tithe is first Eucharisted, and then the people say amen, followed by the consecration of Eucharisted food, and then that consecrated food is consumed by the believer, a Eucharist, an amen, a consecration and a.
Meal.
The very simple liturgy of the scriptures and the apostles and profound evidence from the early church that the Eucharist was a tithe offering that preceded the consecration and the supper, and proof that the only thing offered in the liturgy was thanks, praise and the tithe, and not the Lord's body and blood.
But that only gets us to the middle of the second century. We have a lot of history left to explore. Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Hippolytus of Rome, the Didyscalia, Origen of Alexandria, Cornelius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, the Council of Nicaea and Julius of Rome, until we finally see the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass emerge in the latter part of the fourth century with Cyril of Jerusalem, Serapion of Thimoes, Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory of Nicaea and Ambrose of Milan.
That is when we finally see the sacrifice of the liturgy moved to the right of the Epiclesis and the beginning of the Roman Catholic mass sacrifice, what they erroneously call the Eucharist. What we will do in this episode is cover the history of the Eucharist through the end of the fourth century to show how the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass came about.
And in our next episode we will examine the remarkable history of deception and evidence tampering that has been perpetrated upon Christians in order to convince them that the early church really offered the body and blood of Christ to the Father in the Lord's Supper.
They most certainly do not, but men like Marcus Grodi and other wandering Protestants fall for the lie and return to Roman Catholicism thinking that they are returning to the Apostolic Church, when in fact all they are doing is adopting a late fourth century heretical novelty called the Roman Catholic mass sacrifice.
So let's pick up where we left off last time and look at Irenaeus of Lyons and his writings against heretics in the latter part of the second century. And what we will continue to find in Irenaeus is that the Eucharist was a tithe offering of gifts, of first fruits for the poor.
And then the word of consecration or the Epiclesis is spoken over the bread and wine to turn the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ. So the time frame is 174 to 189 AD and we are looking at Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons and his work against heresies.
In this work, the Eucharist is the offering and then the word of Christ is spoken over.
It.
In other words, there is a Eucharist and then there is an Epiclesis. At the Epiclesis, the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ. So Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, criticized the Gnostic heretic Marcus because Marcus would pretend to Eucharist cups of mixed wine, referring to the Eucharistic tithe offering of gratitude.
The word used there is Eucharistain. And after the Eucharistic tithe offering, Marcus would utter a lengthy invocation or Epiclesios, causing the wine for dramatic effect to change color, referring of course to the wine becoming Christ's blood.
That's Irenaeus against heresies, book 1, chapter 13, paragraph 2. Although Marcus was a heretic, Irenaeus' complaint about Marcus was that he was imitating the Christian liturgy. And that is why this citation from Irenaeus is so important.
This is one of the sections of Irenaeus for which we have the Greek original. So we know that Marcus Eucharisted the cup, that is Eucharistain, and then spoke the invocation or Epiclesios, showing that the Eucharist, or the offering, occurred prior to the Epiclesis.
Anyone who wants to check my Greek on that can see Mendier's series on the Greek fathers, volume 7, column 580. In book 4 of the same work, Irenaeus described the collection of goods for the poor as the Eucharistic sacrifice, and explained that the bread and wine were taken from the Eucharistic tithe in order to celebrate the supper.
Let's start with Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 18, paragraphs 1 -2. The oblation of the church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world, is accounted with God a pure sacrifice, and is acceptable to Him.
We are bound, therefore, to offer to God the firstfruits of His creation. Sacrifices there were among the Jews, sacrifices there are too in the church. Those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord's purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely, not the less valuable portions of their property, since they have the hope of better things hereafter, as that poor widow acted who cast all her living into the treasury of God.
Again, that's Irenaeus against Heresies, book 4, chapter 18, paragraphs 1 -2. Now keep in mind that this is the tithe offering, and it took place in the same setting as the Lord's Supper, and the early church saw in Jesus' gratitude for the bread and wine, the form of the thank-offering we were to make in the New Covenant.
So notice as Irenaeus describes the Last Supper, he describes a thank-offering followed by an epiclesis, or consecration. Now citing Irenaeus against Heresies, book 4, chapter 17, paragraph 5. Again, giving direction to His disciples to offer to God the firstfruits 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.
And the cup, likewise, which is part of the 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 firstfruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand.
Again, against Heresies, book 4, chapter 17, paragraph 5. Hold on to that reference to Malachi, we'll come right back to it. Roman Catholics interpret this specific passage to mean that the early church offered the sacrifice of the Mass, specifically that the new oblation of the New Covenant is an offering of Christ's body and blood, and that offering of Christ's body and blood is the Eucharist, the fulfillment of the Malachi prophecy.
But in context, Irenaeus is merely saying that Jesus taught the new oblation of the New Covenant at the Last Supper because He took the bread and wine and thanked His Father for it, or in the Greek, Eucharistia.
That is the Eucharist offering, gratitude, not Christ's body and blood. Remember, Malachi 1 .11 says the Gentiles would offer an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord. Irenaeus thought the sacrifice of the Gentiles was the thank-offering, or the tithe.
The Lord also said through Malachi, Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse. That's Malachi 3 .10. You could say the Lord summons the tithe to Himself, as in, bring in the tithes. And so Irenaeus proceeds with his discussion on the tithe and explicitly calls it the Eucharist, now citing from Irenaeus against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 18, Paragraph 5.
The bread which is produced from the earth, when it receives the summons of God, that is, the Ecclesion of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.
That's Irenaeus against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 18, Paragraph 5. Irenaeus' point is simply that when we set aside our bread for the care of the poor, the widow and the stranger, that earthly bread takes on a heavenly reality because it becomes a tithe, and as such, it is offered on an altar in heaven for heavenly purposes.
In fact, he says that explicitly later on in the chapter, now citing from Paragraph 6. It is His will that we too should offer a gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission. The altar then is in heaven, for toward that place our prayers and oblations are directed.
Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 18, Paragraph 6. Keep in mind from the Didache, the offering of the gifts, and Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians, and the offering of the gifts, and Justin Martyr in his reference to the rich providing for the needs of the poor.
That's pretty straightforward, right? Irenaeus is talking about the tithe offering as the fulfillment of Malachi 1 .11, about Gentiles offering acceptable sacrifices, and in Malachi, the Lord summons the tithes to himself, and when the bread is summoned as a tithe, it becomes both earthly and heavenly.
Earthly, in that it is the product of our earthly toil. Heavenly, in that it is set aside for heavenly purposes. Offered as a tithe on a heavenly altar, for the purpose of feeding the widow, the poor, and the stranger.
Those who want to check my Greek on that can verify it at Menier's series on the Greek Fathers, Volume 7, Column 1028. Okay, another example from Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 2, Paragraphs 2 to 3, in which Irenaeus refers to the words of Christ spoken over the bread and wine.
He has acknowledged the cup, which is a part of the creation, as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood, and the bread, also a part of the creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the word of God, the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ. Again, that's Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 2, Paragraphs 2 to 3.
That is indeed what the original Greek says, indicating that in Irenaeus the Eucharist was the tithe offering, over which thanks had been pronounced, followed by an epiclesis, in which Christ's words are spoken over the Eucharist, at which point the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ.
Notice that consistency. The Eucharist refers to the tithe, not to the consecrated elements. Anyone who wants to check my Greek on that can look it up in Menier's series on the Greek Fathers, Volume 7, Column 1125.
Before we leave Irenaeus, we must point out something that is absolutely remarkable in his discourse on the Eucharist. At this point in Against Heresies, he is arguing against the Gnostics, who deny that Christ had come to save both body and soul together.
He has made the point repeatedly that the Eucharist is our gift to God, and uses Eucharist and gift interchangeably. But after the epiclesis, that is, after the consecration, the Eucharist has become the body and blood of Christ, which is God's gift to us.
Now, citing from Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 2, Paragraph 3,. When therefore the mingled cup and manufactured bread receives the word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which flesh is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of him?
Note well that the Eucharist here is our gift to God when it is but a tithe. But as soon as the Eucharist receives the word of God at the consecration, it becomes God's gift to us. Irenaeus continues in this line of argument, and indeed says that as soon as the bread and wine receive the word of God, the direction of the offering reverses.
Before they are consecrated, the bread and wine are the Eucharist from us to God. And note the presence of the definite article. But as soon as they are consecrated, they become a Eucharist from God to us.
And indeed, in the Greek, the definite article is missing. And only in that sense can it be said that the bread and wine are a Eucharist after the consecration is spoken. And again, here is Irenaeus in the same paragraph making that very point.
And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as grain of wheat falling to the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then through the wisdom of God serves for the use of men, and having received the word of God, becomes a Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ.
So also our bodies being nourished by it shall rise at their appointed time, the word of God granting to them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality and to this corruptible incorruption.
Now, don't miss this. It's very important. This is the first time in the literature of the early church that the word Eucharist is applied explicitly to the consecrated elements. But it is only done in the context of God offering his Son to us in the sacrament.
When we bring the tithe, it becomes the Eucharist. When the Eucharist receives the word of God, it becomes a Eucharist to us, a gift. This is not done in the context of us offering his Son to him. It is in the context of him offering his Son to us.
And this drives our point home. The Eucharist refers to our gift to God in the form of a tithe. And as soon as it is consecrated, it becomes God's gift to us. And thus we show again the impossibility of the Roman Catholic sacrifice for the mass.
As soon as the words of consecration are spoken over the element, the direction of the offering is reversed. And it is God offering his Son to us. It is not us offering anything to God. At the time of Irenaeus' writing this, we are a full century removed from the apostles.
And still there is no evidence from the early church to indicate that the Eucharist was ever an offering of the body and blood of Christ from us to the Father. Okay, now let us continue with Clement of Alexandria, a brief citation from the early third century, around 202 AD.
We see in Clement of Alexandria a reference to the oblation of the church as the Eucharist in his Stromata, clearly identifying the thank offering as the tithe. In this case, he is criticizing pagans who offer bread and water in their oblations.
Now citing Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 1, Chapter 19. The scripture says, Touch sweetly stolen bread and the sweet water of theft. Manifestly applying the terms bread and water to nothing else but to those heresies, which employ bread and water in the oblation, not according to the canon of the church.
For there are those who celebrate the Eucharist with mere water. Again, that's Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 1, Chapter 19. The English is a little clumsy here and appears to refer to those who celebrate the Eucharist with mere water.
But the Greek is much more direct, saying, There are some who Eucharist mere water. In other words, the oblation, the tithe, the thank offering itself is the Eucharist, which takes place prior to the consecration, as we have abundantly proven from the early church.
Anyone who wants to check my Greek on that to see that he referred to the offering of water as a Eucharistic oblation can look at Menier's series on the Greek Fathers, Volume 8, Column 813. Okay, let's move on a little bit later to 208 AD, early in the third century with Tertullian.
In his work on prayer, Chapter 28, Tertullian identified prayer as the sacrifice of the new covenant, as we noted earlier. In that same work on prayer, he was criticizing those who refused to participate in the thank offering because they were engaging in stations, which is a solemn fast.
And they did not think their solemn fast should be broken by prayers and praises and hymns, but rather by consuming the Lord's Supper. So they skipped the Eucharist and only showed up for the supper. In his criticism of the practice, Tertullian clearly identified the sacrifice of prayer as the Eucharist, which was distinct from and prior to the Lord's Supper.
Now citing Tertullian on prayer, Chapter 19. Similarly to touching the days of stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers on the ground that the stations must be dissolved by the reception of the Lord's body.
Does then the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God or bind it more to God? Will not your station be more solemn if you have with all stood at God's altar? When the Lord's body has been received and reserved, each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of the duty.
