143 thoughts on “The Apostolic “Amen””

1. Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Anti Christ not only can mean against, but in place of Christ. So Tim, as always, so succinctly shows us how the Roman Catholic church switched everything. Here the order of the liturgy which then allowed them to make the sacrament meritorious for Salvation. When the consecration is switched then the Eucharist became a sacrifice of Christ for sins instead of the intended Thanksgiving and that which was set aside for the poor, etc. Just like in John chapter 6 where those blinded and unbelieving saw what Jesus said as literal, while those who understood his words to mean coming and believing knew what Jesus said may words are Spirit. Of course the Amen and where it is placed is everything. That’s why this is another important article. There is nothing in common between a commemoration and celebration and a sacrifice of Thanksgiving for a salvation one already possess by faith alone in Christ alone, the forgiveness of our sins past, present and future with a re sacrifice of Christ continually to merit the grace and justice for heaven. Can there be anymore opposite and contrary gospel to the true gospel of grace than a system of meritorious sacraments summed up in earning your salvation by meriting grace through a real sacrifice of Christ at the Mass. I think not. Making sweet look bitter. The canons of Rome anathamatizes anyone who says the mass isnt a true and proper sacrifice of Christ. Gracious merit indeed, it’s like saying sweet bitter.

   Reply

2. Much of this is new to me, but quite enlightening.

   In the Anabaptist tradition, the Sunday morning weekly tithe offering was always followed by prayer and Amen. The “Love Feast” (as we call it), is done at a separate time (for the evening meal).

   We retain the concept of dismissal by making the “Love Feast” for believers only. This is one major reason it occurs on separate occasions.

   We do not, however, dismiss unbelievers prior to the offering. I’m not aware of any faith tradition that forbids non-believers and those with unrepentant sins from giving the tithe, but I can see how this should be done. This would imply that automatic tithe withdraw systems should not be used.

   Reply

   1. Thank you, Derek. I appreciate the information. I especially appreciate the “Amen” after the weekly offering. The church I attend does not do that formally, although there is a prayer of gratitude at the offertory, and as is customary all prayers in the church end with an Amen. The intent of the study here is to show 1) what “the Mass” originally meant, 2) to show what the Eucharist originally meant, 3) that the “Amen” originally followed the tithe instead of the meal, and 4) that the reordering of a couple steps created the medieval abomination.

      I’ve been Christian for 30 years now, and I spent 25 of them not really understanding the concept of an ongoing Sacrifice in the Church. Raised as a Roman Catholic, I knew what the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass was, and as a Protestant, I knew to reject it under the banner of “no more sacrifices are necessary.” But that left me with a liturgical hole in my worship, for the New Testament writers absolutely prescribed sacrifices for the Church (Phil 4:18, Heb 13:15-16, Romans 12:1-2, 2 Peter 2:5). That liturgical hole can be an insurmountable hurdle to Protestants who learn about the Roman Sacrifice, especially when confronted with the overwhelming evidence of sacrifices in the early church. If Protestants don’t offer sacrifices at all, but the Scriptures prescribe them, and Roman Catholics offer sacrifices, and Roman Catholic apologists point to all the sacrificial language of the early church, it is no wonder at all that naïve and gullible Protestants convert to Rome under the impression that they are returning to the ancient practices of the apostolic church.

      That’s why it is so important to understand what the early church thought the sacrifice was, and that Eucharist to them meant something different than it does to Roman Catholics, and that the early “sacrifice of dismissal” was simply the collection, not an offering of the body and blood of Christ. Without knowing that, the Roman Apologist has his way with the pliable Protestant who has no idea that the Eucharist sacrifice was something entirely different, and upon discovering that the early Church offered “the Eucharist,” reads the modern definition into the early writings and concludes that the early church was Roman Catholic in its liturgy and offered the Body of Christ to God in the liturgy. It’s a very dangerous and precarious situation.

      That said, I believe the Church today should excercise much more care in the tithe offerings than we do, but I don’t think that will happen unless we truly grasp the significance of Malachi’s prophecy (1:11) and how it relates to the sacrifices prescribed by the apostles. If caring for one another, providing for the needs of the saints and the poor is our sacrifice, Malachi’s prophecy of “a pure offering” so that the Lord’s name “shall be great among the heathen” suggests that the collection ought to be fenced just as much as the Supper is. An open collection plate is not a fatal error, of course, but worthy of the same circumspection and introspection as we typically reserve for the Table itself.

      Reply

3. Tim, this is wonderfully enlightening but also very troubling to me. Even though there are many non-Romanist churches there are also many churches that don’t recognize the early church’s liturgy. Where can I find one? Or if I stay in a church that doesn’t adhere to it, am I living in sin?

   Reply

   1. Nicholas, my main concern here is with shift in the liturgy at the end of the 4th century and the sophisticated arguments made by the scholars to cover over the change and thereby to legitimize the novelty as apostolic. I would suggest that if you are in a church that offers consecrated bread and wine in the liturgy, that’s the most dangerous error in the liturgy and ought to be avoided.

      Reply

      1. Tim, when you say ” that offers consecrated bread in the liturgy” you mean first in order as the sacrifice? Iow, The Eucharist is first the Thanksgiving and tithes, collections etc. then the consecration ( blessing) over the bread and wine which are given to men. So I’m assuming that if the bread and wine are consecrated first as the sacrifice to God ( meaning the re sacrifice of Christ for sins) this is dangerous? Maybe I’m confused but I’ve understood from you that the Eucharist was the offering of thanks, bread set aside for poor etc. to God in gratefulness of a salvation we already possess, then comes the blessing on the bread and wine given to men? Right.

         Reply

         1. Kevin, what I mean is: “offers consecrated bread to God” as a propitiatory sacrifice for sins or even to Him as a reminder at any point in the liturgy. That abominable practice repeatedly makes its way back into even Protestant liturgies. For example,

            French Reformed Pastor Pierre du Moulin (c. 1650): “It may be said in the Eucharist we offer Jesus Christ to God, insofar as we ask God to receive on our behalf the sacrifice of His death.”(221) [TFK: No, we actually don’t.]

            “Τhe Εucharistic action symbolizes at once the atoning Sacrifice of Christ, and the spiritual sacrifice of the Church bought with Ηis Βlood;-the Βody sacrificed, and the Βody mystical. Ιn placing the symbols on the Ηoly Τable, We present before God the price of our redemption, and the Israel for whom it was paid” (George Trevor, Church of England, 1876) [TFK: No, we actually don’t.]

            “The Lord’s Supper presents Christ’s death to the Father.” (Jim Jordan, Doing the Lord’s Supper, November, 1995, http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-42-doing-the-lords-supper/) [TFK: No, actually, it doesn’t.]

            “What I am arguing for is that the [Eucharistic] prayer is made to God and the death of Jesus is ‘showed forth’ to Him as the people listen and participate.” (Jeffrey Meyers, The Lord’s Service, 223 (2003)); [TFK: No, actually, the death of Jesus is not showed forth to God in the Eucharst or in the Supper.]

            “in the Lord’s Supper the tokens of Christ’s death (bread and wine) are presented to the Father, … He remembers His promise, and … Christ gives Himself with all His gifts” (Peter Leithart, Eucharistic Sacrifice January 12, 2017, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/leithart/2017/01/eucharistic-sacrifice-4/) [TFK: No, actually, the tokens of Christ’s death are not presented to the father in the Supper.]

            Notice how all these Protestants (Anglicans and Presbyterians) are tripping over each other to rationalize somehow the 4th century novelty of presenting Jesus’ death to the Father in the liturgy. Christians do not do so and never have. It’s a novelty three centuries removed from the apostles.

            My point is simply that “consecrated bread and wine” do indeed signify Christ’s body and blood, but they are not presented to the Father for sins at all. They are presented to us to remind us. They are not presented to Him to remind Him.

            Thanks,

            Tim

            Reply

            1. Tim, I not sure you can say it any clearer than you just did to me . ” they are presented to us to remind US. They aren’t presented to him to remind Him.” As if God needed a reminder or some re offering of his Son. He doesnt. The only offering of HIMSELF by the Spirit as said in Hebrews was sufficient. Tim, it seems all this both in Rome and in Protestantism through history is really an attack on the sufficiency of the one sacrifice that is a blanket across history. Sinful men are amazing, they have to participate in their own salvation instead of just the goodness of God. Aquinas the same thing, he said man was predestined to glory by his merit in some way instead of just the goodness of God. Thanks Tim.

            2. Tim, I re read your post to me. You said,notice how all these Protestants are tripping over themselves to rationalize the 4th century novelty of presenting Jesus death to the father in the liturgy. John MacArthur says of Roman Catholics just wont let Him off the cross to save them. Do you believe these Protestants who perpetuate some kind of presentation of Christ in consecrated elements to the father in the liturgy are as guilty as the Roman mass?

4. Incidentally Tim, it’s my understanding that no only Christ is offered up for sin in the Roman mass, but also the participant is offering himself also for his sins. Now what would would qualify us for offering ourselves for sin? Hebrews seems so clear, that offered himself through the Spirit once never to be continued or repeated. Also, that quote you offered up by Augustine on the sacrifice of Christ again in the super should remind us he was a Roman Catholic. I’m making no judgement on his soul, but I am saying that Paul was spot on when he said the apostasy was already at work. I was telling my my friend yesterday about this article , a lifetime RC, , who I shared the gospel with for 15 years and the Lord saved him out of the RC church, that this is so important because the Mass, or the change in order, strikes to the heart at the gospel and the doctrine of jbfa. This may be the very heart of the apostasy obviously.

   Reply

5. Timothy:
   Your article is a bit misleading. There is no change in the order of the mass.
   After the offertory is blessed, the priest says: Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
   And we respond: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good
   and the good of all his holy Church.
   Then the Priest, with hands extended, says the Prayer over the Offerings, at the end of which the people acclaim:
   C: AMEN.
   Yes, we all say AMEN after the blessing of the gifts and before the Consecration. That is not out of order according to your interpretation.
   Then the Eucharistic prayer is offered which includes the epiclesis and the words of Consecration. It ends with:
   Through him, and with him, and in him,
   O God, almighty Father,
   in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
   all glory and honor is yours,
   for ever and ever.
   And after that we all also say AMEN.
   And the Lord’s Prayer follows the Eucharistic Prayer and after the Lord’s Prayer we also say AMEN.
   And, yes, we also say AMEN when we take the host as the Body of Christ and the wine as the Blood of Christ during Communion.
   Honestly, I don’t think your article is as significant as you think it is. All one has to do is pay attention during Mass and you will see.

   Reply

   1. Nick, thank you for your thoughtful response.

      Because you believe, “the Eucharistic prayer … includes the epiclesis and the words of Consecration,” it is clear to me that it is impossible in your liturgy to place the apostolic “Amen” between the Eucharist and the consecration, which proves my point. I did not deny that Roman catholics say “Amen” during the mass. I merely said that the apostle placed the “Amen” between the Eucharist and the consecration, and based on your description it would be impossible to place it there in your liturgy.

      And if you cannot say amen between the Eucharist and the consecration, then it is clear that you’re liturgy is inconsistent with the Scriptures and with the liturgy of the early church.

      What is more, because you believe the Eucharist prayer includes the epiclesis, you have simply fallen for the error of collapsing the Eucharist into the epiclesis, a novelty that did not emerge until the end of the fourth century.

      Thank you for your comment.

      Reply

      1. Timothy:
         Let me clarify:
         All of what we are discussing here is considered the Eucharistic rite or the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Yes, all of the parts– dismissal of unbelievers, a Eucharist offering of the first-fruits with praise, an “Amen” to affirm our thankfulness to God, a Consecration of bread and wine taken from the tithe offering, and a Meal of consecrated bread and wine–are all included in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. And those parts are still in that order. That AMEN you mention is right there in between the offertory and the epiclesis.
         So your claim that we cannot say AMEN between the offertory and the epiclesis is unfounded because we actually do.
         Your explanation is misleading because you are redefining the Eucharistic rite in a way that the Church doesn’t. What you have done in your “abominable novelty that we now know as the Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass—Consecration, Eucharist, Amen, Meal, Dismissal” is just the second half of the liturgy in a little more detail. And what you may be mistaking on the dismissal part is there are actually two dismissals–the one before the Eucharistic rite, where the catechumens (unbelievers) are led out of the sanctuary and are not allowed to participate. They are dismissed immediately after the homily, before the Creed and the prayer of the faithful. And the other one is where the whole congregation is dismissed when Mass has ended. Anyone can see this by reading the order of Mass by googling it online. Here is but one example: http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm
         You say “regarding the consecration, the Scriptures give no explicit direction” and yet you take it upon yourself to give direction anyway. That is quite a burden you are putting on yourself when you try to teach others about matters that have to do with the salvation of their eternal soul. Has the Church given you that authority?

         Reply

         1. Thank you, Nick. You say anyone can see that there are two dismissals by googling it online, but in the example you provided, there is only one dismissal—at the end. That’s odd. I was expecting two, since, in your words, “Anyone can see this by reading the order of Mass”. Why wasn’t anyone dismissed before the collection?

