question about the eucharist

well irenaeus seems to be saying that God didn’t really require sacrifices at all. from what i understood anyways but that we should make them anyways so that we’re offering something to him in thanksgiving. he seems to be applying that to the eucharist

thank you, i’m glad someone understood. i was also hoping that someone who had read the texts would answer in a proper manner so i wouldn’t have to copy and paste whole chapters of text

Well, either I am being uncharitable, or you are simply making stuff up. In your Original Post, you said, “it seems like everyone until after irenaeus treats the eucharist as a sacrifice of thanksgiving only and not propitiatory”

You went on to list a number of Early Fathers, and I went on to show that EVERY ONE of them taught the opposite. I CITED them.

You are on my turf when asking about the Early Fathers. Longtime CAF participants probably recognize me for my many posts anytime an ECF is discussed. If you CLAIM to have read ANYTHING in the sources you mention that suggest in any manner that Eucharist is somehow merely symbolic or non-propitiatory, then I challenge you to actually CITE just ONE of these sources. I happen to know that you can do no such thing, so I am perfectly justified in claiming that you have not actually read any such thing (that does not exist). That is NOT uncharitable, it is factual, and it is a perfectly appropriate thing to assert in an apologetical forum.

what about justin martyr’s first apology where he’s describing the worship service?

What about it? I provided an actual citation from St. Justin Martyr.

or irenaeus’s against heresies writings on the eucharist. it doesn’t say anything about the sacrifice being proprtiatory, only the offering of prayers and thanksgiving. which, coincidentally, happens to be the lutheran position.

Oh, so you NOW want to ALSO introduce St. Irenaeus into this discussion? I had originally thought you had deliberately omitted Adversus Haereses. OK, here you go:

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (St. Irenaeus . *Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (St. Irenaeus . *Against Heresies *5:2[A.D. 189]).

i’m not trying to provoke anyone, just trying to find out the truth because my faith depends on it. was just wondering why they never mentioned it if it’s so important

But they DID mention it (as I have CITED). And they NEVER mentioned what you claim they mentioned (which you have not cited, and cannot cite).

Are you somehow completely immune from factual evidence?

Thanks! I have wrestled with these issues for a long while, and became Episcopalian so that I could be in contact with some form of the Catholic tradition while continuing to wrestle with the stuff I wasn’t sure of. The problem is that I don’t like to break communion with a Christian body once I’m part of it . . . .

Edwin

But none of your second-century citations said anything about the Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice. They may have implied this, but they don’t say it.

Augustine does, to be sure. One of the reasons Augustine is so confusing for everyone on this issue is that he’s clearer on the Eucharistic Sacrifice than he is on the Real Presence, whereas since the Reformation the former has been regarded as more controversial than the latter.

You reel off citations apparently without actually bothering to think carefully about how they relate to the specific questions being asked. Knowledge of the Fathers is demonstrated by thoughtful discussion of their content, not simply by a list of citations.

And you are uncharitable in your accusations against angel1. All of her posts support the same impression–that she is a sincere, intelligent person who is just beginning to ask some of the big, important questions about her faith. You are, not to put too fine a point on it, measuring your own neck for a millstone. You are so used to dealing with anti-Catholic propagandists that you can’t seem to imagine that these questions might be asked by anyone else.

If you CLAIM to have read ANYTHING in the sources you mention that suggest in any manner that Eucharist is somehow merely symbolic or non-propitiatory, then I challenge you to actually CITE just ONE of these sources.

You don’t need to suggest that something isn’t something. You need to suggest that it is.

But they DID mention it (as I have CITED). And they NEVER mentioned what you claim they mentioned (which you have not cited, and cannot cite)./QUOTE]

Irenaeus did mention thanksgiving indeed, in 3.18.6:

Now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift,(7) and thus sanctifying what has been created.

Edwin

Yes, I think he clearly is. The principle that God doesn’t need us is very important to Irenaeus–it’s central to his theology of creation. But we need to offer sacrifices.

I agree that the second-century sources don’t seem to be speaking explicitly of the Eucharist itself as propitiatory. But as David has pointed out, they don’t deny it either. It’s not really a question they are addressing. And they clearly are linking the Eucharist very closely to the one sacrifice of Christ, affirming it as a real sharing in the body and blood of Jesus. So it’s not a huge stretch to put these two things together even more closely, as later developments of the Tradition would do.

That at least is my perspective on this.