Again, that is Tertullian on prayer, Chapter 19. And note well, Tertullian is criticizing those who avoided the sacrificial prayers while they were fasting. In response, it is wrong for them to avoid the Eucharist because it is just as important to be present for the Eucharist as it is to be present at the supper.
That is, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of the duty. Clearly, he has identified the Eucharist as a thing that is separate from and prior to the supper. A very interesting reference to the Eucharist, as Tertullian plainly refers to it as a sacrifice on the altar, both prior to and separate from the Lord's Supper, which itself is not the.
Offering.
In his description of the liturgy, Tertullian places the consecration of the bread and wine between the Eucharistic offering and the Lord's Supper, exactly as we would expect based on the teachings of Paul.
We find this in Tertullian's work against Marcion, in which he says that the bread of the Eucharist only becomes Christ's body and blood at the recitation of Christ's words, this is my body and this is my blood.
Here, Tertullian was dealing with the Gnostics who said Jesus was but a phantom without a real body, and Tertullian responded with the fact that Jesus took solid bread into his hands and liquid wine in the cup and called them his body and blood, showing that he must really have had a solid body and really have had liquid blood, and that the bread and wine were mere figures or symbols of it.
Now, citing from Tertullian against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 40. Then, having taken the bread and given it to his disciples, he made it his own body, saying, this is my body, that is, the figure of my body.
A figure, however, there could not have been unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a figure. Again, that's Tertullian against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 40.
Tertullian goes on in the same paragraph explaining that Jesus used wine as a figure for his blood for the same reason. Take these two references together on prayer, which refers to the Eucharist as something separate from and prior to the supper, and against Marcion, which places the consecration immediately prior to the supper, and you have in Tertullian the ancient liturgy of the church, which is the Eucharistic sacrifices or offerings presented to God on an altar, followed by the consecration of the bread and wine and a meal of Christ's body and blood.
The Eucharist of thanks is offered, and when the sacrifice is over, the bread and wine are consecrated and eaten as symbols of Christ's body and blood. But what you do not have is an offering of the body and blood of Christ.
That is something that is still almost 200 years away. Okay, let's look at Hippolytus, who was a disciple of Irenaeus and a contemporary of Tertullian. We're around the year 215 AD, and we're looking at the Anaphora of Hippolytus.
The particular citation we are using today provides the order of the liturgy for a bishop on the day he is ordained and presides for the first time over the Eucharistic tithe.
Hippolytus identifies the Eucharist as the tithe offering when he says the new converts who are baptized are to bring their Eucharist with them. Now citing from Hippolytus, Anaphora, chapter 20. Those who are to be baptized are not to bring any vessel, only that which each brings for the Eucharist.
It is indeed proper that each bring the oblation in the same hour. Notice that Hippolytus has identified the oblation with the Eucharist, and that oblation is before the consecration. And it is something that the new converts bring with them to church.
They bring the Eucharist with them. Now during the liturgy, the deacons bring the oblation to the bishop and the bishop then summarizes the gospel accounts of the Last Supper when the Eucharist was instituted and then proceeds with the Eucharistic tithe offering as follows.
Now quoting from the Anaphora of Hippolytus, chapter 4, paragraph 11. Therefore, remembering his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the chalice, giving thanks to you, who has made us worthy to stand before you and serve as your priests.
So here we have a Eucharistic oblation of the bread and the chalice. Lest anyone suggest that Hippolytus has represented the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass here, just listen to what he says about what else is to be offered in the oblation.
It is exactly what you would expect if the people had gathered together to offer the tithe of the first fruits. Continuing now with chapter 5 of the Anaphora of Hippolytus. If someone makes an offering of oil, the bishop shall give thanks in the same manner as for the oblation of the bread and wine.
He does not give thanks with the same words but quite similar, saying, Sanctify this oil, God, as you give holiness to all who are anointed and receive it, as you anointed kings, priests, and prophets, so that it may give strength to all who taste it and health to all who use it.
And then continuing in chapter 6. Likewise, if someone makes an offering of cheese and olives, the bishop shall say, Sanctify this coagulated milk, just as you bring us together in your love. Let this fruit not leave your sweetness, this olive, which is a symbol of your abundance, which you made flow from the tree, for life to those who hope in you.
Again, chapters 5 and 6 of the Anaphora of Hippolytus. That's right, the unconsecrated bread and wine are offered as a thank-offering, as we remember the Incarnation and the new members make their profession of faith in Christ.
The oil and cheese and olives, just like the bread and wine, are offered as a Eucharistic oblation, and thus the oblation of the Eucharist was bread, wine, cheese, oil, olives, etc. These are brought to the bishop who makes an oblation offering of thanks.
That is the Eucharistic tithe offering. Now, if you are a Roman Catholic and you were expecting to find the early church offering an oblation of consecrated bread and wine after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, you're going to be sorely disappointed with Hippolytus, because the oblation of bread and wine, along with the oblation of oil, coagulated milk, and olives, occurs prior to the invocation of the Holy Spirit, at a point in the liturgy when the unconsecrated food is offered, but not eaten, and then after the invocation, consecrated bread and wine are eaten, but are not offered.
To that end, let us continue with the Anaphora, describing what happens after the Eucharistic oblation is complete. The bishop asks that the Lord send His Holy Spirit to the oblation in order to make the Eucharist into a spiritual meal for His people to eat, now continuing with the words of Hippolytus, immediately following the oblation in chapter 4.
And we pray that you would send your Holy Spirit to the oblation of your holy church, in their gathering together, give to all those who partake of your holy mysteries, the fullness of the Holy Spirit, toward the strengthening of the faith and truth, that we may praise you and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ.
And continuing with the supper, we now cite chapters 37 and 38 of the Anaphora of Hippolytus. All shall be careful so that no unbeliever tastes of the Eucharist, nor a mouse or other animal, nor of any of it that falls and is lost.