            In any case, you’re kind of missing the point. Until the end of the 4th century, the only Eucharist offering the church knew about was the tithe. There was no Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood after the consecration. Until the end of the 4th century, the “dismissal” referred to the dismissal of Catechumens, unbelievers and the backslidden before the tithe. That was the only formal “dismissal” that occurred in the liturgy. It was not until the end of the 4th century that the “Dismissal” started referring to the dismissal of believers at the end of the service. As such, there was only one “sacrifice” that occurred at the dismissal—the sacrifice of the Eucharistic tithe offering. According to the words of apostles, there was an Amen after that offering, ending the offering. It was over. That was the only sacrifice offered during the liturgy—the tithe offering—and it was over with an Amen, ending the sacrifice. There was no sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood.

            You noted ,”‘Consecration, Eucharist, Amen, Meal, Dismissal’ is just the second half of the liturgy in a little more detail,” but that, too, is from the end of the 4th century. Prior to that, the Amen ended the offering, and what occurred after the Amen was just a meal of Consecrated food (not an offering of Consecrated food). It was not a sacrifice of consecrated food.

            You noted, “Then the Eucharistic prayer is offered which includes the epiclesis and the words of Consecration,” but that, too, is from the end of the 4th century. The Eucharistic prayer did not include an epiclesis until then. Prior to that, the Eucharistic prayer omitted the epiclesis, for the Eucharist offering had nothing to do with offering the body and blood of Christ. Just as in the gospels, 1 Corinthians and the early church, the Eucharist offering ended before the consecration, so it was impossible to offer “consecrated” bread and wine. As Helmut Hoping (Professor of Dogmatics and Liturgical Sciences on the Theological Faculty of the University of Freiburg) wrote in 2011:

            “A formal epiclesis as part of the Eucharistic Prayer is not verifiable with Justin. At this point it is necessary to investigate the view, held above all by liturgists, that the institution narrative did not find its way into the Eucharistic Prayer until the fourth century” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press (2019) trans from the original German (2011)”

            That’s right. “this is My body, this is My blood” did not become part of the Eucharistic prayer until the late 300s. How weird is that? Your own liturgists have a hard time finding an epiclesis in the Eucharistic prayer until the 4th century, and yet, here you are explaining a Eucharistic prayer, including the epiclesis, as if it came from the Apostles. So when you say, the “Eucharistic prayer is offered which includes the epiclesis” you’re acknowledging your own liturgical novelty. Hoping goes on to try to sort that out, thinking that he can somehow justify the epiclesis as part of the Eucharistic prayer by the sheer force of his will, but he cannot. It just wasn’t there in the early church.

            In any case, the very core of your religion—the liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood—was not even invented until the end of the 4th century, and all the best theologians, liturgists, canon lawyers, popes and historians cannot prove otherwise.

            The liturgy of the apostles includes an Amen between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis, an Amen that formally ends the Eucharist offering. Your liturgy includes a Eucharist offering after the epiclesis. And that is the abomination.

            You wrote,

            You say “regarding the consecration, the Scriptures give no explicit direction” and yet you take it upon yourself to give direction anyway”

            My statement was that the Scriptures give no direction on which words are to be used for the consecration. But that does not mean the Scriptures do not refer to a consecration in the order of the liturgy. And when they do refer to it, it is clear that the consecration occurred after the Amen. After the Eucharist. And the Apostolic Amen between the Eucharist and the Consecration makes your offering of Christ’s body and blood impossible.

            Reply

            1. Timothy:
               You said “That’s right. “this is My body, this is My blood” did not become part of the Eucharistic prayer until the late 300s. ”
               Do you not include these words in your consecration of the Lord’s Supper?

            2. Why do you ask?

            3. I’m just not sure why you would ask about using those words in the Consecration when my statement was about using those words in the Eucharistic prayer. Your question is a non sequitur. Are you assuming that the Eucharistic Prayer is the Consecration?

            4. Because I’d like to know.

            5. Timothy:
               As to the missing “dismissal”, I don’t know why all of the things we do in Mass are not listed in every web page, some are shorter and some are longer and more detailed such as: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html
               I do know that we do it in our parish, and our diocese is in communion with the Vatican, so I would think it is proper. And by your interpretation of Scripture and the Fathers, you agree it is proper as well.

            6. Nick,

               The link you provided from the vatican only refers to the dismissal after the service. So now that is two liturgies you have provided that have only one dismissal. Since you say anyone can see that there are two dismissals by googling it online, can you google that for me so I can read a Roman Catholic rite with two dismissals? I’ve been reading the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), and there’s just one dismissal at the end. Can you help me find the dismissal in the GIRM that occurs before the tithe offering?

            7. Timothy:
               My illustration of the two websites was to show you that some are more detailed than others.
               Here is what I found when I googled “dismissal of the catechumens”
               https://teamrcia.com/2015/11/why-dismiss-the-catechumens-before-jesus-becomes-present/
               Are you saying that it has to be in the GIRM to be valid? There may be a GIRM somewhere out there that shows it, but I have not done an exhaustive search. Maybe you can provide a GIRM from the early, as you assume, “pre-Roman-Catholic-church” that shows it.
               You asked: “Are you assuming that the Eucharistic Prayer is the Consecration?”
               The consecration (the words of institution) is only a part of the Eucharistic Prayer.
               http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm
               I gather that you believe just the blessing of the gifts (offertory–preparation) is the entire Eucharist.
               Do you not include these words “this is My body, this is My blood” in your Eucharist?

            8. “I gather that you believe just the blessing of the gifts (offertory–preparation) is the entire Eucharist.”

               I believe the tithe offerings and prayers are the Entire “eucharist offering”.

               “Do you not include these words “this is My body, this is My blood” in your Eucharist?”

               I do not include the words “this is My body, this is My blood” in the Eucharist offering.

               Can you please provide an online Roman Catholic order of the mass that includes a dismissal of the Catechumens? The link you provided is not an order of the mass. It’s just a guy explaining something.

            9. Timothy:
               You said “I do not include the words “this is My body, this is My blood” in the Eucharist offering.”
               Ok. The “offering” of the Eucharist. Do you include “this is My body, this is My blood” in your worship service?
               You ask: “Can you please provide an online Roman Catholic order of the mass that includes a dismissal of the Catechumens? The link you provided is not an order of the mass. It’s just a guy explaining something.”
               So far I have not found an online Roman Catholic order of mass that expresses the dismissal in question. So you don’t like the guy’s explanation nor my testimony as to the existence of the dismissal of the Cathechumens in the current Catholic Mass. Are you saying it has to be officially expressed in the order of Mass to be valid?
               Please provide me an online source that outlines the worship service of the ancient Christians that predates the Roman Mass so that I may see what you say is true. Otherwise it’s just you explaining something.

            10. Nick (7/7/20): “…there are actually two dismissals … Anyone can see this by reading the order of Mass by googling it online.”

                Nick (7/10/20): “So far I have not found an online Roman Catholic order of mass that expresses the dismissal in question.”

                Please let me know when you do.

            11. Timothy:
                Here is another source on the dismissal in question:
                http://paulturner.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/dismissals-music-and-liturgy.pdf
                Even though it is not in an official order of Mass, it does explain the rite in more detail. I do remember seeing the dismissal written in the seasonal missalette years ago when we attended a church that used them.
                Our current parish does not issue seasonal missalettes.

            12. Timothy:
                “Please let me know when you do.”
                Well, I have done an exhaustive search (it was exhausting for me anyway) and I cannot find the dismissal in question in any online GIRM. I thought it would be since it was in the missalette. I was wrong.
                Evidently they put it in the missalette when RCIA is in session since it is included in the rite. I have found it in many places in the instructions for RCIA and children’s catechesis. So, if it was ever in the GIRM there is no online version of it. Here is a sample of the dismissal in the instructions of the RCIA:
                The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults provides that
                • From the time when inquirers are accepted
                into the catechumenate, parishes dismiss the
                catechumens after the Gospel is proclaimed to
                allow them to break open the Word.
                • Many parishes provide for a catechetical session and a “breaking open the Word” session each week.

                My point is that concerning the dismissal in question, it is current and active in the order of the Mass, it’s just not formally listed in the GIRM. As concerning the Eucharistic AMEN between the Eucharistic offertory and the Eucharistic consecration, it is still there as are many Eucharistic AMENs elsewhere in the Mass since all of these are considered parts of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The particular Eucharistic AMEN that I assume you are referring to as the Apostles AMEN is the Eucharistic great AMEN that ends the Eucharistic Prayer. And then there is the communion rite starting with the Lords Prayer which concludes with AMEN and then the prayer after communion also ends with AMEN. The communion rite is also encompassed in the Eucharistic Liturgy.
                And then there is the Concluding rite that is not included in the Eucharistic rite. This is where the benediction is said with a concluding AMEN. And then comes the final DISMISSAL where we do the sign of the Cross with a final AMEN and are told “Mass has ended. Go to love and serve the Lord.” And we say “Thanks be to God!”
                I am sure the apostles said AMEN a lot as well.

6. Nick said ” that is quite a burden you are putting on yourself when you try to teach others about matters that have to do with the salvation of their eternal soul” of course the matters you talk about having bearing on the salvation of the soul is the gospel of gracious merit. See, if the bread and wine are reminders to men of a salvation and an acceptance they already have, then there is no burden.

   Reply

   1. Kevin:
      If you already have acceptance and salvation, why do you need bread and wine as a reminder?

      Reply

      1. Nick Luke 22:19 ” do this in remembrance of me” pretty simple huh, because he told me so. It’s not a metaphysical essay now is it Nick?

         Reply

         1. Kevin:
            Because he told you to “do this in remembrance of me” is why you do it. So you eat His Body and drink His Blood in remembrance of Him because He told you to do it. Yes, that is simple. That’s what we do, too.

            Reply

            1. Nick, no i eat bread and drink wine which are symbols of the blood that was shed for me and the body that was broken. Our great day is Friday which we commemorate and remember. Frankly you won’t let him off the cross. Your abominable mass,according to your church, under the penalty of anathema not to believe it is a true and real sacrifice, is just a recapitulation of the sacrifices under the law which could never save them, nor can it save you. Mark 1:15 Jesus says repent and believe in the gospel the only thing that can save you. As you can see the gospel is told and believed, not done. I pray you turn away from that system of meritorious sacraments and believe the gospel. Thx for the exchange

7. Kevin:
   You are exactly right. The crucifix is a symbol of Good Friday in which we proclaim His death that saved us from sin and death. And yes we leave the image of Christ on the cross to also remind us of the greatest love God has for us. That is why it’s called GOOD Friday. Christ’s one sacrifice is good once and for all time–24-7-365. And that is why we celebrate it every time we gather. We also celebrate His resurrection which raises us to new life every time we gather. I am glad to hear you believe in the gospel as well.

   Reply

   1. ” And yes we leave the image of Christ on cross” unfortunately obrien says the priest has the power to pull Christ down and render him a true sacrifice on that abominable altar. Maybe you’re not aware that the mass is the sacrifice for your sins and for your dead relatives? Protestants don’t believe the Lord’s supper is the sacrifice for our sins. We offer up sacrifices of thanksgiving and praise at the supper. Those are the new testament acceptable sacrifices. They aren’t prpitiatory. We believe Hebrews 10:14 that the sacrifice offered up by Christ himself perfected us. The irony is you can go to 10000 masses and still not have enough grace and justice to get to heaven. Usually you have to go to purgatory and work things out if you’ve been a good Catholic.

      Reply

8. Nick ” im glad to hear you believe in the gospel too” if you believe in the Roman Catholic gospel of gracious merit then we don’t believe in the same gospel. Faith in Protestantism is simply the instrument that brings Christ our righteousness to our heart. We don’t believe there is a virtue attached to faith that merits the grace of God.

   Reply

   1. Kevin:
      You said “We don’t believe there is a virtue attached to faith that merits the grace of God.”
      How do you reconcile that with being “saved by grace THROUGH faith” if faith has no virtue? Faith is virtue, wouldn’t you think?
      Also you wrote “We offer up sacrifices of thanksgiving and praise at the supper. Those are the new testament acceptable sacrifices.”
      Exactly, yes. We offer those and our very selves as living sacrifices as well. That is why it is called “Eucharist” which is Greek for “giving thanks”.

      Reply

      1. Nick said ” faith is virtue” faith is obedience. Faith is love. Congratulations you qualify as a competent RC. And bread and wine given to men is really Christ being sacrificed for sins. My rule, read Roman Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth.

         Reply

         1. Kevin:
            You said “Nick said ” faith is virtue” faith is obedience. Faith is love. Congratulations you qualify as a competent RC.”
            Thank you! Nice compliment. After all St James says: “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.” James 2
            And St Peter says “make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue”. 2 Peter 1
            Biblical truth. Good rule.

            Reply

            1. And where does it say in those verses that faith is virtue?! If faith is virtue nick why are they 2 different words with 2 different meanings?!

            2. Kevin: “If faith is virtue nick why are they 2 different words with 2 different meanings?!”
               Just look at it this way:
               This is my Body
               This is my Blood
               Faith is virtue
               As a Protestant you should pick up on that pretty quickly, metaphorically speaking.