David is used to arguing against people who come onto this forum to prove Catholicism false, and sometimes pretend to be just asking innocent questions.

Edwin

Well, what do you make of the concept of ‘sacrifice’, if not ‘propitiatory’?

The words are redundant, if not synonymous.

btw: What do you think an Altar is for? What makes it an “altar”?

What makes a ‘priest’ a ‘priest’?

Why do protestants pretend to have altars, when they deny the sacrificial aspect of the mass? Do they not realize that a table ceases to be an altar, when it is no longer used to offer up a sacrifice?

I realize it’s an itchy concept, judged by modern secular thinking–but then, so is most of actual, true Christianity.

Protestantism has sought to take the ‘itchyness’ out of Christianity.

What you’re left with, is a ‘pet Jesus’, almost complete dilution of the Faith that Christ bequeathed to his Apostles.

The one that Christ actually left us, is challenging–particularly against secular standards.

…and that appears to be by design.

No. Not at all. This is a common attitude among Western Christians who have completely lost touch with the ancient context of sacrifice. But in Homer and the OT alike, you find sacrifice being used for all sorts of purposes. It’s basically sharing a meal with the deity to whom you offer it. Yes, it’s “propitiatory” in the sense that it’s aimed at gaining the deity’s favor. So I suppose it depends on how you define it.

The point is that the second-century texts could be taken as saying that we offer our gifts to God in thanksgiving for the sacrifice of Christ. In fact, I think that that is what they are saying, but that’s not to say that that’s all they’re saying. How much of the later development they explicitly had in mind is hard to tell given the sketchy nature of the texts.

I agree entirely with what you say about “itchiness” and Protestantism taking the itchiness out, though I don’t think it was by design.

Edwin

Exactly. I confess that, before making my post, I had to verify the definition of propitiate (the root verb), which, according to the only definition offered by dictionary.com, means “to make favorably inclined; appease; conciliate.”

Thus, a sacrifice that is “unacceptable” cannot be propitiatory. And Scripture tells us that the sacrifice of bulls and goats under Mosaic Law was not propitiatory:

First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [Heb 10:8-10]

The Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Our Lord. Does anyone want to seriously contest whether THAT is “propitiatory?”

What’s in dispute is whether the “sacrificial” language of the second century refers (as it definitely would by the fourth century) to the idea that Jesus Himself is being sacrificed in the Eucharist (i.e., that His one eternal sacrifice becomes a present reality for those who participate in the Eucharist), or whether it is simply referring to an offering of praise and thanksgiving.

Obviously in the broad, etymological sense of the word, all sacrifice is propitiatory. But what we’re talking about is a sacrifice that “takes away sins” in the language of Hebrews. As you say, David, Hebrews makes it clear that animal sacrifices, in themselves, could not do this–the only sacrifice that “makes our peace with God” (to use the language of the Mass itself, in English translation) is the sacrifice of Jesus. In developed Catholic theology, the Mass is, as you say, “the Sacrifice of Our Lord.” Irenaeus doesn’t say this, as far as I can see. He speaks of it as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. At the same time, our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is clearly linked to the Real Presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood, which Irenaeus does affirm, so the materials are all there–they just haven’t quite been put together explicitly yet.

I’m willing to be shown otherwise, and it wouldn’t change much from my perspective. This is a classic case of doctrinal development–my only concern is that insisting on ascribing a later stage of development to an earlier stage creates stumbling blocks for people who understandably don’t see the later stage there. Also, I think it’s important to hear the early voices in order to renew our understanding of the “developed” theology. The liturgical movement of the 20th century, which led to the liturgical reforms after Vatican II, was rooted in careful attention to these earlier voices, and particularly the recovery of the importance of the Offertory and the theme of praise and thanksgiving.

Edwin

See:

I. Does the Old Testament Prefigure the Eucharist as a Sacrifice?

It does. ***The Passover Lamb prefigured Christ, as St. Paul (1 Cor. 5:7) and John the Baptist (John 1:36) tell us. This role of Christ as the Sacrificial Lamb is prefigured as far back as Abraham (Genesis 22:8). ***Now, the Passover consists of two distinct but interrelated sacrificial actions. On Preparation Day, a spotless lamb was slaughtered (Exodus 12:6). That evening (the next day, by the Jewish reckoning) marks the beginning of Passover. On Passover, the lamb is eaten (Ex. 12:8-11), applying the merits of the lamb’s atoning death. The blood is described as a “sign,” but it’s actually efficacious: it saves the lives of the first-born of the houses with the blood marking the doors (Ex. 12:13). If Preparation Day is the shedding of sacrificial blood, Passover is, as Hebrews 11:28 describes it, “the application of blood.”