For it is the body of Christ to be eaten by those who believe, and not to be scorned. Having blessed the cup in the name of God, you received it as the antitype of the blood of Christ. Again, chapters 37 and 38 of the Anaphora of Hippolytus.
Notice the consistency of the pattern. There is an oblation of unconsecrated food that is offered but not eaten, followed by the epiclesis, at which point the food is eaten but not offered. And even then, after the consecration, Hippolytus says the bread and wine are still just antitypical, or symbolic, of Christ.
And we know from Hebrews 9 .24 that the early temple is just the antitype, or a figure, of the true temple in heaven. And here, Hippolytus has said, even after the cup has been blessed, it is still just an antitype of the blood of Christ.
What is missing in Hippolytus is the only thing that could possibly support the early development of the abominable mass sacrifice of Roman Catholicism, which is to say, an offering of consecrated bread and wine to the Father.
It's just not there. So let's move forward to the Didascalia from 230 AD. The Didascalia is a document dating to the early third century, about 230 AD, claiming to contain the teachings of the apostles.
The Greek original is lost, but we do have the Latin and Syrian versions of it, and here is what the Latin version says of the Eucharist in chapter 9. But do thou love and honor the Lord with all thy strength, and offer his oblations ever at all times, and hold not aloof from the church.
But when thou hast received the Eucharist of the oblation, that which comes into thy hands, cast in that thou mayest share it with strangers. For this is collected and brought to the bishop for the entertainment of all strangers.
Again, that's the Didascalia, chapter 9. And again in chapter 11. And our Lord and Savior also said, if thou offer thy gift upon the altar, and then remember that thy brother keepeth any malice against thee, keep thy gift before the altar, and go first to be reconciled with thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Now the gift of God is our prayer and our Eucharist. If then thou shalt keep any malice against thy brother, or he against thee, thy prayer is not heard, and thy Eucharist is not accepted, and thou shalt be found void, both of prayer and Eucharist, by reasons of the anger which thou keepest.
Again, that's the Didascalia, chapter 11. Notice that the Eucharist comes into your hands and is brought to the bishop to be distributed to the poor. This is not a reference to the Lord's Supper, but to the tithe offering.
Yes, in the early church, the Eucharist was the tithe offering for the poor, the widow and the stranger. It was the gift that Christians brought to the altar to be sacrificed, and the gift was just the sacrifice of praise and thanks for the first fruits of the harvest, which was set aside for the poor.
Okay, now let's proceed with Origin of Alexandria. It is now 248 AD, and our example comes from Origin of Alexandria writing against the pagan Celsus, who gave thank offerings to devils. Origin contrasts that with the Christian liturgy of giving thanks to God through the offerings of our first fruits.
Notice as we read from Origin that he clearly identifies the Christian liturgy of a Eucharistic offering of thanks and prayer, followed by a consecration of the bread and wine that are presented to the believer, which become by prayer the body and blood of Christ.
Now, citing from Origin against Celsus, book 8, chapter 33. For this reason, then, let Celsus, as one who knows not God, give thank offerings to demons. But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and along with thanksgiving, that is, Eucharistus, and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us, and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.
That's Origin against Celsus, book 8, chapter 33. And anyone who wants to see the Greek on that can see Meunier's series on the Greek fathers, volume 11, column 1565. An important observation is to be made here.
Note that when Origin says we give Eucharist and prayer to God for all the blessings we have received, he is speaking of the prayer of thanks and supplication to God, the Eucharistic oblation. He is not speaking of the consecration.
When he says we also eat the bread presented to us, and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, he is talking about the consecration. He uses the same word for both, but there are clearly two different types of prayers at two different points in the liturgy.
In fact, the person who first translated this into Latin was a Greek refugee who fled from Constantinople when it fell in 1453. When he translated Origin's reference to thanksgiving and prayer of the Eucharist, he renders it in Latin, presibus, or supplications.
Whereas when he speaks of the bread becoming the body of Christ by prayer, he translates it as orationem. For the Latin, Semenye, series on the Greek fathers, volume 11, column 1566, which is the adjacent column that has the Greek translated into Latin.
As Origin continues in the very next sentence, which is chapter 34, he makes it very clear that he is speaking of the offering of the first fruits as the Eucharistic oblation. Now, citing from chapter 34 of book 8 of Origin against Celsus.
Celsus would also have us to offer the first fruits to demons, but we would offer them to him who said, let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed and the tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is itself upon the earth.
And to him to whom we offer first fruits, we also send up our prayers. Again, that's Origin against Celsus, book 8, chapter 34, identifying the Eucharist as the offering of the first fruits of the harvest.
Now we continue with Origin in the same work against Celsus, but citing book 8, chapter 57. Again, Celsus wishes us to be thankful to these demons, imagining that we owe them thank offerings, that is, Eucharistos.
But we, while recognizing the duty of thankfulness, maintain that we show no ingratitude by refusing to give thanks, Eucharistias, to beings who do us no good, but who rather set themselves against us when we neither sacrifice to them nor worship them.
We are much more concernless we should be ungrateful to God, who has loaded us with his benefits. And we have a symbol of gratitude, Eucharistias, to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist. Eucharistias.
Again, that's Origin against Celsus, book 8, chapter 57. Anyone who wants to check my Greek on that can see Menier's series on the Greek Fathers, volume 11, column 1601 to 1604. We notice here that Origin is very clearly referring to the Eucharist as the thank offering, which is separate from and prior to the consecration, at which point the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ to us.
We especially note that Origin refers to it as the Eucharist while it is still just a thank offering of the first fruits and the bread is just a symbol of our thanks. Okay, our next example is from Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, about 251 AD.
This is from his letter to Fabian, Bishop of Antioch. It is recorded for us in Eusebius' Church History, book 6, chapter 43. The letter from Cornelius complains of the errors of the schismatic Novatus, who had corrupted the Lord's Supper by insisting that communicants swear their loyalty to him against Cornelius during the supper.