9. Nick faith receives. Its always first in natural order. Love stretches out to neighbor and is always second. That’s why we are saved thru faith because only the instrument of faith can bring Christ to the heart. As important as love is, it can never save us. Unfortunately Rome has confused the in us with the for us by saying we are justified by faith as it is formed in love. But Paul says that God justifies an ungodly man who does not work Romans 4:5. How? By believing God imputes the perfect righteousness of Christ to us. Romans 5:19.

   Reply

10. Kevin:
    You said “Nick faith receives. Its always first in natural order. Love stretches out to neighbor and is always second.
    But St Paul taught: “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing…faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. 1Cor 13
    Are you saying that what Paul taught is the greatest is actually only second?
    You said: ” Unfortunately Rome has confused the in us with the for us by saying we are justified by faith as it is formed in love.”
    Yes, that is true, but not unfortunate. St Paul seems to agree.
    He taught “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. Gal 5

    Reply

11. Nick, the bible warns of an apostasy that was already at work in the church. 2 Thessalonians 2 says the man of sin will put himself up in the church in the place of God. The Westminister Confession of faith said that man was the papacy. Tim’s article here of how the perversion of the Lord’s supper subtly happened ,where the sacrifices in the Eucharist of simply praise and Thanksgiving and bread and wine being given to men was turned into bread and wine being Christ sacrificed to God for sins. Here is what you need to understand Nick, the one and only sacrifice of Christ on the cross is finished never to be repeated or continued Hebrews 10:14. Mark 1:15 Jesus says repent and believe in the gospel. I hope and pray you can repent for your system of meritorious sacraments which cannot save and turn to simple belief, trusting in Christ alone for your salvation. Incidentally, Tim has many articles here on the errors of Roman catholicism. I hope you read the article ” The rise on Roman catholicism.”

    Reply

12. Kevin:
    You said ” Here is what you need to understand Nick, the one and only sacrifice of Christ on the cross is finished never to be repeated or continued Hebrews 10:14.”
    You are absolutely correct. We offer our thanksgiving and praise and our very lives to the Father THROUGH that one and only finished sacrifice of Christ. That is why our offering is perfect. There is no other sacrifice. There is no re-sacrifice. Just the one perfect sacrifice presented again every time we celebrate Mass. We believe in the mediation of Christ alone and His supreme Priesthood with whom He shares. Only “through Him, with Him and in Him” can we reach the Father. Christ taught “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14) We know that our deeds are pleasing to God through Christ. Our lives united to His life, to His death and to His resurrection, are glory and honor to the Father. And yes, we say AMEN.

    Reply

    1. Nick, thank you for the discussion. Incidentally you are under anathema and in bad standing with your church because you deny their canon that says your mass is a real sacrifice of Christ for sins each time. Not a representation. Catholics sometimes try to fool Protestants with the representation of the same sacrifice song. Not true. Rome put under anathema anyone who denies that each mass is true and proper sacrifice of Christ. Maybe you dont know this. Incidentally the fact that a Roman Catholic offers himself also along with Christ for his sins in this quasi co propitious thing makes the Catholic mass more abominable. Listen Nick Christ lived the law in our place. He is our substitute. When a person believes the gospel of scripture Christ’s perfect righteousness is imputed to us and we stand righteous in the eyes of God, not because we are righteous in and of ourselves, but God applies the perfect righteousness of Christ to our account. Its a legal standing. In Philippians 3 Paul has 2 columns, his righteousness and Christ righteousness. And Paul is clear he considers his righteousness as dung as compared to the righteousness that comes by faith alone. He didn’t say he counted his sin as dung, but his righteousness. Got that. If you are trusting that mass in anyway to justify you then you are trusting yourself in some way. Mathew 7 religious men come to Jesus and say Lord Lord we’ve done all these things in your name, but Jesus says go away from me men who do unrighteousness ive never known you. Here are men who profess him as Lord and have done many righteous things, yet they pled their righteousness before the Lord instead of pleading Christ’s righteousness that comes by faith alone. Repent of your perceived goodness Nick, trust only in his. Walk away from that mass embrace the gospel of scripture and find a church that performs the Lord’s supper shown in Tim’s article. Thx

       Reply

13. Kevin: “you are under anathema and in bad standing with your church because you deny their canon that says your mass is a real sacrifice of Christ for sins each time. Not a representation.”

    Which canon is that exactly? I’ll search it and see if what you say is true.

    Reply

    1. Sorry Nick cant do your homework for you. But you are 0 for 2 with Tim, so you can just assume I’m right about the sacrifice of the Mass in the canon at Trent. Or you risk 0 for 3. Incidentally, I have no idea how you prove Faith and virtue are the same thing with This is my body This is may blood. But you got that conflation thing going on. Very Catholic. Thx

       Reply

       1. Nick , session xxii canon 1 ” if anyone shall say, that in the mass a true and proper is not offered to God, or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given unto us to eat, let him be anathema.” Pretty much condemns the view of the pre 4th century that Tim has shown. But all the novelties on your religion cant be found in scripture or the first 3 centuries. I’m trying to pluck you from the fire Nick, but God chooses his elect.

          Reply

14. Kevin:
    I don’t know what you mean about the 0 and 2 with Tim. Is it relevant?
    You said “you are under anathema and in bad standing with your church because you deny their canon that says your mass is a real sacrifice of Christ for sins each time. Not a representation.”
    And then you cite this:
    ===CANON I.–If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.”===which doesn’t say anything like what you said it says.

    Looks like it’s safe to say that what you said is not true.
    Very well. My standing with the Church is good. I’m glad it’s the Church with the authority to anathematize instead of you.
    Thanks for the dialogue. Vaya con Dios.

    Reply

    1. Nick, you provided 2 links to Tim on dismissals, both times Tim showed you the examples you provided were in error of your assertion. 0-2. Then you just provide me the cannon that I provided you proving my assertion that the mass each time it is performed on an altar in the Catholic church is a real true sacrifice of Christ, and then tell me what I said was not true. Nick, denial is more than just a river in Egypt. Nick, you came here to refute Tim’s article. Trust me many like you in the past years have also tried with much of his other work. It’s difficult because he provides scripture and early church history to refute what he calls the novelties of Rome. Imho he has succeeded in spades. I would go further that calling the novelties or errors both of which are right on, I would call them Satan’s lies, for the Roman Catholic church is no Christian church but a front for the kingdom of Satan. It is a false Christianity, and my friend John and I both agree no man we know has proved that more than Tim Kauffman. None. Nick, scripture is clear you attend the church of antichrist, and you receive it’s death wafer at your mass each time you do it. If you want to be saved from antichrist you must repent and believe in the gospel of scripture. Jesus says it plainly in Mark 1:15 ” repent and believe in the gospel” I understand it’s hard as a Roman Catholic who grew up in the church to come to these revelations, but I have many friends who have that God has snatched out of the fire. Thx K

       Reply

15. Kevin:
    You said “Nick, you provided 2 links to Tim on dismissals, both times Tim showed you the examples you provided were in error of your assertion. 0-2. ”
    Ok, the dismissal of the Catechumens is not listed in either of the examples I provided. I stand corrected.

    You said: “Then you just provide me the cannon that I provided you proving my assertion that the mass each time it is performed on an altar in the Catholic church is a real true sacrifice of Christ, and then tell me what I said was not true.”

    That is correct. What you said it said is not true. The canon says “If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is NOTHING ELSE but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.”
    Yes, it is a true and proper sacrifice–tithes, the gifts of bread and wine, thanksgivings and praise, our very lives, are also included, as well as Christ’s Body and Blood.
    What you said it said was “your mass is a real sacrifice of Christ for sins each time. Not a representation.” Nowhere in that canon does it say anything to that effect. It is only your erroneous opinion of what it says. Is it also your opinion that we kill Jesus and cut Him up into little pieces and put His blood into a cup and serve His dead remains to the congregation every time we have Mass?

    Reply

16. Nick! Council of Trent 1562 DS 1743 ” The victim is one and the same …who then offered himself on the cross, only the manner of offering is different… in this divine SACRIFICE which is celebrated in the mass, the SAME CHRIST who offered himself on the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner” got that Nick, it’s not like a re showing of a movie, it’s a unbloody sacrifice of the Christ for your sins. You must do this through your whole life to MERIT your justice and grace, salvation. That’s law not grace. Here’s how it works in Rome, you do and God gives you grace, the more you do, the more grace. That’s law! Roman’s 10:4 says Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to all who believe. In you church Paul would have said Christ is the BEGINNING of the law for righteousness to all who believe. Scripture says grace is UNMERITED favor. For us God gives us grace and we do. Here is the difference, you are living your life to gain God’s final acceptance, Christians are living out and acceptance we already have. There is no need for a resacrifice of Christ. Christ lived the law in our place, he fulfilled the law, paid the penalty for our sins. His work is finished. Nick listen to the writer of Hebrews 10:10 ” What the priests did over and over ( remind you of anything Nick) Jesus did only once, and since that time He has been seated at the right hand of God the father because the work he was sent to do is FINISHED and COMPLETE.” Hebrews 10:14 ” for by one offering he has PERFECTED for all time those for whom he died.” You are in a system that is a recapitulation of the sacrifices done under the law over and over by Priests who die. Those mass sacrifices as with those under the law done by a dying priesthood can never save you. Only repenting and trusting the eternal priesthood in the line of Melchizadek, trusting Christ alone can save you. Repent of the Catholic sacrifices of law, and believe in the gospel of free grace. K

    Reply

17. Kevin:
    You said: ”The victim is one and the same …who then offered himself on the cross, only the manner of offering is different… in this divine SACRIFICE which is celebrated in the mass, the SAME CHRIST who offered himself on the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner” got that Nick, it’s not like a re showing of a movie, it’s a unbloody sacrifice of the Christ for your sins.”
    You are absolutely right! It’s not like the re-showing of a movie, it is much deeper than that. It is an un-bloody presentation of the one PERFECT and COMPLETED sacrifice of Christ on the cross 2000 years ago. If we were to try and kill Jesus and cut Him up into little pieces and put His blood into a cup and serve His dead remains to the congregation every time we have Mass–which we couldn’t do even if we tried–that would truly be a re-sacrifice. And you would be right, that sacrifice, as with those under the law done by a dying priesthood, can never save you. We share in the eternal priesthood in the line of Melchizedek, trusting Christ alone for the one perfect and complete sacrifice that is as good now as it was then and will ever be. This is why our sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise, our gifts, and our very lives is perfect, pleasing, and acceptable to the Father because it is offered through Him, with Him and in Him, Christ Jesus, who lives and reigns in unity with the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. And to that we can say AMEN!

    Reply

    1. So Nick, do you believe it is his body in your mouth and his blood in the cup?

       Reply

       1. Lucy:
          I believe it is His substantive Body and Blood, not His accidentive fleshly tissue and hemo-serum . The accidentive specie of bread and wine nourish my accidentive physiological mortal body, but Christ’s substantive Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity nourish my substantive spirit and eternal soul.
          When I “die”, my eternal soul will leave my mortal remains behind to return to the dust from which they were made. Jesus will bear my eternal soul up as on eagle’s wings to heaven for He promised to raise me up on the Last Day.

          Reply

18. Nick said ” it’s an unbloody presentation” NO, Nick,it’s a true and real sacrifice of Christ, it’s not a presentation and because you believe that, you are under the anathema of your church. My guess, like many Catholics who come here to contest Tim’s articles, they dont read them. Have you read this article Nick? You said ” we share in the eternal priesthood in the line of Melchizadek” all believers are a royal priesthood Peter says but can only offer up spiritual sacrifices pleasing to God. We dont offer ourselves for our sins along with a reoffering of Christ for our sins, and we dont merit the merit of God. It’s a free gift. So the Roman Catholic mass is an evil perversion of the Lords supper in that it is a place where Christ is offered again for sins as well as the person offers himself for his own sins in a twisted ritual where the participant is meriting and increasing in grace and justice. You partake in a perversion of the Lords supper where believers simply commemorate the ONE finished sacrifice that put sin away Hebrews 9:26 which is a complete repudiation of Daubenier called the grand opera of the poor the RC mass. True believers simply offer up spiritual sacrifices to God for a salvation they already possess and commemorate the the one sacrifice that is a blanket across history. But Nick, you cant change your views unless God lifts the veil and delusion that is upon you 2 Thessalonians 2:11. The author of this article used to be caught up in your web, but by God’s grace he was freed and now the Lord uses him to expose the lies of the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on man Roman Catholicism.

    Reply

19. Nick, incidentally, you continue to avoid the subject that the mass is the sacrifice to propitiate your sins? Can you please acknowledge this?

    Reply

    1. Kevin: “NO, Nick,it’s a true and real sacrifice of Christ, it’s not a presentation and because you believe that, you are under the anathema of your church.”
       YES, it is the presentation of the true and real sacrifice of Christ–His real presence Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. You are the one under anathema if you say it isn’t.

       You said “incidentally, you continue to avoid the subject that the mass is the sacrifice to propitiate your sins? Can you please acknowledge this?’
       Yes, the Mass is the sacrifice to propitiate sins. That is why Christ died on the Cross–to propitiate sins. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world–as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. Because we are baptized into Christ’s death for the remission of sins, we are washed clean. Because we abide in Christ and Christ in us, our sacrifice is pure and acceptable to the Father.