Now, the parallels to Christ are obvious. Christ’s Death on the Cross occurs on, and is the fulfillment of, Preparation Day (John 19:31). As for the Last Supper, in which Jesus institutes the Eucharist, Jesus specifically describes it as the Passover (Matthew 26:18). Christ is establishing the institution by which the Blood He is about to shed on Calvary will be perpetually applied to the faithful.

II. Does the New Testament Describe the Eucharist as a Sacrifice?

It does. Let me provide a few examples, from the words of Christ, St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, and the letter to the Hebrews.

Matthew 5:23-24

Here is what Jesus says in Matthew 5:23-24:

So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, ***leave your gift there before the altar ***and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

That is, Jesus depicts the Christians as making offerings at an altar, and it would be quite a stretch to suggest that He’s not referring to a literal altar (since we’re told to leave our gifts there to go make peace with our brothers). But what is an altar, other than a place to offer sacrifice? And what is this Sacrifice, if not the Sacrifice of the Mass? Protestants have “altar calls,” but no altars.

1 Corinthians 10:16-21

Perhaps the clearest instance in the New Testament in which the Eucharist is treated as a sacrifice is in 1 Corinthians 10:16-21,

Catacombs art depicting the Eucharist,
San Callisto, Rome (3rd c.)

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
Consider the people of Israel; ***are not those who eat the sacrifices ***partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

To prove that the Eucharist is a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ, St. Paul equates it to the Jews eating the animals sacrificed at the altar, and the pagans eating the food sacrificed to idols. He then says that we have to choose whether we want to drink the cup of the Lord or of demons, and whether we want to “partake of the table of” the Lord or of demons. We already know that partaking of the table of demons means eating the food sacrificed to them, and Paul is clearly treating the Eucharist as the Christian equivalent: a sacrificial meal.

But if Protestants are right, and the Eucharist isn’t a Sacrifice, then there’s no equivalence between the Lord’s Supper and the sacrificial meals of Judaism and paganism. In other words, if the Eucharist isn’t a Sacrifice, St. Paul’s argument from analogy doesn’t work.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/08/do-scripture-and-church-fathers-depict.html

Continuing…

Hebrews 9:15-24

The Book of Hebrews likewise supports a Sacrificial view of the Eucharist. In Hebrews 9:15-24, right before discussing the once-for-all nature of Christ‘s death, there’s a discussion on the application of the atoning blood, and an important parallel drawn:

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.

Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he ***took the blood of calves and goats, with water ***and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Like Exodus 12, this passage distinguishes between two distinct sacrificial aspects: the shedding of blood, and the application of (and purification with) blood. The first paragraph (Heb. 9:15-17) deals with the atoning death of animals under the Old Covenant. A parallel is drawn to Christ’s Death on the Cross on Calvary (Heb. 9:15), in which “a death has occurred which redeems” believers.

Josefa de Ayala, The Sacrificial Lamb (c. 1670-1684)

But the second paragraph transitions to discussing the application of the sacrificial blood. Here, the Old Testament example isn’t about animals being killed, but about Moses taking the blood of the sacrifices, and applying it repeatedly: first to the altar (Ex. 24:6), then to the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:7), then to the people themselves (Ex. 24:8), then to the tent, and finally, to the vessels used in worship (Heb. 9:21).

The New Testament parallel here isn’t to Calvary, but to the Last Supper. We see this from Hebrews 9:20, in which Moses is depicted as saying “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” This passage is vital, because instead of quoting Moses directly, the author of Hebrews blends the words of Moses in Exodus 24:8, with the words of institution at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).

Calvary is a once-for-all action, just as the slaying of the animals was. But just as Moses is able to apply the blood first to the altar, and then to the Book, and then to the people, without re-sacrificing the animals, the Eucharist can be offered repeatedly without re-crucifying Christ.

One final point about this passage, while we’re on the subject: we are promised that the New Covenant consists of “better sacrifice***s***,” plural, than the Old (Heb. 9:23), yet the Protestant view turns this upside down. That is, Protestants would have to say that Jesus Christ’s words of institution at the Last Supper were merely symbolic, while Moses’ words of institution (Heb. 9:20; Ex. 24:8) were efficacious, since they actually sealed the Covenant, and Moses and the elders proceeded to behold God and eat and drink in His Presence (Ex. 24:11). This is contrary to solid exegesis and typology, and runs counter to Heb. 9:23.

