The following discussion of the doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice both in its Medieval and more recent forms and its incompatibility to the Bible, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer was originally published in a 3-part article, “An Anglican Prayer Book (2008): The Order for the Holy Communion,” in which I examined the eucharistic rites in that service book. It is also relevant to the new ACNA eucharistic rites, especially The Holy Communion, Long Form.
By Robin G. Jordan
A modified doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice has gained some currency among Anglicans and Episcopalians. This doctrine, while it rejects the Roman view which associates a sacrifice or oblation in the Eucharist with Christ's death, seek to connect such a sacrifice or oblation with the heavenly priesthood of our Lord. This notion of Eucharistic sacrifice is defined in a number of ways:
"Some have spoken of the suffering of Christ as a temporal revelation and reflection of something that ever continues in the presence of God. Some have spoken of the risen life that Christ now lives, and the intercession that he now makes, as having the character of sacrificial self-offering. Some...have spoken of Christ always standing before God's throne, presenting, offering, or pleading his earthly sacrifice. Then the church's sacrifice is explained in terms of pleading Christ's death for the remission of our own and others' sins as we offer all that we are and have to God. This pleading is said to be a 're-presenting' (not a symbolizing, but a fresh offering or a 'making present again') of Christ's sacrifice to the Father in union with Christ himself as he re-presents it; and the church's corporate self-offering in Christ, within which our re-presenting of Calvary finds its place, is seen as the main purpose of, and the central action in the eucharistic liturgy." [1]
In this view of Eucharistic sacrifice "the sacrifice of Christ is more than his once-for-all death on Calvary, and in some sense continues into the present; and "the church's union with Christ is such that Christians are incorporated, not merely into his death and resurrection, but into his present sacrificing activity as well." [2] What happens in the Eucharist is not a repetition of Christ's sacrifice, nor an addition to it, but it is more than a commemoration of that sacrifice. It is a participation in it. [3]
As W. H. Griffith Thomas points to our attention in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles, those who teach this view of the Eucharistic sacrifice wrongly associate the Holy Communion with Christ in heaven, for everything in the Bible and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer associates the Lord's Supper with the death of Christ and not with his life in heaven. [4]
He lists five considerations that we should weigh in the study of this view. First, no trace of any such idea can be found in Ante-Nicene history. Second, nothing in the New Testament provides a Scriptural basis for the belief that Christ is presenting before God the sacrifice once offered on the Cross. Neither the New Testament nor the 1662 Prayer Book teach such a doctrine. Third, no sacrifice is associated with our Lord in heaven either in the New Testament or the 1662 Prayer Book. Fourth, in a sacrament the movement is from God to man. In a sacrifice it is from man to God. This is a major difference between a sacrament and a sacrifice. Fifth, the idea of our Lord offering or pleading in heaven is not found anywhere in Scripture. [5]
As Griffith Thomas further points to our attention in his discussion of the Lord's Supper in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles, when Christ says, "do this in remembrance of me," touto poieō, "do this," does not mean "offer this." He writes: "The force of the present tense in the Greek is 'Do this again and again,' i.e.. 'perform this action." [6]
Anamnēsis, "remembrance," he stresses, in the Greek "means an act of the mind recalling and never an objective memorial." He goes on to write:
"The two Greek words for "remembrance" and "memorial" are never identical, but always carefully distinguished." [7]
He further points to our attention that the indirect object of the verb kataggellō,"proclaim," in 1 Corinthians 11:26 is "always man, never God. It cannot possibly mean 'exhibit before God.'" [8]
In his discussion of the idea of Eucharistic sacrifice in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles he reiterates that touto poieō, "do this," in the Institutional Narratives cannot be rendered as "offer this," anamnēsis, "remembrance" as a "memorial before God," and kataggellō, "proclaim" with God, and not man, as the object. [9]
He goes on to point to our attention that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer follows the New Testament and has three sacrifices only-the sacrifices of ourselves (Romans 12:1); our gifts (Hebrews 13:16); and our praises (Hebrews 13:15). The 1662 Prayer Book does not even have an oblation of the unconsecrated elements. [10]
He concludes:
"In the Lord's Supper Christ is neither offered to God, nor for man, but He is offered to man in all the efficacy of His atoning sacrifice, to be received by faith. It would be well if we could avoid ambiguous terms. Even such a phrase as 'commemorative sacrifice' is ambiguous, for strictly, it is not this, but the commemoration of a sacrifice. If, however, the words 'Eucharistic Sacrifice' means some sacrifice which is offered only in and at the Lord's Supper, it is clear that no such idea is found either in the Bible or in the Prayer Book." [11]
"Of a piece with" this view of Eucharistic sacrifice, to use the words of J.I. Packer, is what Packer describes as the "fancy" that the "remembrance," or anamnesis, of Christ in the Eucharist is directed to God, "as if Jesus' words 'do this in remembrance of me' had meant 'do this to remind my Father of me'. [12]
Packer draws to our attention that, while directly the Thirty Nine Articles say nothing about this view of the Eucharistic sacrifice, indirectly they say a lot. He goes on to identify a number of principles laid down in Articles 25-26 and 28-31, which this doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice appears to contravene. [13]