       Reply

20. ” yes the mass is the sacrifice to propitiate sins” thank you Nick, then it isnt a ” representation.” Is it. You are agreeing with your church it is a true sacrifice EACH time it’s done. So you admit you are just under the system of sacrifices under the law done not by a priest , not whose power is through and endless life applying his perfect one time never to be continued or repeated sacrifice on our behalf at the altar of God in heaven , but priests who die who perform daily sacrifices like those under the law which can never save, never. You must understand we have nothing in common. Protestants have a different gospel, a different Lord’s supper, a different justification, a different definition of grace, a different head of the church, and so it goes. I want to congratulate you on making a fierce argument on the dismissal. Try reading the article Nick, you might learn something. Thanks Kevin

    Reply

21. Timothy:
    You said: “Paul describes the liturgical “Amen” as a common expression of the gathered participants immediately following the Eucharist:
    “…when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks (εὐχαριστίᾳ, eucharistia), seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” (1 Corinthians 14:16)
    This, too, will most likely be a surprise to the reader…”

    Yes it is surprising. You are using 1 Cor14:16 in a context that it was not meant. Paul was talking about the use of tongues when praying. We give thanks in more ways than just eucharistically. If you are equating the “Amen” and “giving of thanks” eucharistically, that is quite a stretch in this context unless you can come up with a biblical eucharistic offering prayed in tongues in 1 Corinthians.
    Can you do that?

    Reply

    1. Nick, you said, “Paul was talking about the use of tongues when praying.” That is true, but more precisely, he was admonishing them NOT to use tongues while eucharisting, or else the others present will not know to say Amen.

       You wrote, “We give thanks in more ways than just eucharistically.” That’s impossible. Eucharist means “give thanks.” It is therefore impossible to give thanks in a way that is not eucharistic.

       You wrote, “If you are equating the “Amen” and “giving of thanks” eucharistically, that is quite a stretch in this context unless you can come up with a biblical eucharistic offering prayed in tongues in 1 Corinthians.”

       I don’t understand the statement, since I am not, and have not, equated the Amen with the Eucharist.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Timothy:
          I see now. You are using the word eucharist for ALL givings of thanks, not just the offertory. So those who “occupieth the room of the unlearned” have been dismissed from the offertory anyway because they are not allowed. Ergo, they won’t be participating in that AMEN, unless you can demonstrate that Paul was referring to that specific AMEN after the offertory and not after any other non-specific thanksgivings offered.
          Can you do that from 1 Corinthians?

          So far in your article, you have mentioned three AMENs– one after the offertory, one after the consecration, and one after the communicant receives the Body of Christ. (four if you count the one after the communicant receives the Blood) ALL of those AMENS are in the GIRM. I have checked. They are there. No AMENs have been moved.
          Now, in your favor, the emphasis of the AMEN is different for the different AMENs. So what? After every prayer you say, whether it is thanks, praise, personal petition, or intercession, do you not say AMEN?
          Maybe you can clarify?

          Reply

          1. Nick, you wrote,

             “You are using the word eucharist for ALL givings of thanks, not just the offertory.”

             Yes, because that is what it means. Jesus eucharisted when Lazarus was raised from the dead. Jesus eucharisted before multiplying the loaves and He eucharisted before calling the bread and wine His body and blood. The eucharist of Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 14:16 was a liturgical eucharist, and apparently occurred prior to the meal, we would expect from the Gospel accounts of the supper. You continued,

             “So those who “occupieth the room of the unlearned” have been dismissed from the offertory anyway because they are not allowed. Ergo, they won’t be participating in that AMEN, unless you can demonstrate that Paul was referring to that specific AMEN after the offertory and not after any other non-specific thanksgivings offered.”

             No, that is not true. You have assumed that “unlearned” (idiotes) means without “knowledge” (gnosis) and without “faith” but it does not. (Paul said he was an idiote (rude) with regard to speech, but not with regard to gnosis (knowledge) (2 Corinthians 11:6), which indicates that “unlearned” does not mean “without knowledge”. What is more, in 1 Corinthians 14:24, Paul makes clear that “unlearned” does not mean “unbelieving” because he distinguishes between them. In 1 Corinthians 14:15, Paul is contrasting praying “with the spirit” (i.e., in tongues) with praying “with the understanding” (i.e., in a common tongue). Therefore, the one that “occupieth the room of the unlearned” is not without knowledge or without belief, but only one without the ability to interpret tongues. Such a person is not subject to the dismissal. He just can’t understand the thanksgiving, and therefore cannot say Amen to it.

             You continued,

             “So far in your article, you have mentioned three AMENs– one after the offertory, one after the consecration, and one after the communicant receives the Body of Christ.”

             To my knowledge, I have only mentioned two: one after the eucharist (the apostolic Amen mentioned by Paul), and the one “after the consecration, when the bread is administered to the communicant with the words, “The body of Christ” and “The blood of Christ,” which cam about at the end of the 4th century. Or perhaps I have misunderstood your observation.

             As you have noted, the Amen to which I refer is the Apostolic Amen. Paul placed that “great Amen” after the Eucharist but before the Epiclesis. The Great Amen to which you referred in a previous comment is spoken after the Epiclesis in the Roman rite as you can see here: http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm

             My only point in the article is that the Amen used to occur between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis. It was not until the end of the 4th century that the Amen started being said after the Epiclesis. Since then scholars have modified the ancient liturgies to give the appearance that “the Eucharist” is in fact the “Epiclesis” such that the Amen would have to occur after the Epiclesis, bringing the ancient liturgy in line with the medieval one that replaced it. That collapses the ancient Eucharist into the ancient Epiclesis making them a single liturgical act, which obscures the fact that in the early church the Eucharist was the tithe offering prior to the Supper, separate from and prior to the Epiclesis, and the Eucharist offering was an offering of tithed bread, wine, oil, olives, cheese and milk, not an offering of consecrated bread and wine.

             You may disagree with that as you like. If you have evidence that I am wrong, I will entertain that evidence.

             Reply

             1. Timothy:
                You said “The eucharist of Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 14:16 was a liturgical eucharist, and apparently occurred prior to the meal, we would expect from the Gospel accounts of the supper.”
                And:
                “My only point in the article is that the Amen used to occur between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis.”

                Ok. Let’s agree that Paul’s description was a liturgical eucharist. And that being a liturgical eucharist, it should be followed by AMEN. From the same website you cited, my notes are in parentheses, not brackets:

                LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST (Thanksgiving)
                Preparation of the Gifts:
                (Bread and wine and tithes are brought up to the priest standing at the altar)
                Priest: Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life.
                All: Blessed be God for ever.
                Priest: Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the wine we offer you: fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become our spiritual drink.
                All: Blessed be God for ever.
                [If there is no singing during the presentation of the gifts, the priest may say the preceding prayers aloud, and the people may respond. But if a presentation song is being sung, the priest recites these prayers inaudibly, and the people’s response is omitted. Then, after the priest has washed his hands and the music is finished, he invites the people to join in prayer:]
                [stand]
                Priest: Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
                All: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his holy Church.
                Prayer over the Offerings:
                [The priest sings or says this prayer, which is different for each Mass.(This past Sunday: Look upon the offerings of the Church, O Lord, as she makes her prayer to you, and grant that, when consumed by those who believe, they may bring ever greater holiness. Through Christ our Lord.) At the end, the people sing or say in response:]
                All: Amen.

                This Amen above is a liturgical AMEN found after the liturgical eucharist and before the liturgical epiclesis. My point is that the Amen used to occur between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis–and it still does.
                Now you can spin it in whatever direction you want, that some AMENs may be “higher in degree” than others, but the irrefutable fact remains that there is still the AMEN between the offering and the consecration.
                If one was to consider that the dismissal of the catechumens is the dismissal before the offering, as I have illustrated, then it agrees with your lineup:
                Dismissal, Eucharist(tithe offering), AMEN, Consecration, Meal.
                Figure 1: What the Scriptures Plainly Teach
                Now then, there is the AMEN between the consecration and the meal and the AMEN between the meal and the final dismissal of the congregation, but that is no evidence of the AMEN being moved at all. Those AMENs were never mentioned in your article. In fact, the Presbyterian liturgy of the Lord’s Supper has those same AMENS.
                https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/sharedcelebration/pdfs/liturgy.pdf
                Do you have any evidence to show that the “Apostles AMEN” is any higher in degree than any other AMEN?

             2. Nick, perhaps you should take this matter up with your bishops. In its publication, “The structure and meaning of the Mass,” the first Amen mentioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is “the Great Amen” that takes place after the epiclesis. Why don’t you email them and ask them what makes “the Great Amen” any higher in degree than any other AMEN? There is a lot of Amens in the Mass. But for some reason the first one your Bishops mention is an Amen that they call “the Great Amen”.

                Again, as I have said, the point in my article is that in the ancient Church, the Eucharist and the Epiclesis were two different things, with an Apostolic Amen between them. After the 4th century, the Amen came after the Epiclesis. That is a novelty.

                You may disagree with that as you like. If you have evidence that I am wrong, I will entertain that evidence.

       2. Hi Tim
          im a little bit confused. I dont understand how 1. Cor. 14 has to do with the liturgy of the supper of the lord.

          Could you explain it more specific?

          or will it be clear when i read the whole series?

          If so, tell me, then i continue.

          If not, i would like to understand this point, so that i can continue in understanding the serie.

          Thank you!

          Reply

          1. It should become more clear as you read on. The early church believed that their tithe offerings were the fulfillment of the Malachi 1:10-11 prophecy. Because the Scriptures identify that offering as one of thanksgiving (e.g. Psalms 116:17, Hebrews 13:15), the tithe offering was understood to be a eucharist offering, because eucharist is Greek for thanksgiving. Because some of the bread and wine of the eucharist offering was then taken and consecrated for use in the supper, the supper itself came early to be called “the eucharist” as well. That gave the impression to the medieval writers that the consecrated bread was “the eucharist offering.”

             When Paul refers to people saying “Amen at thy giving of thanks”, the term in that passage is “eucharist”. As such, the early church included that “amen” at the conclusion of their tithe offering, after which the Supper then proceeded. That apostolic Amen liturgically separates the Eucharist as tithe offering from the Eucharist as the Lord’s Supper, and thus prevents the early eucharistic liturgy from being interpreted as an offering of consecrated bread and wine.

             An illustration of this is from Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (65) when he says, after the minister “has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen.” That eucharisted food is then distributed by the deacons at which point a consecration is spoken over the distributed food and it is eaten for the Supper. In that liturgy, there is a eucharist offering (tithe) followed by an Amen based on 1 Cor 14:16, at which point the eucharist is distributed and then consecrated by the “prayer of His word,” referring to Jesus’ words of institution “this is My body”.

             That “Amen” shows up repeatedly in the ancient liturgy and separates the offering from the consecration, proving that the early church did not offer consecrate food.

             I hope that helps. There are many more details in The Apostolic Amen and the Collapse of the Eucharist.

             Reply

             1. thank you Brother Kauffman!

                I appreciate your fast answer! Thanks a lot!

             2. i understand very well your point, and i agree.

                But do i understand right, that the ealry church put the apostolic amen BEOFRE the supper BECAUSE of 1. Cor 14,16?

             3. It would be more accurate to say that the early church put the amen after the TITHE because of 1 Cor 14:16, and that the early church put the tithe before the supper because the supper was not a sacrifice.

22. Nick said, ” that’s why Christ died on the cross to propitiate sins” ya but its finished, that’s why the gospel is called news, news is about something that already happened. It’s a past event that’s it’s good news. Salvation has been accomplished, all we have to do is repent and believe in this finished work. That’s why Jesus said in Mark 1:15 ” repent and believe in the gospel” the gospel is told and believed, it isnt done as salvation on the installment plan.

    Reply

    1. Yes, it is good news indeed–completed and finished. And that is why the Roman Catholic Eucharist sacrifice is not a new sacrifice nor is it a re-sacrifice of Christ. Our sacrifice of gifts of bread and wine, tithes, thanks and praise, along with our very lives are offered in conjunction with a presentation of the one and only sacrifice of Christ. He has already been sacrificed, died, buried, and resurrected. We send our new offerings with His one timeless and eternal offering. That is what makes it pure and acceptable to the Father. This may be a bad analogy but look at it this way. We offer our gifts gift-wrapped with Christ who is truly present—-Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

       Reply

23. Nick ” and that is why the Roman Catholic Eucharist sacrifice is not a new sacrifice.” Nevertheless, Trent says it is a true and proper sacrifice for sins and you agreed, and Trent anathemtizes all who deny it. But here is your real problem Nick. Hebrews 10:18″ NOW, where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin” got that, no more offering for sins. You will spend your life in a system of vfc works righteousness at the Mass and end up with the Judaizers unless you repent of that abomination and trust Christ alone. K

    Reply

24. Nick ” we offer our gifts gift wrapped with Christ who is truly present.” you forgot to say, as a proptiation for your sins. 18 ” there is no longer any offering for sin” the Roman mass is fruitless. The Catholic church says you are meriting the grace and justice for your salvation. But Paul said a man is justified FREELY by his grace, not COOPERATING with his grace. Let him off the Cross so he can save you. Mark 1:15.