III. Did the Early Christians View the Eucharist as a Sacrifice?

Dieric Bouts the Elder,
Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek (1464–67)

They did. For instance, Tertullian, writing between 200 and 206 A.D., answered those who thought that on days of fasting, “they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station [the fast] must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body.” Tertullian answered,“Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar?” and suggested it ensured “both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.”

Right around this same time, ***St. Clement of Alexandria explains that Melchizedek’s sacrifice of bread and wine in Genesis 14:18-20 is a consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist ***(Hebrews 5-7 draws this same parallel between Melchizedek and Jesus, by the way).

In the middle part of the third century, St. Cyprian explained that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist required wine to be a valid oblation:

Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup, nor the Lord’s sacrifice celebrated with a legitimate consecration unless our oblation and sacrifice respond to His passion. But how shall we drink the new wine of the fruit of the vine with Christ in the kingdom of His Father, ***if in the sacrifice ***of God the Father and of Christ we do not offer wine, nor mix the cup of the Lord by the Lord’s own tradition?And Eusebius said that, in the Eucharistic celebration, we are daily “admitted to a greater sacrifice than that of the ancient law.” And later, he describes the two forms of sacrifice Christians partake of:

So, then, we sacrifice and offer incense: On the one hand when we celebrate the Memorial of His great Sacrifice according to the Mysteries He delivered to us, and ***bring to God the Eucharist for our salvation ***with holy hymns and prayers; while on the other we consecrate ourselves to Him alone and to the Word His High Priest, devoted to Him in body and soul.

Conclusion

Because ***the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass ***is related-but-distinct from the bloody Sacrifice on Calvary (in the same manner that the Passover is from the Preparation Day), there’s no contradiction between the fact that the Mass is a repeated Sacrifice, while Calvary is once for all.

This distinction, and the reality of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, is found prefigured in the Old Testament, present in the New, and explained in the Church Fathers.

Further suggested reading:

catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass

patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2009/02/church-fathers-explain-mass.html

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

staycatholic.com/ecf_the_mass.htm

socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/12/church-fathers-and-sacrifice-of-mass.html

i guess you never bothered to read the whole thread. i posted an entire chapter from irenaeus writings where he says that the eucharist is for thanksgiving and that God does not need sacrifices. i’m just trying to understand what it meant. i’m seriously attempting to learn my faith, not say the church is wrong which you clearly think i’m doing. he makes it even more confusing when he links it to the animal sacrifices, which he says weren’t propitiatory, which i kind of thought were in a way. like edwin said, the early churfh fathers seem to talk about the sacrifice being for thanksgiving (well the second century ones anyways) and at the same time believing in the real presence. perhaps you are good at defending attacks from people but we certainly aren’t all so proficient. and lutherans, for example, will cite these particular passages to show their position. i apologize if i came across the wrong way.

Actually, I have read the chapter you cited. And I have NO IDEA where you draw your conclusion, As YOU cited (have YOU even read what YOU cited???)

  1. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits(5) 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.”(6) And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world,

Perhaps you would like to try again. I can do this all day. If you are (as you claim) a Catholic searching for Truth, then you will welcome further inquiry. If you are (as I suspect) really a non-Catholic who thinks he has some knowledge of the Early Church (but really is misinformed by his protestant teachers) then you are advised to quit the field, or further embarrass yourself, because NOTHING that you have learned from your protestant teachers about the Early Church Fathers is accurate. The problem you have is that we BOTH can cite the Early Fathers, but only YOU do so to your detriment.

You have no basis for your malicious accusations against this poster, and you dig yourself deeper in the hole by continually citing passages that do not explicitly speak of a propitiatory sacrifice.

Ironically, you are the one using Protestant fundamentalist methodology–the endless spewing of citations with no attempt to show how they actually support your argument.

You are not as impressive as you seem to think. Indeed, you are causing scandal in the precise theological sense of the term.

You still don’t actually seem to have understood the OP’s point, let alone refuted it.

Edwin

Edwin,

David quoted;

  1. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits(5) 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.”(6) And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world,

The key is “first fruits”.

