Ben, a superb exposition of the theological clarity the reformers brought to the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice, especially in distinguishing the two aspects of this sacrifice - the memorial of the sacrifice for sin offered for us by Christ, as the sole cause of the grace we receive - and the sacrifice of praise continually offered by his Church, wherein is manifested the effect of grace received. I think Cranmer's form of delivery in 1552 is significant in this regard. Obviously it echoes the instruction Jesus gave his disciples to "take, eat/drink in remembrance" - but continues with an exhortation "to feed on him in thy heart by faith" and to do so "with thanksgiving" ("and be thankful") - indicates that our self-offering in praise and thanksgiving springs from and is driven by the grace we receive from Christ. Though distinct, these are not separate actions.
I think that viewing the Eucharist through only a Roman/Protestant lense is misleading. The ancient church was not just catholic, it was Eastern orthodox, Oriental orthodox, and even Assyrian in the Church of the East. The fact is, all of these pre-Protestant churches view the Eucharist as a sacrifice. But they do so in different ways. Definitely not all agree with the Roman view and believe Christ's body and blood are being sacrificed each week, but instead it's the oblation, which we in Anglicanism also celebrate. The sacrifice is not Jesus, but the bread and wine that we bring to the table, which the priest then consecrates. This is why it was so very important for the book of common prayer to reflect that the people bring the oblation. I'm not exactly sure where your centered, but this is very clear in the 1979 Episcopal Church Book of Common Prayer.
This is important for a whole bunch of different reasons. For one, the ancient world only considered acts that incorporated sacrifice as worship. So, obviously this creates a problem for Protestants, because if the Eucharist isn't sacrifice, then their worship isn't actually worship. However, this also flies in the face of Protestant claims that veneration of the Saints is worship, since no one is sacrificing to the saints.
We do a grand disservice to our theology, if all we do is look at Peotestantism and Rome, when the ancient early church was much more diverse than this, and had a multitude of understandings. If we want to get back to the beginnings, which is one of the things that I think Anglicanism is interested in doing, we need to look to the original understandings of what worship actually is. And we need to not be worried about offending Protestants with it. If Protestants are offended that their "worship" is not actually worship because there is no sacrifice involved, then maybe they need to adjust.
Just a short comment saying I’ve really enjoyed your Substack. Your perspectives / priorities aren’t really common in my seminary, so it’s refreshing to read these essays from time to time.
Ben, a superb exposition of the theological clarity the reformers brought to the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice, especially in distinguishing the two aspects of this sacrifice - the memorial of the sacrifice for sin offered for us by Christ, as the sole cause of the grace we receive - and the sacrifice of praise continually offered by his Church, wherein is manifested the effect of grace received. I think Cranmer's form of delivery in 1552 is significant in this regard. Obviously it echoes the instruction Jesus gave his disciples to "take, eat/drink in remembrance" - but continues with an exhortation "to feed on him in thy heart by faith" and to do so "with thanksgiving" ("and be thankful") - indicates that our self-offering in praise and thanksgiving springs from and is driven by the grace we receive from Christ. Though distinct, these are not separate actions.
I think that viewing the Eucharist through only a Roman/Protestant lense is misleading. The ancient church was not just catholic, it was Eastern orthodox, Oriental orthodox, and even Assyrian in the Church of the East. The fact is, all of these pre-Protestant churches view the Eucharist as a sacrifice. But they do so in different ways. Definitely not all agree with the Roman view and believe Christ's body and blood are being sacrificed each week, but instead it's the oblation, which we in Anglicanism also celebrate. The sacrifice is not Jesus, but the bread and wine that we bring to the table, which the priest then consecrates. This is why it was so very important for the book of common prayer to reflect that the people bring the oblation. I'm not exactly sure where your centered, but this is very clear in the 1979 Episcopal Church Book of Common Prayer.
This is important for a whole bunch of different reasons. For one, the ancient world only considered acts that incorporated sacrifice as worship. So, obviously this creates a problem for Protestants, because if the Eucharist isn't sacrifice, then their worship isn't actually worship. However, this also flies in the face of Protestant claims that veneration of the Saints is worship, since no one is sacrificing to the saints.
We do a grand disservice to our theology, if all we do is look at Peotestantism and Rome, when the ancient early church was much more diverse than this, and had a multitude of understandings. If we want to get back to the beginnings, which is one of the things that I think Anglicanism is interested in doing, we need to look to the original understandings of what worship actually is. And we need to not be worried about offending Protestants with it. If Protestants are offended that their "worship" is not actually worship because there is no sacrifice involved, then maybe they need to adjust.
Hey Ben,
Just a short comment saying I’ve really enjoyed your Substack. Your perspectives / priorities aren’t really common in my seminary, so it’s refreshing to read these essays from time to time.