    Reply

25. Kevin:
    “Nick. Hebrews 10:18″ NOW, where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin” got that, no more offering for sins.
    Nick ” we offer our gifts gift wrapped with Christ who is truly present.” you forgot to say, as a proptiation for your sins.”
    You are absolutely correct. Because of His one and only sacrifice on the Cross, sins are propitiated. Thus wherever and in whomever Christ abides, sins are forgiven. That is why we call Him our Savior and our Redeemer.

    Reply

26. Nick Hebrews 10 :18 says ” NO LONGER any offering for sin” but Nick says ” but we offer gifts with Christ to propitiate sins.

    Reply

27. Kevin: Hebrews 10 :18 says ” NO LONGER any offering for sin” but Nick says ” but we offer gifts with Christ to propitiate sins.
    That’s right. Christ will not die on the Cross again and slaughtering goats, cattle, doves, or lambs are NO LONGER accepted. It’s not our offering but His that forgives sins.

    Reply

    1. ” Christ will not die on the cross again” nor will he be sacrificed on a Roman altar. IT IS FINISHED doesnt mean to be continued. Christ offered himself once. The word is Epiphax, it means never to be repeated or continued. His sacrifice accomplished our salvation and he applies it on our behalf at God’s in heaven. ” it’s not our offering but his” your offering of yourself is propitiatory. So you aren’t exactly correct.

       Reply

    2. ” that’s right. Christ will not die again and slaughtering goats, cattle, doves, lambs, are no longer accepted.” Except there are no mention of those animal sacrifices at all, he simply said no longer ANY offerings for sin” none means none. That includes your old testament law sacrifice of the mass which is done over, and over by priests who die.

       Reply

28. Nick, let me tell you what I take away from Tim’s well informed article. 1. Consecrated bread was NEVER offered to God, NEVER, let alone as the body, blood, soul, divinity of Christ purported by Rome for sins . That alone renders the Roman Mass sacrifice ” for sins” null and void. Bread and wine were only offered to men in remembrance of a finished sacrifice . 2. The Eucharist is where the tithe offering was as Tim described along with the sacrifice of praise and Thanksgiving. Then came the Amen. And then the supper where bread and wine was given to the congregation to commemorate Christ’s sacrifice for us. Nick, the sacrifice of Christ in the liturgy is an abomination and had no place in the early church, for good reason. It is an assault on what he accomplished. Thanks

    Reply

29. Kevin “your offering of yourself is propitiatory. So you aren’t exactly correct.”
    Yes I am exactly correct. It is only propitiatory through, with, and in Christ. Because we are baptized into Christ is what makes it propitiatory. Christ said “Tetelestai” and we say Alleluia! Yes, Christ offered himself once, never to be repeated or continued. You sound as if we actually had the power to nail Jesus on the cross and keep Him there continually. Do you think Catholics have the power to kill God? We sure don’t think so. If you do, then you are making us out to be more powerful than we really are. You have a grand imagination.

    Reply

30. ” it is propitiatory thru, with, and in Christ” let me be Frank with you again. Tim does a great job of showing how the Apostolic Amen walled off the Eucharistic sacrifices which are the tithe things set asside for the poor praise and thanks giving etc. from the giving of the elements as a reminder of the one time finished never to be repeated or continued sacrifice that Hebrews said put sin away for good. You see as far as I’m concerned the root isnt even where the Amen is placed although it shows where the perversion started , it’s the grave error that resulted from conflation, namely that the Lord’s supper was perverted by the Roman Catholic church to make the intended supper commemoration into an altar where Christ and you are sacrificed again and again for your sins. And dont tell me it isnt a sacrifice for sins it is. Whether it is the same, or a resacrifice, it still undermines the one time atonement that Hebrews 9 says put sin away for good. Something that has been completed and put away isnt meant to be continued. But here is the further tragic thing that your church has done with it. It says you MERIT your salvation ( grace and justice) there at the mass altar denying the gospel of free grace . Aquinas fatal mistake was to say that man was predestined to glory based on his merit in some way instead of just the goodness of God. Paul is clear Nick, we are justified FREELY by his grace not COOPERATING with his grace, therefore the sacrifice of the mass where the person merits his salvation is a wholehearted denial of the gospel of free grace and a repudiation of the atonement. Christ lived the law in my place and offers me salvation as a gift by faith alone. I celebrate that gift at the supper, of which Rome has perverted. You can do 10 thousand masses and never have enough grace and justice for heaven. The irony compared to the gospel which cannot be earned or deserved just accepted. I pray that God will remove the veil from your eyes to see what your system is works righteousness. K

    Reply

31. Nick ” you sound as if we have to power to nail Jesus to the cross and keep him there continually” well you are right you dont have the power to do that since Roman’s 1:4 says he was resurrected from the dead and declared Son of God. That’s kind of an interesting phrase Paul uses huh? Why did the Son of God need to be declared Son of God? Think about it. But it is absolutely true that your church wont let Christ off the cross. Bishop Obrien described it nicely, the priest has the power to pull Christ down and render him on an altar as the sacrifice again and again for your sins. Wow, what power! And yet what arrogance. All those who buy into this abominable system of meritorious sacrifices will meet the same end as those Jews Paul prays for in Romans 10:1. K

    Reply

32. Kevin: “intended supper commemoration into an altar where Christ and you are sacrificed again and again for your sins. And dont tell me it isnt a sacrifice for sins it is.”

    Yes, it is a sacrifice for sins. That is why Christ is involved. Where Christ is, sins are forgiven. We bring to mind when we consume His Flesh and Blood that were broken and poured out for the remission of sins that happened at the Cross once and for all time 2000 years ago. His death took away the sins of the world. His resurrection did not invalidate the result of His death. That one sacrifice is just as valid now as it was then and is present in Christ right now at this very moment. He has the scars to prove it. I wasn’t born 2000 years ago and yet if I sin today and offer it up, it will be forgiven. Christ promised he would be with us always. And I have faith in that promise.

    Reply

33. ” I wasnt born 2000 years ago and yet if I sin today and offer it up, it will be forgiven” scripture says out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” your words prove what I told you before , you do and God gives you grace. That’s law, not grace. Grace is unmerited favor, not something that increases and decreases based on merit. ” IF I offer it up, it will be forgiven” conditional salvation. But Paul speaks the truth against your system of lies. Ephessians 2:8 ” for by grace you HAVE BEEN ( aorist past tense) saved thru faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a GIFT of God, not a result of works. Sorry Nick you cant participate in your salvation by your works. Paul denies anything coming from ourselves or our works. If you want to be saved by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone. Just like the rich young ruler wasnt allowed to bring his life of merit, neither will yours be accepted. You are blinded to the gospel of scripture.

    Reply

    1. Kevin:
       You said “But it is absolutely true that your church wont let Christ off the cross.”
       You just acknowledged we don’t have the power to do that.
       You contradict yourself.

       You also said: “Bishop Obrien described it nicely, the priest has the power to pull Christ down and render him on an altar as the sacrifice again and again for your sins. Wow, what power! And yet what arrogance.”
       As a Protestant you should be able to discern whether someone is talking in metaphor or not. You guys pride yourselves in that respect. Why on earth can you not discern it in this case?

       And you also said: ” IF I offer it up, it will be forgiven” conditional salvation. But Paul speaks the truth against your system of lies. Ephessians 2:8 ” for by grace you HAVE BEEN ( aorist past tense) saved thru faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a GIFT of God, not a result of works. Sorry Nick you cant participate in your salvation by your works. Paul denies anything coming from ourselves or our works.”
       What makes you think your sins will be forgiven if you don’t confess your sins and repent from them?
       Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “REPENT, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the FORGIVENESS of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
       Psalms 32:5 I acknowledged my sin to thee, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, “I will CONFESS my transgressions to the LORD”; then thou didst FORGIVE the guilt of my sin.
       Kevin. Are you saying that you can be unrepentant, hiding your sins and still be saved??? The bible says otherwise.

       Reply

34. Timothy:
    You said:But for some reason the first one your Bishops mention is an Amen that they call “the Great Amen”.
    Again, as I have said, the point in my article is that in the ancient Church, the Eucharist and the Epiclesis were two different things, with an Apostolic Amen between them. After the 4th century, the Amen came after the Epiclesis. That is a novelty.”
    I assume, then, that you are equating the “Great Amen” with the “Apostolic Amen” and that the Roman Church moved that AMEN from between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis to the end of the Epiclesis (consecration).
    Without any cited evidence, you have arbitrarily named the AMEN found between the tithe offering and the consecration “the Apostolic Amen” as though it had more significance than any other liturgical AMEN spoken of by the apostle. So you have then implied that the “Great Amen” has more significance than any other liturgical AMEN just because the UCCB article “The Structure and Meaning of the Mass” mentions it first.
    I have shown you evidence that a liturgical AMEN is still in place between the tithe offering and the epiclesis which are still two different rituals listed in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
    Now let’s look at the Amen found at the end of the Epiclesis.
    Here it is in the GIRM:
    Doxology and Great Amen:
    Priest: Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, for ever and ever.
    People: Amen. [may be sung more than once]
    And here it is in the Presbyterian liturgy of the Lord’s Supper:
    Through Christ, all glory and honor are yours, almighty God,
    with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, now and forever.
    Amen.
    Both AMENs look the same. Why do you infer the Catholic AMEN is a novelty but the Presbyterian AMEN is not?

    Reply

    1. Nick, You wrote,

       “I assume, then, that you are equating the “Great Amen” with the “Apostolic Amen” and that the Roman Church moved that AMEN from between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis to the end of the Epiclesis (consecration).”

       I am. You continued,

       “Without any cited evidence, you have arbitrarily named the AMEN found between the tithe offering and the consecration “the Apostolic Amen” as though it had more significance than any other liturgical AMEN spoken of by the apostle.”

       Please provide a list of all liturgical Amen’s spoken by the apostle. (1 Corinthians 14:16 is the only one, Nick.)

       You continued,

       “So you have then implied that the “Great Amen” has more significance than any other liturgical AMEN just because the UCCB article “The Structure and Meaning of the Mass” mentions it first.”

       Is there another “great Amen” in the liturgy? I have not implied that the “Great Amen” has more significance just because the UCCB article mentions it first. It’s the only “great Amen” the UCCB mentions at all. I suspect that they call it “the Great Amen” because they think it is Great. If there are 20 amens in the Mass, and your bishops call one of them Great, does that not imply to you that it has more significance? You wrote,

       “Now you can spin it in whatever direction you want, that some AMENs may be “higher in degree” than others, but the irrefutable fact remains that there is still the AMEN between the offering and the consecration.”

       As I said, take it up with your Bishops who call it “the Great Amen”. They will be able to tell you why that Great Amen is different and more significant than the others. I’m sure they call it “Great” for some reason. Of the Great Amen that closes the Eucharistic prayer, Jeremy Driscoll, OSB, writes, “This is the biggest Amen of the Mass and so is the biggest Amen in the world.” (What Happens at Mass, 107)

       So, Nick, no further discussion on whether the Great Amen is of any more significance than any other. It’s clear to me that you stand alone among all Roman Catholics in attempting to maintain that the Great Amen is of no greater significance than any other Amen. It’s the Amen that closes the Eucharistic Prayer. 1 Corinthians 14:16 is the only verse that describes it. That’s the Apostolic Amen. It’s not me implying anything. It’s just a fact. There are many Amens in the Mass, but the Apostolic Amen that used to occur between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis now occurs after the Epiclesis. That is novelty, and it led to the abominable novelty of a liturgical offering of the body and blood of Christ.

       And no, I have not inferred that the PCUSA Amen is not novel. It, too, occurs after the Epiclesis.

       Reply

       1. Timothy:
          But the fly in the ointment still remains, so to speak.
          So it is only you who equates the two AMENS in question.
          You have arbitrarily named the AMEN in 1 Corinthians 14:16 the “Apostolic Amen” since it is the only liturgical AMEN mentioned. Paul does not say that AMEN is any greater than any other, he does not call it the “Apostolic Amen” and you have not cited any other sources that indicate that particular AMEN is called the “Apostolic Amen” or that it has any greater meaning than any other. You say it is spoken after the tithe offering, but there is no indication that it is greater than any other AMEN, it just happens after the tithe offering. So it is just a matter of positioning in the liturgy and not that it has any greater meaning than any other AMEN.
          It is the Catholic Church that has named the AMEN after the consecration the “Great Amen”, and as you have cited, it indicates that, yes, the “Great Amen” is higher in degree than other AMENs.
          My point is still that the AMEN that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians that comes after the tithe offering and before the epiclesis IS STILL IN THAT SAME POSITION. It never moved. What you are trying to do is equate Paul’s AMEN with the “Great Amen” when you should be equating it with the AMEN that is still in the same position between the tithe offering and the epiclesis.
          Now I understand you are trying to make the Catholic Church look bad by accusing them of altering the liturgy. But here’s the problem, you can’t supply a complete ancient pre-Roman liturgy to compare it with. Can you say for certain that there was NOT an AMEN after the epiclesis? No you can’t. All you can do is provide 4th century evidence that there is an AMEN in the communion rite after the species have been received by the communicant. And today, that AMEN isn’t even called the “Great Amen”.