The first of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion are "signs of the gospel, with their meaning fixed by the gospel." "The 'sacraments of the gospel,'" Packer reminds us, "are 'effectual signs of grace' by which God works to 'quicken...strengthen and confirm our faith in him' (Article 25)." "But to know what the gospel and grace and faith are," he stresses, "we have to look back to Articles 9-18, which the sacramental Articles presuppose." [14]
The second of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion are "acts of God terminating on men."-"'signs...by the which (God) doth work in...in us (Article 25)." Packer makes the same point as W. H. Griffith Thomas, that in a sacrament the movement is from God to us. God is the chief agent and his work is the chief action. [15]
The third of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion "proclaim God's work for and in man." Packer writes:
"Baptism is 'a sign of regeneration, or new birth' (Article 27) through union with Christ in his death and resurrection; the Lord's Supper is 'a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death', in which those united to Christ by faith partake of his body and blood (Article 28). Thus both sacraments exhibit Christ's atoning achievements and benefits which flow from it to us here and now." [16]
The fourth of these principles is that the gospel sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion "are means by which God works faith." The Thirty Nine Articles tell us the gospel sacraments are means of grace and "convey the blessings that signify...to those who receive them 'worthily'-'rightly, worthily, and with faith' (Article 25, 28)". Packer goes on to note:
"Right reception is believing reception. 'The mean(s) whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten is faith' (Article 28)." [17]
He further notes:
"And the sacraments, in their character as visible words and acted promises, are God's instrument to 'not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him' (Article 25). They function as means of grace precisely because God makes them means to faith. The essential sacramental action is his coming to us sinners to call forth our faith through the sign and through that faith to impart to us the benefits of Jesus' death." [18]
"Believing and receiving," Packer tells us, "are the essence of sacramental worship." "Those who have received sacraments should indeed give themselves to God, but such self-giving is a response to the grace made known in the sacrament and not strictly part of the sacrament itself. That is the view clearly expressed in the 1662 Communion office." [19]
The modified doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice that has been circulating among Anglicans and Episcopalians conflicts with all four of these principles. It is not determined by the gospel as the gospel is presented in the New Testament. This view of Eucharistic sacrifice, Packer draws to our attention, "insists that Christ's sacrifice continues in heaven, whereas Scripture equates his sacrifice with his death and proclaims his work of offering as finished. Also this doctrine labours to assimilate our self-offering to his, where as Scripture does the opposite, stressing the uniqueness of Christ's vicarious sacrificial death and keeping it distinct from the sacrifice of praise and service that is our response to it. These emphases were not learned from the biblical gospel." [20]
This view of Eucharistic sacrifice "turns the Lord's Supper into an act of man terminating on God." Packer further draws to our attention:
"The essential action ceases to be God's sacramental offering of Christ to men, and becomes our sacrificial offering of ourselves with Christ to God. But this is to embrace an unbiblical fantasy about the re-presenting of Calvary and to treat our response to the sacrament as if it were the sacrament itself." [21]
This view of Eucharistic sacrifice "makes the Lord's Supper a symbolizing not of Christ's sacrifice so much as of ours." Packer notes:
"The service turns into a showing forth primarily of the church's devotion, and of the Lord's death only incidentally. But this impoverishes sacramental worship, not enriches it." [22]
This view of Eucharistic sacrifice "minimizes the function of the Lord's Supper as a means of grace." "On this view, the church comes to the eucharist to give rather than to get;" Packer further notes, "not primarily to receive, but to offer itself in thanksgiving for what it has received already. This cuts across the view of the Articles, that the Lord's Supper is first and foremost a means for God to strengthen faith and to communicate to believing hearts the fruits of Calvary." [23]
Packer concludes that, now five centuries ago, the Thirty-Nine Articles anticipated this doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice and "ruled it out as misshapen." He writes:
"To any currently attracted by it they suggest a question: is it not a poor thing compared with that which it seeks to supplant? Ultimately, of course, that question must be answered by Scripture, but surely it is the right question for us to face in this matter, and surely the Articles do us a service by pointing it up for us." [24]
Endnotes:
[1] J. I. Packer and R. T. Beckwith, The Thirty Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing 2007, pp. 81-82
[2] Ibid., p. 81
[3] Ibid., p. 81
[4] W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Theological Seminary 1996, p. 424
[5] Ibid., pp. 424-425
[6] Ibid., p. 392
[7] Ibid., p. 392
[8] Ibid., p. 392
[9] Ibid., p. 424
[10] Ibid., p. 425
[11] Ibid., p. 426
[12] J. I. Packer and R. T. Beckwith, The Thirty Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing 2007, p. 82
[13] Ibid., p. 82
[14] Ibid., p. 83
[15] Ibid., p. 83
[16] Ibid., p. 83
[17] Ibid., pp. 83-84
[18] Ibid., pp. 84
[19] Ibid., p. 84
[20] Ibid., p. 84
[21] Ibid., pp. 84-85
[22] Ibid., p. 85
[23] Ibid., p. 85
[24] Ibid., p. 85
No comments:
Post a Comment