Cornelius does not complain that Novatus has corrupted the order of the liturgy, but rather that he has substituted an oath of loyalty in the place of the consecration. And notice in this rendering, a consecration or blessing is pronounced over the food only after the Eucharistic offerings are complete.
Now citing from Eusebius' Church History, book 6, chapter 43, paragraph 18. He adds to these yet another, the worst of all the man's offenses, as follows. For when he has made the offerings and distributed a part to each man, as he gives it, he compels the wretched man to swear in place of the blessing.
Holding his hands in both of his own, he will not release them until he has sworn in this manner. For I will give you his own words. Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that you will never forsake me and turn to Cornelius.
Notice in this rendition from Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, there are offerings which answer to the historical Eucharistic tithe offering, followed by a distribution of that Eucharist to the individual, at which time the consecration would be made over the bread, so that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ.
But instead of a blessing pronouncing the bread and wine to be his body and blood, Novatus makes the person swear in the name of the body and blood of Christ against Cornelius. An offering of the unconsecrated Eucharist, after which the Eucharist is distributed to believers, which would then normally be followed by a consecration, but is instead followed by an oath of loyalty.
What is missing in this representation of the supper is an offering that would have taken place after the consecration. But what is present is a distribution of the Eucharist prior to the consecration.
The Eucharist came first, then followed by a consecration, then followed by a meal, because the Eucharist, the oblation, was originally the tithe. Okay, we move forward just a few years to a period between 254 and 258 AD, and our next example is from Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his letter to Bishop Sixtus of Rome.
In this letter, Dionysius described a man in his congregation who believed he had been improperly baptized and asked for the sacrament to be re-administered. Dionysius refuses to re-baptize him because the man had already for a long time participated in the supper.
Notice the description of the liturgy. There is the Eucharist, which is the giving of thanks, followed by the apostolic Amen, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14, 16, at which point the food is blessed or consecrated, and then received by the participant.
Now citing from Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistle 4 to Sixtus, Bishop of Rome. For I should not dare to renew afresh, after all, one who had heard the giving of thanks, Eucharistius, and who had answered with others, Amen, who had stood at the holy table and stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food, and had received it, and for a very long time had been a partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is related to us in Eusebius' Church History, Book 7, Chapter 9, and anyone who wants to check the Greek on that can see it in Meunier's series on the Latin Fathers, Volume 5, Column 98. But notice how closely this follows not only Paul in his description of the thanksgiving, the Amen, and the consecration in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, but it also follows Justin Martyr, who described in his first apology, Paragraph 65 to 67, that the people expressed their assent by saying Amen after the prayers and the thanksgivings.
And then the Eucharistic food is distributed to all present, and that food becomes the body and blood of Christ only after the word of God, this is my body, this is my blood, is spoken over it. It is notable that Dionysius describes the man hearing the Eucharist, saying Amen, and only then receiving the food and calling it the body and blood of Christ.
It is the same pattern, food that is offered as a tithe but not eaten, followed by a blessing after which food is eaten but is not offered, Eucharist, followed by the Lord's Supper. We now proceed to 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea, and in the canons there is a consistency of terminology regarding the liturgy.
First, Canon 5 talks about how important it is to set aside all pettiness and quarrelsomeness before making the offerings, so that all pettiness being set aside, the gift offered to God may be unblemished.
They are clearly not talking about offering the consecrated body of Christ to the Lord, because the offering consists of gifts which answer to the tithe. The Greek word here is doron, which as we pointed out earlier, is the word Jesus used to describe the contributions to the temple treasury.
Anyone who wants to check my Greek there can see the canons of Nicaea in the original Greek, a link to which will be provided in the show notes. And when we get to Canon 13, the offerings are referred to as Eucharist.
And in Canon 18, there is a discussion about deacons administering the Eucharist to presbyters. But again, we have seen this many times in the history of the Church, namely that the bread of the unconsecrated offerings is called Eucharist until the consecration is spoken, and sometimes that consecration is not spoken until after the bread is handed over to the recipient.
And in Canon 11, it says that those who have fallen into idolatry are not allowed to participate in the offerings until after a probationary period, which is consistent with what we have seen from the Didache in the first century, but let no one eat or drink of your thanksgiving, Eucharist, but they who have been baptized and just and martyr in the second.
And this food is called among us Eucharistia, of which no one is allowed to partake, but the man who believes that the things we teach are true and Hippolytus in the third, all shall be careful so that no unbeliever tastes of the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is a reference to the tithe. Bread and wine of the supper are taken from the tithe and sometimes even distributed to the recipient before they're consecrated to be eaten.
All right,.
Moving forward to 341 AD, Bishop Julius of Rome has been investigating the accusations against Athanasius, and at some point in the controversy, a man named Issacharus was compelled to make an accusation that one of Athanasius' presbyters had interrupted his liturgy and broken the chalice, but an unconverted catechumen testified that he had been present at church that day, and further, that Issacharus was sick on the floor at the time of the incident.
Something wasn't adding up, and so Julius presses the matter, and in the process described the liturgical norm of the church, namely that the unconverted were not allowed to be present at the Eucharistic tithe offerings.
Now citing from Athanasius, Against the Arians, Part 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 28, which is a recording of Julius' letter to Athanasius' accuser. Now from these representations of his, we are naturally led to ask the question, how was it possible that a man who was lying behind the door sick could get up and conduct the service and offer?
And how could it be that oblations were offered when catechumens were within? For if there were catechumens present, it was not yet time for presenting the oblations. Again, that is Julius' letter to Athanasius' accusers, from Athanasius, Against the Arians, Part 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 28.
In any case, the significant point here is that the oblations of the church are the tithe offerings. And just as we have seen for the first 300 years of Christianity, the unconverted are not allowed to be present for the tithe offerings, which are in fact, the Eucharist.
Now let's move forward to 350 AD with Cyril of Jerusalem. And what we begin to see is that the sacrifice begins to be moved to the right of the Epiclesis. And the sacrifice now becomes propitiatory, but the elements are still called antitypical.