          No, the Catholic Church has not moved the so called “Apostolic Amen”. You only say they did.

          Reply

          1. Nick, you wrote,

             “What you are trying to do is equate Paul’s AMEN with the “Great Amen” when you should be equating it with the AMEN that is still in the same position between the tithe offering and the epiclesis.”

             The Roman Catholic Catechism claims that the Amen spoken after the Consecration is the most ancient liturgical Amen that is known, and it originates with 1 Corinthians 14:16, which says it is spoken immediately after the Eucharist. “The other Amens which are found between the Preface and the Pater Noster can easily be shown to be relatively late additions“.

             If the Amen after the Epiclesis is the most ancient, and the others “relatively late additions,” then the one between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis cannot also be the most ancient. You are claiming that the Amen between the Eucharist and Epiclisis that Paul spoke of is still there and always has been, but your own Encyclopedia denies that. It says that the ancient Amen comes from the Apostle and is spoken after the Consecration, and for any other liturgical Amens they have no early evidence.

             All that’s left to really talk about is the correct place of the Amen in the liturgy, and yes, I am talking about the one mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:16. For three hundred years that Apostolic Amen occurred between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis, and was spoken to affirm the corporate expression of gratitude to God for the fruits of the harvest. It was not until the end of the 4th century that it started being uttered after the Epiclesis, and then going forward from there it was simply assumed that the Eucharistic prayer was itself the Consecration and that Paul must have been saying that the Amen took place after the consecration and was spoken to affirm transubstantiation. That is a novelty.

             I understand that you disagree with that, but you have offered no evidence to counter my claim. You are welcome to do so.

             Reply

             1. Timothy:
                The hyperlink you used for “the Amen” says nothing like what you just said it said.
                First of all, it doesn’t hyperlink to the Catechism. It hyperlinks to the Encylopedia:
                “The employment of Amen in the synagogues as the people’s answer to a prayer said aloud by a representative must no doubt have been adopted in their own worship by the Christians of the Apostolic age. This at least is the only natural sense in which to interpret the use of the word in 1 Corinthians 14:16, “Else if thou shall bless with the spirit, how shall he that holdeth the place of the unlearned say Amen to thy blessing?” (pos erei to amen epi te se eucharistia) where to amen seems clearly to mean “the customary Amen”. In the beginning. however, its use seems to have been limited to the congregation, who made answer to some public prayer, and it was not spoken by him who offered the prayer (see yon der Goltz, Das Gebet in der ltesten Christenheit, p. 160). It is perhaps one of the most reliable indications of the early data of the “Didache” or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”, that, although several short liturgical formulæ are embodied in this document, the word Amen occurs but once, and then in company with the word maranatha, apparently as an ejaculation of the assembly. As regards these liturgical formulæ in the “Didache”, which include the Our Father, we may, however, perhaps suppose that the Amen was not written because it was taken for granted that after the doxology those present would answer Amen as a matter of course.”
                This does not support your opinion. I have tried to find it in the Catechism and cannot locate your reference. Can you provide it so that I can see what you say the Catechism says is actually there?

             2. My apologies. I meant to say “Roman Catholic Encyclopedia claims…”

             3. Thank you. In what way does the Encyclopedia not support my opinion?

             4. This is the only cite from the Catechism that I have found showing the AMEN in question:
                1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:
                On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
                The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

                When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

                Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

                When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

                Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

                He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

                When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

                When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

                This citation doesn’t seem to support your opinion either. In fact it supports the current location of the AMEN between the consecration and the communion as far back as Justin Martyr of the second century.
                Now you may say that “eucharisted” does not mean “consecrated”, but the Church did not send unconsecrated bread and wine to those who were absent.

             5. Timothy:
                You said “All that’s left to really talk about is the correct place of the Amen in the liturgy, and yes, I am talking about the one mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:16. For three hundred years that Apostolic Amen occurred between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis, and was spoken to affirm the corporate expression of gratitude to God for the fruits of the harvest. It was not until the end of the 4th century that it started being uttered after the Epiclesis, and then going forward from there it was simply assumed that the Eucharistic prayer was itself the Consecration and that Paul must have been saying that the Amen took place after the consecration and was spoken to affirm transubstantiation. That is a novelty.
                I understand that you disagree with that, but you have offered no evidence to counter my claim. ”

                Here is the evidence. It is in the Didache written circa 96 AD:
                “Chapter 10. Prayer After Communion
                But after you are filled, thus give thanks: We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name’s sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant. Before all things we thank You that You are mighty; to You be the glory forever. Remember, Lord, Your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it; for Yours is the power and the glory forever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.”

                As you can see from one of the earliest Christian writings, 1st century no less, the AMEN is placed in the prayer AFTER communion–after the epiclesis–because it is, as the Didache says “spiritual food and drink” not “food and drink to men for enjoyment”.
                Clearly within the first three hundred years, there is evidence that the AMEN was indeed after the consecration and not between the tithe offering and the epiclesis as you claim. If it is a novelty, it happened in the 1st century.

                I understand that you might disagree with that, but I have offered evidence to dispute your claim. I will entertain any discussion you may render. 🙂

             6. Thank you, Nick. It is of course an interesting observation, and one worth investigating. There is of course no formal epiclesis in the Didache and no reference to the food being Jesus’ body and blood. Certainly no language from the institution narrative. Many attempts have been made to make the Maranatha consecratory, or possibly the prayer to gather the Church, or possibly the mention of the name of God, but as it stands there is no evidence of an epiclesis there.

                You have mentioned “spiritual food” as if that was evidence that the consecration must have taken place earlier in the liturgy, thus appearing to place the Amen after the epiclesis. However, the prayer is simply gratitude that God had provided for all men generally, and for His people particularly. Jesus said “the water that I shall give [shall spring] up into everlasting life” (John 4:14) and “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). Living Water. Life. The Word of God. Knowledge. This “spiritual food” has been given to us through Jesus Christ.” Why should I assume “spiritual food” in Chapter 10 refers to consecrated bread and wine and is not a reference to the water of life and the meat of the Word of God, as suggested by the previous paragraph? “We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant” (Didache 9)

                In the Institution Narratives, Jesus gives thanks for the cup before the supper (Luke 22:17), and for the bread as they were eating (Mathew 26:21, 26; Mark 14:18,22). In every case, the His words, “this is My body” and “this is My blood” took place after the food had already been distributed or even already in their stomachs (as in Luke 22:20). The Didache follows this and has the Thanksgiving offered during the meal (chapter 9) and “after you are filled” (chapter 10). The title of chapter 10 “Prayer After Communion” simply assumes that it is describing the Lord’s Supper with consecrated food, but there is no internal evidence to suggest it. It is still a thanksgiving banquet, and at the conclusion of each person’s Thanksgiving is an Amen.

                The fact that Amen is said as people give thanks, and then the prophets are allowed to continue “making Thanksgiving” as long as they like, shows that the Eucharist here is the thank offerings and not consecrated bread, and the Amen of Didache 10 is the Apostolic Amen of 1 Corinthians 14:16.

                So no, there is no evidence that the AMEN was after the consecration here. It was after the thanksgiving. There is no evidence to be found that the Amen occurs after the Epiclesis. This is why even today Roman Catholic scholars are trying to figure out a way to make the whole narrative (Chapters 9 and 10) consecratory. But it can’t be done.

                See, for example, the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Bible and Theology, in which it says, “The Didache has no epiclesis, just as it lacks an institution narrative. … Odo Casel popularized the view that the whole eucharistic prayer is consecratory…”. Odo Casel popularized that notion in the 1900s.

35. ” you acknowledged that we do not have the power to do that” that’s right, because Hebrews is crystal clear that Christ offered himself once 10:14, that it perfected those who he died for 10:14, that he put sin away 9: 25,26 ” nor was it that he would offer himself often”, he offered himself once in time never to be repeated or continued and it put sin away. In fact the writer of Hebrews compares it to dying once in time. His sacrifice is a blanket across history having covered sins past present and future. However, in the sense of the mass sacrifice each time it is performed you certainly keep him on the cross because that sham sacrifice denies the finality and the scope of his offering Catholics fail to realize Christ already fulfilled the law in our place. He is our substitute Isaiah 53 Roman’s 5:10, 19. You continued ” you should be able to discern metaphor” Nick, you dont know your own doctrine. What Obrien described is no metaphor. Christ is certainly in the hand of your priest rendered on the altar sacrifice for sins by your priest according to your doctrine. Hardly a metaphor! You continued ” what makes you think that your sins will be forgiven if you dont confess them and repent from them” because my repentance and confession isnt the grounds of my acceptance with God according to 2:8. The righteousness of Christ alone is the grounds. What part of nothing coming from ourselves and our works isnt clear there in Ephessians2:8 ? Yes I repent and confess sins, not conditionally. You cite Acts 2:28 as if the word eis for means in order to get, but it is better translated in view of. Repentance and confession are works of the Spirit but they are not the conditional grounds of acceptance before God, it is only the perfect righteousness of Christ alone . Or otherwise Paul was wrong in Ephessians 2:8 when he said we were saved by faith with nothing coming from ourselves or our works. When Paul was asked by the Phillipians jailer ” what must I do to be saved?” Paul said believe on the Lord and you will be saved. ” Kevin are you saying you can be unrepentant, hiding your sins and still be saved.” No I’m saying confession and repentance aren’t the grounds of our salvation. True faith produces confession and repentance. But that’s different that saying do this then receive God’s grace and justice. That’s works righteousness in which web you are in in the RC. Thx

    Reply

36. Tim said ” That is the novelty, and it led to the abominable novelty of a liturgical offering of the body and blood of Christ” exactly. And i would add a system of meriting one’s salvation at that offering through participating in it according to the Catholic church. Of course Satan has used this novelty to lead men into a system of works righteousness and hell imho. Countless numbers.

    Reply

    1. Whew! I am glad it’s only your humble opinion. If you actually had any authority, it would be very bad.

       Reply

       1. Nick, I want to thank you for the discussion. I think we exhausted it, and Lord knows I’ve gotten in enough fruitless back and forths here that I regret for beating a dead horse. Let me just leave you with this. Tim wrote an immensely important article called The ” Protty” Jesus in retort to a popular RC writer named Vorris who put forward that the the Protestant Jesus and the Catholic Jesus aren’t the same. Tim in the article agrees with the frankness of Voris to make that claim and Tim agreed that it is true we worship different Lords. Tim provided numerous quotes from early church fathers that completely supports the Protestant view of acceptable sacrifices and refutes the Roman Cathoiic position of the sacrifice of Christ in the mass. Let me give you a quote from Tim in that article which I hope you read and think you will find fascinating. Tim ” In sum, if the sacrifices of the early church were ” not seen” and the God they worshipped they ” neither show or see” ( both quotes from early church fathers) then the sacrifice of the mass was unheard of, and the Eucharistic adoration was right out, and therefore, the ” Eucharistic Jesus ” ( Voris words) was not ” the source and summit ” of the Early church at all. Indeed, they worshipped what Voris calls ” the Protty Jesus” which is to say , they worshipped the Jesus of the Bible.” The scripture and the words of the first almost 4 centuries of the church not only dont support any aspect of the Roman mass, it flat out condemns it. Tim imho dealt a fatal blow to Rome’s novelty. The fact that it is the summit of your salvation is a sobering and scary thought. K

          Reply

       2. All Christians have the authority to discern the word of God. We say with the Spirit, by and with the word of God. Let me put it in Jesus words Matt. 24: 5 ” for many will come in my name claiming ” I am the messiah” and deceive many” your church has made that claim. And finally Luke 21:8 ” Watch out dont let anyone mislead you, for many will come in my name saying I am the messiah, and saying the time has come, DONT BELIEVE THEM.” K

          Reply

          1. It has been a pleasure, Kevin.

             Reply

37. Nick, with all due respect, the 1345 catechism you put forward that cites Martyr supports Tim’s position. He says the hard Amen and the the bread and wine are dispersed to the people. Incidentally, you just provided proof of NO sacrifice of Christ for sins in Martyrs congregation. Amazing, you argued Tim was wrong while providing evidence that supported his position and condemning the sacrifice of the mass as non existent. Congrats.

    Reply

38. Kevin:
    Justin Martyr says “Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.”

    I’ll bet you “faith alone” guys really love that statement. “…so that WE may be found righteous by OUR life and ACTIONS, and faithful to the commandments, so as to OBTAIN ETERNAL SALVATION.” –Justin Martyr–second century AD
    I am so glad to hear that you and Tim agree with the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Your welcome.
    It has been a pleasure, Kevin.

    Reply

39. ” I’ll bet you faith alone guys really love that statement” What’s a faith alone guy?