Our Lord directs his disciples to offer the first fruits. If these refer to bread and wine, how can we be sure that the bread and wine are always first fruits? However, we can be sure that Christ’s Resurrected Body, if the intended offering, was the first fruit.

Further the Church offers an oblation, that is a sacrifice, throughout the world. So, from “first fruits”, that must refer to Christ’s sacrificed and risen body. The question is why?

The obvious answer is that the sacrifice, especially THIS Sacrifice, is offered to obtain forgiveness of sins.

A propitiation.

peace
steve

I’m not TRYING to cite passages that speak of a propitiatory sacrifice. I’m TRYING to refute the OP’s absurd and unsubstantiated claim (which he is too busy to actually cite) that

it seems like everyone until after irenaeus treats the eucharist as a sacrifice of thanksgiving only and not propitiatory including the ditache, ignatius, justin martyr. and then, well, there’s augustine… not sure what to make of him exactly.

The OP has presented NO evidence to support his claim (he did eventually provide a lengthy citation from Adversus hareses (ha ha - the Catholic apologist’s go-to text) which did not support his/her claim in any way whatsoever. I suppose s/he thought s/he could overwhelm us with word-count - a typical anti-Catholic tactic, but s/he chose the wrong text to try this trick).

I am a scholar of the Early Fathers, and I know that this claim is patently absurd. Therefore, I am pretty sure the OP never read anything of the sort, because nothing of the sort exists. The only people that I know of that spout this nonsense about the Early Fathers are anti-Catholics (of the “scholarly” level of Boettner and Chick), and there have been hundreds of threads on this very forum in which these claims have been solidly refuted (I’ve participated in dozens of them).

The OP has posted at least one other recent post in which s/he claims that the Early Fathers taught something that they never taught, but s/he is too busy to actually cite anything whatsoever. That’s not how we roll on the Catholic Answers Apologetics Forum. If the OP wants to spout unsubstantiated anti-Catholic nonsense, s/he needs to find a forum where s/he will not be utterly exposed (and there are LOTS of them, but this is not such a forum).

The OP (or you) could shut me down if s/he (or you) could cite anything to actually support his/her claim, and I would gladly express my gratitude on this Forum for further educating me on the Early Fathers. However, if s/he (or you) cannot do so, then you have no business calling me uncharitable (and you are being uncharitable in doing so).

I’m waiting.

:thumbsup:

Keep up the good work. I for one, appreciate your vigilance and effort.

[/quote]

This doesn’t make sense. Angel1 claimed that until after Irenaeus the references to the Eucharist as a sacrifice appeared to refer to a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and not to a propitiatory sacrifice. Obviously the only to refute that is to show that these passages do refer to a propitiatory sacrifice. Yet this is what you say you aren’t trying to do. It doesn’t compute. You seem to have invented your own standard for what you need to prove (it remains unclear to me just what that is, but clearly you have proved it to your own satisfaction, if not mine or the OP’s).

The OP has presented NO evidence to support his claim (he did eventually provide a lengthy citation from Adversus hareses (ha ha - the Catholic apologist’s go-to text) which did not support his/her claim in any way whatsoever.

Yes, it did. It spoke of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and did not mention a propitiatory sacrifice.

If your point simply is that the dichotomy between the two is false and that the passages can be interpreted in ways fully in agreement with Catholic doctrine, then you have chosen a poor say of making that entirely legitimate point (with which I fully agree and with which the OP does not seem to have any problems when I have presented it to her).

I am a scholar of the Early Fathers

Indeed. Where did you earn your Ph.D.? Who was your advisor? What did you write your dissertation on?

Or are you using the term “scholar” in a broader and less technical sense than I would? (I would not, myself, claim to be a scholar of the Early Fathers, since my primary area of specialization was the Reformation, although I did graduate work in early Christianity as well.) If so, just what is that sense. You have several times brandished what you apparently take to be your authority in these matters, but you have presented no credentials that I’ve seen. And anyway, isn’t it better to show your mastery of the material instead of expecting people to bow down to your self-proclaimed status?

and I know that this claim is patently absurd.

The claim was simply that the Fathers up to and including Irenaeus speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and do not speak of it as propitiatory.

The OP has presented a passage which does the former. You have shown none which explicitly do the latter.

Of course, prooftexting is a crude method–we need to discuss the implications of the passages. Others have done so. You have preferred to wave a bludgeon in the air.

Edwin

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.