We are now referring to Cyril's catechetical lectures, focusing on Lecture 23, because it depicts for us the order of the liturgy in the mid -4th century. Paragraphs 5 to 6 describe the Eucharist in terms of thankfulness for all that the Lord has provided.
For example, the priest says, Let us give thanks unto the Lord, for verily we are bound to give thanks, that he called us, unworthy as we are, to so great grace. And please note, all these references to thankfulness use the Greek word Eucharistia.
Now continuing,.
After this we make mention of heaven and earth and sea, of sun and moon, of stars, and all creation, so we may be partakers with the hosts of the world above in their hymn of praise. Okay, now all of this comports with the ancient Eucharistic liturgy in which we offer thanks to the Lord for his creation and for his salvation.
And then Cyril proceeds with the Epiclesis, invoking the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. Now citing Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23, paragraph 7. 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 Ghost has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Again, that's Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23, paragraph 7. And notice that the gifts being offered are, in Greek, philanthropon, that is, a word from which we derive our English word philanthropy, a public gift of one's wealth.
Anyone who wants to check my Greek on that can look up Meunier's series on the Greek Fathers, volume 23, column 1113. There is an offering of the gifts as a Eucharist followed by an Epiclesis. And here is where the change in the liturgy becomes apparent.
Suddenly, the sacrifice has moved to the right of the Epiclesis and it has become a propitious sacrifice. After uttering the Epiclesis, Cyril of Jerusalem continues offering the sacrifice, now citing from paragraph 8 of the same lecture.
Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation, we entreat 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 a word, for all who stand in need of succor.
We all pray and offer this sacrifice. Note the significance. It is now 350 AD and Cyril's liturgy has the offering of the sacrifice taking place after the elements have been called the body and blood of Christ.
Even so, Cyril still does not consider the consecrated bread and wine to be the literal body and blood of Christ, for he refers to them in paragraph 20, not as bread and wine, but the antitypical body and blood of Christ.
And what is more, when the bread and wine are distributed, the recipients are instructed to touch the bread and wine to their eyes, ears, foreheads, and nostrils as they eat and drink, which is something one might do if he believed the bread and wine were symbolic of Christ's body and blood, but not something one would do if he believed the bread and wine truly had become the body and blood and soul and divinity of God himself.
And what is more, Cyril of Jerusalem believed that there was a real change in the bread and the wine upon being consecrated in the liturgy, but there was a catch. Cyril only believed the bread and wine changed in the same way meat's sacrifice to devils were changed at the invocation of devils.
Now, citing from Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 19, paragraph 7. Moreover, the things which are hung up at idol festivals, either meat or bread or other such things polluted by the invocation of the unclean spirits, are reckoned in the pomp of the devil.
For as the bread and wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the holy and adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, well, after the invocation, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.
So in like manner, such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature simple, become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit. Again, that's Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 19, paragraph 7.
Here he has acknowledged that the meat and the bread sacrificed to idols literally change into something else, just as the bread and wine really change into the body and blood of Christ, or as his context plainly states, the real changes from simple to profane is in the case of meats polluted by the invocation of devils, or from simple to holy in the case of bread and wine blessed by the invocation in the liturgy.
This is not transubstantiation by any stretch of the imagination, unless, of course, we're willing to grant that meats sacrificed to idols are really changed into something else, and we are not willing to grant that at all.
In any case, earlier in this episode, we discussed two ways for the Roman Catholic mass sacrifice to emerge in the liturgy of the early church. Either the sacrifice has to move to the right of the epiclesis after the bread and wine have been called the body and blood of Christ, or the attributes of Christ have to be found to the left of the epiclesis when the bread and wine are actually being offered.
Cyril has provided an example of the former because he continued sacrificing after the epiclesis. Now let's look at an example of the latter from about the same time, in which case the attributes of Christ are recognized in the food prior to the consecration.
The year is sometime between 350 and 356 AD, and we're quoting from the sacramentary of Serapion of Thimoes on the Nile Delta. We are reading from his eukologion, or sacramentary. In his Eucharist, he follows the early liturgies closely.
An offering of bread and wine is a thank offering before the consecration. But notice that before the epiclesis, he says what is being offered is the likeness of Christ's body and blood. Now citing from the Eucharistic anaphora of the sacramentary of Serapion of Thimoes.
Paragraph B, the oblation. This bread is the likeness of the holy body. For the Lord Jesus Christ, in the night in which he was betrayed, took bread and break and gave to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my body, which is being broken for you for the remission of sins.
Wherefore, we also, making the likeness of the death, have offered the bread. And we beseech thee through this sacrifice to be reconciled to all of us and be merciful, O God of truth. We have offered also the cup, the likeness of the blood.
For the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his own disciples, Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which is being shed for you for the remission of sins. Wherefore, we also have offered the cup, presenting a likeness of the blood.
Again, that is the Eucharistic anaphora of the sacramentary of Serapion of Thimoes. Paragraph B, the oblation. What is most notable here is that Serapion has called the bread and wine the likeness of the body of Christ and the cup the likeness of his blood, and it is all offered before the consecration.
What is offered before the consecration is merely symbolic. Now let us proceed with the liturgy of Serapion, the consecration, in which he now prays that the word of God would come upon the bread and wine to make it into his body and blood, at which point the bread and wine are eaten but are not offered.
Now, citing from the Eucharistic anaphora of the sacramentary of Serapion of Thimoes, paragraph C, the invocation. O God of truth, let thy holy word come to sojourn on this bread, that the bread may become the body of the word, and on this cup that the cup may become the blood of the truth, and make all who communicate to receive a medicine of life, for the healing of every sickness and for the enabling of all advancement and virtue, not for condemnation, O God of truth, and not for censure and reproach, for we have invoked thee, the uncreated, through the only begotten in the Holy Spirit.