    Reply

40. 🙂

    Reply

41. Nick, I’m sure Justin didnt mean earning and meriting your grace justice ( salvation) through your works when he says so as to obtain eternal salvation. He certainly wasnt privi. 2000 years of scholarship on the subject of justification. Luther having been the first one to exegete jbfa and expose the fatal errors of penance and a false gospel of gracious merit. Just to show you how far off your church has gone ( into a false gospel) let me quote you Clement of Rome on justification” you faith alone guys.” He was one of the first Bishops of ROME. ” We also being called thru God’s will in Christ Jesus, are NOT justified through ourselves ( oh oh) neither through our wisdom of understanding, or piety, or WORKS which we have done in holiness of heart ( oh oh watch out doing those masses to merit justification), but thru FAITH. Sounds Protestant to me. Sounds just like Paul in Roman’s 5:1, 4:5, 5:12,4:16, Ephessians 2:8, Philippians 3:9. If you need more scripture references let me know. Your first Bishop wouldn’t recognize your doctrine on justification. Because justification in your church is a process throughout your life. Unfortunately in scripture its instantaneous, past tense, and has nothing to do with our righteousness. There is no such thing as a final justification based on the life lived in the bible. Unfortunately your church confused the in us with the for us and the rest is history, a false gospel.

    Reply

    1. Kevin:
       You said: “I’m sure Justin didnt mean earning and meriting your grace justice ( salvation) through your works when he says so as to obtain eternal salvation.”
       Yeah, he probably meant “salvation by faith and works”. You might want to take that up with Justin Martyr. After all, he is the one who wrote it.

       You also said: “He certainly wasnt privi. 2000 years of scholarship on the subject of justification. Luther having been the first one to exegete jbfa and expose the fatal errors of penance and a false gospel of gracious merit. ”
       After 1500 years of Church history, Luther developed jbfa doctrine? St. John Newman explains Catholic doctrine as developing over time. I guess that apple didn’t fall to far from the tree.

       Reply

       1. ” St John Newman explains Catholic doctrine as developing over time” actually this is out of context. Newman’ development of doctrine doctrine he said was only visible to Roman Catholics and that finding them in the early church was nil. I would add that Popes, Meritorious sacraments, sacrifices of Christ to God in the Lord’s supper etc. cant be found in scripture at either. All Luther did was exegete the scripture. Romans 4:5 says that God justifies an UNGODLY man who does not work. Rome says God justifies a godly man who works. I’ll go with Paul. I trust the Word for my salvation. You trust the Pope, he’s your representative. In fact if you didnt trust the Pope you couldnt be a Catholic. But the Pope cant save you. Only the Word alone. The Pope cant invoke the Spirit of God. Only Jesus could invoke the Spirit. The Apostles couldnt even invoke the Spirit, Jesus solely invoked the Spirit and breathed on them and they had to wait to the day of pentecost. So to think that your Priests can invoke the Spirit by way of the Pope in antichrist. Nick, the whole system you are trusting in to save you is antichrist. It cant be proven from scripture. You are engaged in flagrant idolatry by worshipping that bread God at your altar. Maybe you follow it around in the streets when your priests March it around. Maybe you sit in an adoration room like my friend Debbie. At any cost you aren’t worshipping the Christ of the bible, you are worshiping the image of the beast. But you’ve come to the right place by the grace of God. Tim Kauffman has laid out who is the first beast, the second beast, and the image of the beast that men were forced to worship under penalty of death. If you search this site you will learn the real truth about your church and its death wafer, and by the grace of God the truth of the gospel which can free your soul from antichrist. Best k

          Reply

          1. Again, it has been a pleasure, Kevin.

             Reply

42. Tim, I was actually heartened by Justin Martyr’ s description of the service. What stood out to me was the Amen right after prayers of praise and Thanksgiving and the simply they came and passed out the bread and wine for the meal. Nick provided Martyrs example of what you described in your article. What was missing was the sacrifice of Christ for sins. It would be interesting to understand the phrase Martyr makes about praying for themselves and others to be found righteous, obeying the commandments, so as to obtain salvation. He sounds Arminian. Have you studied that passage or reformed scholarship on the translation of that paragraph? I certainly realize Martyr did not have the advantage of the scholarship on justification at that time. Also these men were dealing with difficult things with their lives at risk, hence the name Martyr. It seems like he may have been saying by being faithful and obedient in these things we assure ourselves of our salvation? Do you have any thoughts? Tim, I’m just amazed how you have been able to go into the history of the church, even Protestant history ,of course heavily influenced by Rome’s version, and to really clarify things. You hafve often been accused of trying to be some kinda of modern day prophet, but I’m certain from attending these seminary classes, as John and I call Out of His mouth😊, that your articles have combined scripture with a detailed research of church history to bring tremendous clarity to a Christian. Truly spiritual food God intends Christians is not eating the body and drinking blood of Christ, but understanding the word and gaining knowledge of the truth through the Spirit and the word . I’m not sure if this verse applies but it has fascinated me for so long. 2 Corrinthians 5:16 ” Therfore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh, even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him in this way no longer.” He calls us to a spiritual relationship with him through his Spirit and his word. Since Roman Catholics pine after the Jesus wafer, they miss out on the truth. K

    Reply

43. Timothy:
    You said: “So no, there is no evidence that the AMEN was after the consecration here. It was after the thanksgiving. There is no evidence to be found that the Amen occurs after the Epiclesis.”
    Naturally, if there is no mention of an epiclesis in the Didache, then there would be no direct evidence to be found that the Amen occurs after the epiclesis. Makes sense. But as you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    It is clear that the title of chapter 10 “Prayer After Communion” is evidence that the AMEN came after communion. The very first phrase of Chapter 10 confirms it– “But after you are filled, thus give thanks:” — and then it goes into the content of the prayer, which just happens to be a prayer of thanksgiving. And the only AMEN mentioned in the Didache is found in that prayer–which is AFTER communion. That is solid evidence from the first century that the AMEN did not appear between the tithe offering and the epiclesis as you claim. All of your trying to explain it away cannot change that obvious fact. Moreover, there is no direct evidence that Paul’s AMEN in 1 Corinthians 14:16 is located in any specific place in the liturgy except that it is in response to “thy giving of thanks”, which could be said in multiple places during the liturgy.
    There is no evidence anywhere in any Christian writings that I have found where communicants ate and drank unconsecrated, ordinary bread and wine in the liturgy. All the writings that mention communion have said the bread and wine have been “changed” into the Body and Blood of Christ. Now we can debate on the nature of that change till the cows come home. But again, there is no evidence to the contrary. When you celebrate the Lord’s Supper, Timothy, do you eat and drink UNCONSECRATED bread and wine?
    Your claim that the Roman Church moved the “Apostolic Amen” from between the tithe offering and the epiclesis to after it in the 4th century simply does not hold water.

    Reply

    1. Nick,

       You said, “It is clear that the title of chapter 10 “Prayer After Communion” is evidence that the AMEN came after communion.”

       There are no chapter divisions or headings in the original. Those were added later.

       You also said, “There is no evidence anywhere in any Christian writings that I have found where communicants ate and drank unconsecrated, ordinary bread and wine in the liturgy.”

       That is because you’re assuming a medieval liturgy. The ancient church occasionally celebrated a thanksgiving banquet prior to the Supper especially on the day of a convert’s baptism, in which banquet the food was unconsecrated and could consist of bread, wine, milk, honey and water, over which Thanksgiving had been pronounced but over which the Consecration had not been pronounced. Though I am not surprised to hear you do not know about this.

       You wrote,

       “All the writings that mention communion have said the bread and wine have been “changed” into the Body and Blood of Christ.”

       Except, of course, the Didache, right? Because the Didache mentions neither “communion” nor the change. That’s because the Didache has no Epiclesis.

       You continued, “When you celebrate the Lord’s Supper, Timothy, do you eat and drink UNCONSECRATED bread and wine?”

       No, I do not. Nor did the those mentioned in the Didache. But what is described in the Didache is not the Lord’s Supper. It is a Thanksgiving banquet.

       Reply

       1. Timothy–
          Let me clarify:
          “Communicants” are those participating in communion, ie. the Lord’s Supper. I was specifying communicants, not attendees of some Thanksgiving banquet.
          But if you are interpreting the Didache as a Thanksgiving banquet with an AMEN that is not the Lord’s Supper, then Paul’s mention of the AMEN in 1 Cor, for lack of any specific evidence, can be such a banquet. Therefore, the “Apostolic Amen” could very well be the AMEN said after saying Grace for any meal. Show me in [Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?] where Paul specifies what particular thanksgiving since any and all thanksgivings are εὐχαριστία? I see no evidence where he is referring to a Sunday liturgy at all. He could be talking about any prayer meeting they have. After all, he is only teaching about the usage of speaking in tongues which can happen with any prayer.
          With all of this discussion unfolding, your claim that the Roman Church moved the “Apostolic Amen” still does not hold water.

          Reply

          1. Nick,

             You concluded,

             “With all of this discussion unfolding, your claim that the Roman Church moved the “Apostolic Amen” still does not hold water.”

             And yet, even your own encyclopedia tacitly acknowledges that it did. For starters, notice that Justin Martyr places the Amen after the Thanksgiving:

             Justin Martyr, First Apology, 65 “And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.”

             Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67 “and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.”

             The people say amen after the Thanksgiving.

             The Roman Catholic encyclopedia quotes Justin Martyr and the Amen that he placed immediately following the Thanksgiving, and states that “the existing liturgies both of the East and the West clearly bear witness to this primitive arrangement.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Amen)

             And then the Roman Catholic encyclopedia proceeds to acknowledge in the same article that all other liturgical Amens between the Preface and the Our Father “can easily be shown to be relatively late additions.” So we are only talking about one Amen.

             And then, the Roman Catholic encyclopedia acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Amen immediately follows the Consecration, (after just having shown that in Justin Martyr his Amen immediately followed the Eucharist):

             “In the Roman Liturgy the great consecrating prayer, or “action”, of the Mass ends with the solemn doxology and Amen which immediately precede the Pater Noster.”

             So, in sum, “this primitive arrangement” of an Amen that immediately follows the Eucharist is the only Amen of ancient origin, but the Roman liturgy places the Amen immediately after the Consecration or Epiclesis.

             To justify the switch, Roman Catholicism simply assumes Justin’s Eucharist was his Epiclesis, which is precisely the point I am making.

             In the Ancient church, the Eucharist offering was the Tithe before the Lord’s Supper and the Epiclesis was the consecration prior to the Supper, and there was an Amen between them. Roman Catholicism moved the Consecration before the Eucharist, so that the Amen is spoken after the Epiclesis to affirm an offering of consecrated bread. In the ancient church, the Amen was spoken to affirm gratitude for the tithe offering. It moved at the end of the 4th century.

             Reply

             1. Timothy–
                Justin is saying that the AMEN is after the thanksgiving but before communion. You say there is no consecration in between. If that is the case, then those who are absent are given UNCONSECRATED bread and wine, right?
                But Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 says this about the bread and wine in which has been said AMEN to and distributed in communion:
                “And THIS FOOD is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. FOR NOT AS COMMON BREAD AND COMMON DRINK do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is BLESSED BY THE PRAYER of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, IS THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF THAT JESUS WHO WAS MADE FLESH.”

                So the food which was distributed for communion is not common bread and drink, but being blessed by the prayer of His word, is the flesh and the blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. Clearly the consecration has taken place. So that AMEN in Justin Martyr’s apology is between the thanksgiving (which obviously included the consecration)and communion–EXACTLY where it is today in the Roman GIRM. This is SECOND century. Sure, other AMENs could have been added later, that fall between the preface and the Pater Noster in the 4th century.
                You are right that the AMEN comes after the tithe offering , but it is also after the epiclesis (consecration) which is clearly included in the thanksgiving (eucharist) prayer before communion. Then it is proper to distribute the CONSECRATED elements to the communicants, not unconsecrated common bread and drink.
                Justin Martyr does not support your theory that the Roman Church moved the “Apostolic Amen”. What he does do is show your theory is just that–YOUR theory.

             2. Nick,

                Justin Martyr says that the Consecration is pronounced over Eucharisted food. He says the minister expresses thanks over the food and the people say Amen to that. Only after he has pronounced thanksgiving and the people say Amen does he say there is a pronouncement of the words of Christ over that Eucharisted food. So no, his Eucharist does not “obviously” include the consecration. This is why Roman Catholic liturgists acknowledge that there is no way to detect or verify a formal epiclesis in Justin Martyr:

                As Helmut Hoping (Professor of Dogmatics and Liturgical Sciences on the Theological Faculty of the University of Freiburg) wrote in 2011:

                “A formal epiclesis as part of the Eucharistic Prayer is not verifiable with Justin. At this point it is necessary to investigate the view, held above all by liturgists, that the institution narrative did not find its way into the Eucharistic Prayer until the fourth century” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press (2019) trans from the original German (2011)”

                If you have evidence that the words of institution were included in Justin’s Eucharistic prayer, please provide it. There is a lot of Roman Catholic apologists waiting to hear your “theory” of an epiclesis in Justin’s Eucharistic prayer.

                In any case, Justin says no man is allowed to participate (μετασχείν) in the Eucharist except “the man who believes that the things which we teach are true” and has been baptized and is living right. In Exodus 22:11, in the Septuagint, that word simply means “put the hand to.” It’s a reference to the Dismissal prior to the Eucharist offering. No one is allowed to bring and offer the Eucharist unless he is Christian and living accordingly. It does not have to do with eating and drinking the food that is being offered. And yes, I believe the bread that is distributed is food that has been Eucharisted but has not yet been consecrated, and that distributed and unconsecrated food was called Eucharist. This was common in the early church to distribute the bread into the recipient’s hands before the consecration. The consecration actually took place after it had already been distributed to the participants, and in some cases after the food had already been consumed. In Justin’s case, yes, the food that is distributed and given to the deacons is not yet consecrated. Presumably the deacons would not depart to deliver a portion to those that are absent until after the consecration was spoken. I can’t imagine a scenario in which the deacons left before the Supper was over. But clearly they distributed the bread before the consecration and collected some of the bread prior to the consecration.

