Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformed Tradition
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- The Reformed understanding of the Eucharist has been frequently misunderstood. This is even more so true with the idea of the Eucharist as being a sacrifice. This video seeks to help bring clarity to the nature and importance of the Eucharist as sacrifice.
Massive thanks to Luke for help on the editing and music.
My Twitter: @WesternCatholik
My Editor's Twitter: @lkuelol
Sections:
0:00 Start of Video
0:11 Scripture Reading
02:26 Intro
3:28 The Nature of Sacrifice
8:30 The Senses of Eucharistic Sacrifice
23:19 The Eucharist in the Christian Life
LETS GOOOOOOOOO!
Billions must become Reformed Catholike!!!
Almost as good as reformed baptist!
@@PlantChrist "reformed"
Catholike?
based zoomer comment
@@PlantChrist heavy quotes on the "reformed" part
This upload is the next turning point in american history
So when are we getting Inquisitor merch?
so real
Comment for the algorithm
Great video. What do you think of Edward Pusey's description of the distinction between the Commemoration and Communion in the Eucharist?
"The Eucharist then, according to them [the early Church], consisted of two parts, a "commemorative sacrifice" and a "Communion" or Communication; the former obtaining remission of sins for the Church; the Communion "the strengthening and refreshing of the soul," although, inasmuch as it united the believer with CHRIST, it indirectly conveyed remission of sins too. The Communion was (to use a modern phrase) the feast upon the sacrifice thus offered. They first offered to GOD His gifts, in commemoration of that His inestimable gift, and placed them upon His altar here, to be received and presented on the Heavenly Altar by Him, our High-Priest; and then, trusted to receive them back, conveying to them the life-giving Body and Blood. As being, moreover, appointed by their LORD, they believed that the continual oblation of this sacrifice (like the daily sacrifice appointed in the elder Church) was a benefit to the whole Church, independently and over and above the benefit to the individual communicants--that the sacrifices in each branch of the Christian Church were mutually of benefit to every other branch, each to all and all to each: and so also this common interest in the sacrifice of the memorials of their SAVIOUR'S Passion was one visible, yea, and (since GOD for its sake diffused unseen and inestimable blessings through the whole mystical body of His SON) an invisible spiritual bond of the Communion of Saints throughout the whole Body. "
ITS HERE ITS HERE ITS HERE
You should advertise this video on Gavin’s server 😎
But inquisitor, if this is true, why do papists horribly misrepresent our view?
I liked this video
W
W
Excellent
❤
10/10
Great video
Quite interesting.
There were parts that I wasn't quite convinced by. Specifically, for several of these things, it wasn't clear to me whether it was proper to call the Eucharist the sacrifice, instead of merely Eucharist-adjacent things. It's not at all obvious to me that 3 or 4 are proper to the Eucharist, for example.
But the really interesting part is the question of the presence of Christ's sacrifice in the supper. I definitely agree that it is standard to affirm that in some sense-Turretin, for example, says, (as he's framing what the dispute over the mass is about), "it is not sought whether the eucharist is able to be called improperly and symbolically a eucharistic and mystic sacrifice, by reason of commemoration, of action of graces, of representation, and of application. For this we grant to the adversaries willingly [lit. not reluctantly]."
This has Alsted's 1 and 5.
I'd be careful to make sure I didn't overstate 5, though-this would only be about the offering and application of the single sacrifice to us, right? And I'd have to think carefully about exactly in what ways 5 and 6 differ.
Thank you!
Seems like the disagreement is through seperation of the "guilt offering" from the "thanks offering"
But in the new covenant; our sins are remitted by saying "Yes! Thanks!!!"
Therefore is it not a false dichotomy?
The thanks offering and the sin offering are one and the same. (In effect)
We give/offer thanks and receive blessing. And this blessing is the application of the sacrifice.
So we offer sacrifice in that we offer thanks, and when we offer thanks, Christ applies the merits of His sacrifice (once for all,)
Every time we give a "thanks offering"
We are renewing and proclaiming a saving faith.
As the eucharist is simply saying:
"I believe this is His body and blood because He is God. And what God says IS.
I trust His words over my 5 senses. Because I have faith
And I accept HIS sacrifice and give thanks"
Thus as a step of "formed faith"
(Intellectual assent+ love)
Which is what criteria Christ has assigned for the dispensation of sanctifying grace...
There is a sin offering dispensed as a result of our thanks offering?
And they are intrinsically linked and so we can say one is the other.
The primary cause; as with ALL things is the act of God (on Calvary). For the remission.
The reception is the (secondary/instrumental) cause for the remission.
So reception is a form of causation and therefore "thanks offering" is a cause (though secondary) of remission of sin
Notice the main explicit basis for these doctrines is neither the church fathers or the Bible, but from those hundreds of years after the foundations of such things.
thats because the purpose of the video isn't to prove the doctrines are patristic or biblical, but as the title says, to clarify what the reformed tradition actually has to say on this subject, hence why the creator uses the early reformers.
@matnic_6623 indeed, however what I provide is important to note because every system of doctrine requires a real explicit basis for it, and the fact that the main sources provided that establishes the reformed perspective are better explicitly established in the reformed protestants rather than more historical sources means that the view is not as in tune with a proper historical and doctrinal foundation as some would like.
So what?
@EthanMiller-ul9sp Means that if you want to be in accordance with a system of doctrine consistent over long periods of time, that it wouldn't necessarily with those following the consistency of the reformers.
@@__-tn6hw Says who?