So that is the liturgy of Serapion. In his eyes, the sacrifice was only the likeness of Christ's body and blood, and it was, in his words, propitiatory, but it still preceded the epiclesis. It is offensive to be sure that the sacrifice is considered propitiatory, but it is nonetheless notable because of what it is not.
It was still not alleged to be a sacrifice of Christ's actual body and blood, and therefore it is still not Rome's novel mass sacrifice. So let's move forward to the time of Gregory of Nazianzen and his orations which were recorded between 361 and 381 AD.
Like Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzen offered in the liturgy, first a sacrifice of praise in accordance with Hebrews 13 verses 15 to 16, a sacrifice of a contrite heart in accordance with Psalms 51 -17, and himself a living sacrifice in accordance with Romans 12.
These are internal spiritual sacrifices of the heart, mind, and disposition. This was then followed by what Gregory calls the external sacrifice in Oration 2 paragraph 95, by which Gregory refers to the sacrifice of first fruits, for he has in this oration referred to the Malachi prophecy and the failure of the Jews to offer the first fruits acceptable to the Lord, for they had offered polluted bread and meat which is not first fruits.
That's Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 2 paragraph 61. Notably, Gregory identifies the tithe offering for the poor as the Eucharist, as evidenced by Oration 18, which was his heartfelt eulogy for his mother and father.
In this oration, he describes how his father gave to the poor with a readiness that was often absent in others, which readiness is a greater and more perfect thing than the mere offering itself. That's Oration 18 paragraph 20.
How could anyone be more conclusively proved to be good and worthy to offer the gifts to God? That's Oration 18 paragraph 25. The Greek word for gifts there is the same word used by the gospel writers when they describe people casting gifts into the treasury.
Anyone who wants to check the Greek on that can see Menier's series on the Greek fathers, paragraph 35, column 1016. Gregory then continues, recounting a time when his father was so sick that he almost could not even finish the thank offering.
Now quoting from Oration 18, The time of the mystery had come, and the reverend station, that is, the fast, and order when silence is kept for the solemn rites. But then after offering sacrifices and adding the customary words of thanksgiving, that is, the Eucharist, his father had to take a break and regain his strength and only then return with the full compliment of clergy and offered the sacrifice of thanksgiving.
That's Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 18, paragraph 29. And anyone who wants to check the Greek on that can see Menier's series on the Greek fathers, volume 35, column 1021. So again, we have someone offering the tithe offering as the Eucharist.
And please note Gregory's words about when silence is kept for the sacred rites, when the word of thanksgiving is spoken. Remember how reticent communicants were in Tertullian's day to interrupt a solemn station or fast with a joyful Eucharist, and they were avoiding the thank offering and only coming for the supper.
We find in Nazianzen's mother something similar, for she was unwilling to interrupt a joyful Eucharist with the grief and woe she felt for the misfortune of strangers. Now citing Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 18, paragraph 10, speaking of his mother.
She reverenced the sanctuary by her silence. And what is still more wonderful, she never so far yielded to the external signs of grief, although greatly moved even by the misfortunes of strangers, as to allow a sound of woe to burst forth before the Eucharist.
The Greek word there is Eucharistias, the same word he used to describe how his father had offered the thank offerings. Now, why would his mother be considering the grief for the misfortune of strangers instead of contemplating the sufferings of Christ?
The reason is because the Eucharist was, as it always had been, an offering for the poor, the stranger, the widow, and the orphan. It was not the Lord's Supper. And if we need any more evidence, we need only read his 45th Oration, in which the Eucharistic sacrifice was offered on a heavenly altar, in Gregory's words, to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
That's Oration 45, paragraph 30. It would hardly need repeating, except for the fact that the word Eucharist has been so abused by the Roman Catholic, so we will say the obvious. If the offering is to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then the Son is not what is being offered in the Eucharist.
Or at least it should not be. And this is where Gregory ended up slipping into the double error of moving the attributes of Christ to the left of the Epiclesis, so what is offered is like Christ, and continuing the sacrifice after the Epiclesis, so the offering continues even after the elements have been consecrated.
This, as we mentioned earlier, is what would need to happen for the Roman Catholic mass sacrifice to find its origins. On the one hand, Gregory refers to the external sacrifice of the first fruits and refers to them as antitypes of the great mysteries.
That's Oration 2, paragraph 95. Antitype means symbol, and the great mysteries here refers to the consecrated bread and wine of the supper. So what he is offering in the tithe of the first fruits before the consecration is symbolic of Christ's body and blood, the body and blood that those elements will represent after the consecration.
And on the other hand, after the consecration, Gregory invites his congregation to come forward to eat and drink, and significantly to continue offering the sacrifice. Now, citing from Oration 45, paragraph 23, which is from 381 AD.
Now, we will partake of a Passover which is still typical, though it is plainer than the old one. Let us sacrifice not young calves nor lambs, but let us sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise upon the heavenly altar.
Let us sacrifice ourselves to God, or rather, let us go on sacrificing throughout every day and at every moment. By sufferings, let us imitate his passion. By our blood, let us reverence his blood. Again, that is Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 45, paragraph 23.
What is clear is that in the offering of first fruits, Gregory of Nazianzen saw the symbols of Christ's body and blood. And what is clear is that after the consecration, Gregory continued the sacrifice of praise.
It is also quite notably that Gregory said that the elements of the tithe offering were antitypical of Christ's body and blood. And even in the Lord's Supper, the elements were still typical of the true Passover.
In other words, there was still no real presence of Christ in the supper and no evidence that Gregory thought he was offering Christ to the Father. Nevertheless, the attributes of Christ had moved to the left of the epiclesis and the sacrifice had moved to the right of it.
And that gets us to 382 AD with Gregory of Nysa, when we finally find in his liturgy, a literal sacrifice of Christ's body and blood to the Father in the Lord's Supper after the elements are called Christ's body and blood.