                In any case, when he says “not as common bread and common drink do we receive (λαμβανομεν) these,” it is in the context of eating. This time the word means “receive” and in context, it is by eating and drinking.

                So yes, that’s the ancient liturgy. Eucharist. Amen. Consecration. Meal. And in some cases the consecration was not spoken until after the bread and wine were distributed.

                That’s just what the text says. Since your argument against the text and against your own Roman Catholic liturgists, I suggest you take up the matter with them. You clearly either have more information than they do, or disagree with their conclusions regarding the information they have. Enjoy

             3. Timothy:
                You said “Justin Martyr says that the Consecration is pronounced over Eucharisted food.

                I can’t find where he says that. Can you provide that quote?

                You also said “If you have evidence that the words of institution were included in Justin’s Eucharistic prayer, please provide it.”
                What I said was the food which was distributed for communion is not common bread and drink, but being blessed by the prayer of His word, is the flesh and the blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. Clearly the consecration has taken place. The evidence is that the deacons would not distribute UNCONSECRATED elements to those who are absent. Why? Because the elements won’t be there for the consecration if they have been taken away for those who are absent. The absent will only have common bread and common drink which is not proper for faithful Christians. If it is not consecrated it is not spiritual food or drink. Then what good is it? “The flesh is to no avail.”
                No, Justin is clear that the eucharisted elements that are distributed for communion are consecrated, blessed by the prayer of His word. Why Helmut Hoping can’t see this is beyond me. Maybe he is trying to verify an exact quotation of the institution narrative in the setting of the Eucharistic Prayer and he doesn’t find what he is looking for until the writings in the 4th century. But that doesn’t mean the quotation he is looking for didn’t exist from the beginning. After all, even you said “Regarding the consecration, the Scriptures give no explicit direction. The Gospel writers make no mention of a formal consecration, and Paul simply refers to the cup ‘which we bless’ and the bread ‘which we break’.” That doesn’t mean the formal consecration didn’t exist. It simply means there is no record of it in Holy Scripture.
                In the same way, there may not be a specific mention of a formal epiclesis in Justin Martyr’s First Apology, but that doesn’t mean the formal epiclesis didn’t exist in early Eucharistic prayers.

                The bottom line is, still, you have given no conclusive evidence that the Roman Church moved your “Apostolic Amen” from one place in the liturgy and put it in another place in the liturgy. The only thing that you can prove without a shadow of a doubt is that there is more than just one AMEN in the liturgy of the Eucharist.

             4. The original Greek says “by the prayer of His word (δι’ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ) the eucharisted food (εὐχαριστηθείσαν τροφήν)” becomes the flesh and blood of Christ. In other words, the minister gives thanks over the food to “eucharist it”. The people say Amen to the Eucharist. The sacrifice is over. The food “over which the thanksgiving was pronounced” is then distributed and the eucharisted food is then consecrated “by the prayer of His word.”

                If the prayer of His word is spoken over the food that has been eucharisted, then the Eucharisting of the food does not include “the prayer of His word.” The early liturgies all follow that order. Eucharist followed by Epiclesis. When there is an Amen mentioned, it is between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis. Food becomes the Eucharist by the eucharistic prayer, then the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ by the Consecration.

44. Nick likewise, ” certainly the sacraments of the body and blood are a divine thing, through which we are made partakers of of the divine nature; and yet the SUBSTANCE and the NATURE of the bread and wine does not cease to be.” See Pope Gelasius knew what Protestnts know that it’s bread and wine. You know how you know Nick, look at it.

    Reply

    1. We walk by faith and not by sight.
       Good bye, Kevin.

       Reply

       1. ” we walk by faith and bot by sight” Nick we are called to a spiritual relationship with Christ through faith, not a physical relationship. Jesus said God is seeking worshippers that worship Him (watch) in Spirit and in truth. That spiritual relationship with Christ is through the Spirit of God. Paul says it this way ” Christ in you the hope of glory.” Christ left us the Spirit. Listen to Paul 2 Corinthians 5:16 ” therfore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh, even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet NOW we know him in this way no longer.” Got that Nick. So the gospel isnt to believe the bread and wine are literally his flesh and blood, the gospel is to believe that Christ died for your sins and was raised on the 3rd day. 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4. And finally those that took Jesus literally in John 6 about what he said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were unbelievers. He tells the in verse 63, it is the Spirit who gives life, THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING, the WORDS I have spoken to you are SPIRIT and life. ” salvation is coming and believing his words. Again he calls us to a spiritual relationship with him simply by repenting and believing the gospel. Roman Catholicism is a false Christianity. K

          Reply

          1. Yes, you are exactly right. It’s the Spirit who gives life. It is our spirit that discerns His Body and Blood, not the flesh. That’s why we walk by faith and not by sight. Because faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Otherwise, it would be just baked wheat flour and grape juice.

             Reply

45. Nick ” yes you are exactly right” thank you. ” it is our spirit that discerns his body and blood” that’s not what Jesus said. He said it is the Holy Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. Then he says his WORDS are Spirit and life. Eating and drinking are metaphors for coming and believing Nick. Believing what. The words of Jesus about eternal life. Please note, that those in chapter 6 of John who did not come and believe were the people who took his words literally. Remind you of anyone?! You then said ” faith is the assurance…… and ” otherwise it would just be just baked wheat flour and grape juice. But that’s what it is bread and wine. What makes it a divine thing is what it represents to Christians, Christ body broken for us and his blood shed for us. Even one of your first popes gelasius said as much.” I showed you the quote. He said the substance and nature of the bread and wine does not change. Nick a person isnt saved by drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his body, they are saved by coming and believing in the gospel. That’s what Jesus means to eat his body and drink his blood. They are metaphors for coming and believing. If you read John 6 the constant parallels to eating and drinking was coming and believing his words. Again we are called to a spiritual relationship with Christ not a physical one. Jesus said he was the door. He said he was meat. Does that mean Jesus was a physical door or physical meat. K

    Reply

    1. No one is denying that scripture can be interpreted metaphorically. There are many tiers of understanding the Word. Metaphor is only one. You have no more authority than me to privately interpret Scripture. So have at it. I can’t stop you.
       Kevin says “Again we are called to a spiritual relationship with Christ not a physical one.”
       Yes of course, for now. We will meet again physically when we are bodily resurrected on the last day.

       Reply

46. Nick ” no one is denying the scripture can be interpreted metaphorically” actually your church denies it. Your Eucharist idol is the literal body blood soul and divinity of Christ according to you church. It’s a sacrifice on an altar instead of an intended memorial meal at a table. The last supper is not the sacrifice for a Christian’s sin. The one time sacrifice for our sin was on the cross and it is finished. In fact the writer of Hebrews compares it to dying once. Scripture says men die once then judgement. Men dont continue to die. ” there are many tiers to understanding the word” there aren’t things added to scripture or moved. The Roman Catholic church does both. Sorry some 4th century father doesnt get to change the Lord’s supper to become a sacrifice of Christ to God. God rejected Saul because his sacrifice was unlawful. It matters that Rome has perverted scripture with it’s abominable mass. Its keeping men from being saved. It’s not the gospel of scripture. ” you have no more authority than me to privately interpret the scripture” I agree, but your arguments to Tim and to me havent used scripture, ironic statement on your part. Your interchange with Tim is instructive. You have NO scriptural evidence of Amen after the epeclisis. But it hasn’t stopped you from defending it vorciforously. Nick, the most compelling thing should be to you that in the first almost 4 centuries of the church nor in scripture at all is there a sacrifice of Christ in the Lord’s supper or an amen after the epiclesis. The Didacche has no epeclisis. So the question arises, why do you believe it?! Because your church told you so. Finally you said ” yes of course for now” no forever. Yea we will be face to face with Christ but we still have his Spirit. We become all he became to us on earth, we dont become him. K

    Reply

47. Tim, I think it’s interesting Iranaeus says those who have received liberty set aside their poseesion for the Lord’s purposes. He doesnt say set them aside in order to receive liberty.

    Reply

48. Kevin says “I agree, but your arguments to Tim and to me havent used scripture, ironic statement on your part. ”
    You seem to not be able to recognize Scripture when you see it:
    I said above “That’s why we walk by faith and not by sight. Because faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. ”
    That’s from 2 Cor 5:7 and Hebrews 11:1. Being a man of Sola Scriptura, you should have known that.

    Reply

49. Nick, I’m talking about your arguments on the subject of the Amen and the sacrifice of the mass. There is no support in scripture nor the first 4 centuries on the church.

    Reply

50. Tim, I’m assuming the importance of the Amen at the end of the Eucharist sacrifices of praise Thanksgiving tithe etc. ends the sacrifices, oblations etc. , and then consecrated bread and wine are served to us as a memorial and CDC reminder. Pretty slick to move the Amen to the end to allow the bread and wine to be the sacrifice huh? But when did that become propitiatory?! What an abomination. K

    Reply

51. CDC is a typo sorry

    Reply

52. Nick, here is what Justin Martyr said connecting a prophecy in Isaiah to the Eucharist. ” the BREAD which our Christ gave us to eat, in REMEMBRANCE f His being made fleshfor the sake of his believers, for whom also he suffered, and to the cup which he gave us to drink in REMEBRANCE of his own blood, with giving thanks” this is in chapter 70. Also Justin gives a hearty defense against government officials charges against Chririans eating flesh and drinking blood. The word transmutation is the the change it represents in our minds reminding us of his body broken and blood she’d on the cross. Because as you can see from the quote I provided from Justin it can’t mean what you say it means.

    Reply

    1. Kevin:
       Yes, you are absolutely right. We have the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of his believers, for whom also he suffered, and to the cup which he gave us to drink in remembrance of his own blood, with giving thanks. I agree, we actually do this. But where in Justin Martyr’s First Apology is chapter 70? The online versions only have 68 chapters.

       Reply

53. And what happened to “I think we exhausted it, and Lord knows I’ve gotten in enough fruitless back and forths here that I regret for beating a dead horse.”
    Are we beating it again? 🙂

    Reply

54. Nick, you said to” Tim clearly the consecration has taken place ” in Rome the priest say Hoc est corpus meum, it’s where we get the words Hocus Pocus. Yes Nick we’ve exhausted it. Thanks

    Reply

    1. It’s been a pleasure, Kevin.

       Reply

       1. All the best

          Reply

55. Tim, I wanted to apologize for asking you so many questions at times. But as I read Justin, they simply bring the bread and the wine for which they give thanksgiving, then they say Amen, and then pass out the bread and wine. In that whole narrative of Justin, there is only one Amen, after the Eucharist?! This what we do at our church. K

    Reply

56. Tim, do you hold Zwingli’s position that the bread and wine signify the body and blood.? This is what I believe

    Reply

57. Timothy–
    You said “The people say Amen to the Eucharist. The sacrifice is over. The food “over which the thanksgiving was pronounced” is then distributed and the eucharisted food is then consecrated “by the prayer of His word.”
    If the prayer of His word is spoken over the food that has been eucharisted, then the Eucharisting of the food does not include “the prayer of His word.” The early liturgies all follow that order.”

    Except in Justin Martyr’s liturgy. Notice that chapter 66 is making a description of the Eucharisted elements, not saying that the Eucharisted elements are to then be consecrated. The mistake you are making is that just because Chapter 66 comes after Chapter 65 doesn’t mean the consecration comes after the Eucharist. Chapter 66 is describing the already Eucharisted elements as not common bread and drink but is blessed with the prayer of His word. That tells me the consecration has already happened in the Eucharisting process. Which makes more sense, because the deacons should not be carrying unconsecrated elements to those who were absent.
    And notice in Chapter 67 it is much like that of Chapter 65:
    “Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers AND (IN ADDITION TO) thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.”
    Like Chapter 65, there is no mention of a consecration after the AMEN and before or after the distribution, so the consecration had to have happened in the Eucharisting process, probably included in the prayers in addition to thanksgivings. The order then is Eucharist, AMEN, Meal.

    You say all the liturgies follow the order you claim. Please provide a list of those liturgies so that I may see what you say is true.

    Reply

    1. “probably included in the prayers in addition to thanksgivings”

       That pretty much sums it up, Nick.

       Probably is not proof.

       Reply

       1. Clearly, neither is your theory.
          Can you provide a list of all those early liturgies so that I may see what you say is true?

          Reply

58. Timothy greetings. Came back to your site to see if the trouble I’m having posting on Brian Culliton ‘s site is a problem with my phone or with his blog. I can get about one sentence typed in and it looks like I start losing connection to the site which abruptly stops completion of the post. I mentioned maybe we could move the debate over Origen’s belief in the real presence to your site as it appears the problem does not exist here. Totally understand if you feel this is an intrusion but looking for solutions

    Reply
59. Pingback: The Trinity and the Protestants | Grassroots Apologetics