This is from 382 AD. It is Gregory of Nysa in his novel work On the Space of Three Days Between the Death and Resurrection of Christ. He tried to figure out how Jesus could have been in the ground for three days between Friday and Sunday.
Unable to find three actual days between Jesus' death on Friday and his resurrection on Sunday, Gregory got creative in his analysis of Matthew 1240. The Son of Man must be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Perhaps, he thought, Jesus had transcended time and space and not only offered his body and blood to his disciples in figure, but was truly reckoned dead and thereby truly had offered the Lamb to God on Thursday night, the night before he died.
Perhaps, thought Gregory of Nysa, Jesus really was dead on Thursday night and therefore truly had sacrificed himself at the supper. Jesus transcending time and space to die on Thursday night solved the three-day problem, but also moved the new Passover right where Roman Catholicism needed it, Thursday night at the supper.
Now, citing Gregory of Nysa, On the Space of Three Days, Oration 1. For the body of the victim would not be suitable for eating if it were still alive. So, when he made his disciples share in eating his body and drinking his blood, already in secret by the power of the one who ordained the mystery of his body, he offered himself for us, victim and sacrifice, and priest as well as Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
When did he do this? When he made his own body food and his own blood drink for his disciples. For this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten can be preceded by it being slaughtered.
That's Gregory of Nysa, On the Space of Three Days, Oration 1. That Gregory of Nysa had imagined something new can easily be seen by comparing his novelty with what the church fathers had said before him.
Even Cyprian, upon whom much of Rome's mass is presumed to rest, denied that Jesus could really have offered his blood to his disciples until after he had first been trampled upon and pressed at the cross.
Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, Paragraph 7. Something new was being preached, and that new thing was the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass. Ambrose of Milan, too, joined in the new chorus of offering Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper.
In his commentaries on Psalms, in 389, he wrote,. We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer this sacrifice on behalf of the people.
Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in the sacrifice here on earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us.
He whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered. Again, that's Ambrose of Milan, Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David, Psalm 38, Paragraph 25. That this period was transitional can be seen in the equivocation of the men who wrote of the Lord's Supper during this time.
In his treatise on the priesthood in 387 AD, John Chrysostom uses language that is strongly suggestive of an ancient practice of offering prayer as a sacrifice and exhibiting Christ's body and blood figuratively, but his language is perpetratory, like that of Cyril, and he has the priest praying over the victim.
This is John Chrysostom, Treatise on the Priesthood, Book 3, Chapter 4. You see the Lord sacrificed and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshipers imperiled with that precious blood.
But in his painfully equivocal homilies on Hebrews, he attempts to have it both ways, saying that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, but really a remembrance of a sacrifice, and though offered as a sacrifice is nonetheless a figure of a sacrifice, but is somehow a sacrifice or rather a remembrance of a sacrifice.
Just listen as he equivocates. Now citing Chrysostom homilies on Hebrews, Homily 17, Chapter 6. What then, do we not offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of his death. And this remembrance is one and not many.
How is it one and not many? Inasmuch as that sacrifice was once for all offered, and carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that sacrifice, and this remembrance of that. This is done in remembrance of what was then done.
For, says he, do this in remembrance of me. It is not another sacrifice as the high priest, but we offer always the same, or rather perform a remembrance of a sacrifice. That's Chrysostom homilies on Hebrews, Homily 17, Chapter 6.
Chrysostom's equivocation aside, the divine liturgy that is attributed to him states it quite plainly. Christ is offered as a sacrifice in the elements of the bread and wine. Now citing the divine liturgy of John Chrysostom, dating to 398 AD.
You have entrusted to us the celebration of this liturgical sacrifice without the shedding of blood. Enable me by the power of your Holy Spirit, so that vested with the grace of priesthood, I may stand before your holy table and celebrate the mystery of your holy and pure body and your precious blood.
For you, Christ our God, are the offerer and the offered. Again, that's the divine liturgy of John Chrysostom. And that is where we'll have to leave off today. In the early scriptural apostolic liturgy, there was a Eucharist, an Amen, a consecration, and a meal.
For 300 years, that Eucharistic sacrifice was the tithe offering before the elements were consecrated, when the food was offered but not eaten, followed by the consecration when there was a meal in which the body and blood of Christ were eaten but were not offered.
And even then, they went out of their way to profess that the bread and wine were symbols, likenesses, antitypes, types, and figures of his body and blood, and not the real thing. But in the late fourth century, the attributes of Christ began to be manifested to the left of the Epiclesis, and the tithe was said to be symbolically Christ's body and blood.
And about the same time, the sacrifice itself moved to the right of the Epiclesis, such that the sacrifice continued to be offered even after the bread and wine were consecrated. And thus, the abominable Roman Catholic mass sacrifice finally came into existence.
And that is the conundrum faced by scholars and apologists, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, as they explore the origins of the medieval Roman Catholic mass sacrifice. Unable to reconcile the early church's Eucharistic tithe offering of bread and wine prior to the consecration with a late fourth century Eucharistic sacrifice of the bread and wine after the consecration, scholars and apologists have engaged in one of the most deceptive and dangerous campaigns in the history of the church.
It is an intentional and misleading campaign to make the early church appear to have offered the Eucharistic sacrifice after the consecration by rewriting and editing the early texts to collapse the Eucharist into the Epiclesis.
I do not make such charges lightly, and I will provide the evidence in the next episode. In any case, these efforts have made it appear that the early church did for the first 300 years what was really only invented at the end of the fourth century.
And that is why James Jordan, Jeffrey Myers, Peter Lightheart, 17th century Pierre Dumoulin, and Marcus Grodi with them, end up concluding that the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass is the ancient liturgical practice of the apostolic church.
And that is where we will pick up next time as we cover the conversion of Marcus Grodi and how he was deceived into thinking that the church has always offered the body of Christ and the blood of Christ to the Father at the Lord's Supper.
The truth is, the church never has and never will. You have been listening to The Diving Board. Episode 9. We'll see you next time.