Eucharist as a Sacrifice - still struggling with this?

[Markie Boy]

Catholicism and Orthodoxy seem pretty similar on the Eucharist being the Sacrifice of Jesus, and offered to God on our behalf.

Is the teaching that Jesus is still offering himself as a sacrifice, or is it that He did on the cross, and we are back in time sharing in that.

I pretty much loose interest in writings of the fathers after the second century on issues like this, as I'm really looking for "close to the source" clarity - does such a thing exists?

Hebrews 7:27 seems to not fit with this so well for me:

27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Catholicism and Orthodoxy seem pretty similar on the Eucharist being the Sacrifice of Jesus, and offered to God on our behalf.

Is the teaching that Jesus is still offering himself as a sacrifice, or is it that He did on the cross, and we are back in time sharing in that.

I pretty much loose interest in writings of the fathers after the second century on issues like this, as I'm really looking for "close to the source" clarity - does such a thing exists?

Hebrews 7:27 seems to not fit with this so well for me:

27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

Lord Jesus said that we should celebrate in order to remember. Remembering is about something that has happened. I agree with you - we rejoice in the finished work of Christ, not something yet to be completed.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Catholicism and Orthodoxy seem pretty similar on the Eucharist being the Sacrifice of Jesus, and offered to God on our behalf.

Is the teaching that Jesus is still offering himself as a sacrifice, or is it that He did on the cross, and we are back in time sharing in that.

I pretty much loose interest in writings of the fathers after the second century on issues like this, as I'm really looking for "close to the source" clarity - does such a thing exists?

Hebrews 7:27 seems to not fit with this so well for me:

27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

the teaching as far as I can understand is that the sacrifice is eternal and outside of time, so when we partake of the eternal Christ, we step outside of time, not back in time.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

the teaching as far as I can understand is that the sacrifice is eternal and outside of time, so when we partake of the eternal Christ, we step outside of time, not back in time.

Precisely and that's how the Catholic church considers it too. Time is an earthbound concept. God is above time and space, thus Christs sacrifice should be understood as a neverending love sacrifice.

 

[Markie Boy]

Is there anything in Scripture that points to it as eternal, and not completed?

Scripture seems more to refer to it as something completed, and he now sits at the right hand of God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

the teaching as far as I can understand is that the sacrifice is eternal and outside of time, so when we partake of the eternal Christ, we step outside of time, not back in time.

That’s an interesting perspective. Ive often wondered if by choosing to refrain from sin now and in the future if we could lessen Christ’s suffering on the cross or the amount of sin He had to bear in the past.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Is there anything in Scripture that points to it as eternal, and not completed?

Scripture seems more to refer to it as something completed, and he now sits at the right hand of God.

Not that I can come up with on the top of my head. Though one could argue that the new testament speaks to mankind which is still under the rule of time.
I dont know if it makes sense, but those who read scripture always has always had a linear understanding of time or the chronology of occurrences throughout the history.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not that I can come up with on the top of my head. Though one could argue that the new testament speaks to mankind which is still under the rule of time. I dont know if it makes sense, but those who read scripture always have had a linear understanding of time or the chronology of occurrences throughout the history.

I’m not officially Orthodox and I hope it’s ok if I say this but if I’m not mistaken the Greek word aiṓnios (eternal) can also mean for all time, since the world began, or even in past or future times.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I’m not officially Orthodox and I hope it’s ok if I say this but if I’m not mistaken the Greek word aiṓnios (eternal) can also mean for all time, since the world began, or even in past or future times.

Dont worry, neither am I. Yes, you're correct about the greek. That's actually one of the most common variations when it comes to different translations of scripture. Because of the ambiguity attached to the word it's hard to use it as any kind of evidence either way.
The explanation I'm providing is close to the scholastic articulation of philosophy of religion.

You know as catholics and orthodox we're not bound by Sola Scriptura. It's nice to have scriptural support backing our theology, but it isnt strictly necessary

 

[Lukaris]

Is there anything in Scripture that points to it as eternal, and not completed?

Scripture seems more to refer to it as something completed, and he now sits at the right hand of God.

I think along the lines as Christ is our Passover ( or Pascha) but we are still passing through (1 Corinthians 5:7).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Dont worry, neither am I. Yes, you're correct about the greek. That's actually one of the most common variations when it comes to different translations of scripture. Because of the ambiguity attached to the word it's hard to use it as any kind of evidence either way.
The explanation I'm providing is close to the scholastic articulation of philosophy of religion.

You know as catholics and orthodox we're not bound by Sola Scriptura. It's nice to have scriptural support backing our theology, but it isnt strictly necessary

I’ve been in a debate about sola scriptura and church tradition and just yesterday decided to abandon the argument when the opposition rejected the idea that much of the scriptures were written based on divine revelation. If they couldn’t acknowledge that then I didn’t see any point in continuing the discussion.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I’ve been in a debate about sola scriptura and church tradition and just yesterday decided to abandon the argument when the opposition rejected the idea that much of the scriptures were written based on divine revelation. If they couldn’t acknowledge that then I didn’t see any point in continuing the discussion.

I didn't quite understand your comment. Could you please elaborate, I'm a tad slow at times

 

[All4Christ]

Is there anything in Scripture that points to it as eternal, and not completed?

Scripture seems more to refer to it as something completed, and he now sits at the right hand of God.

It is completed. The Eucharist is outside space and time, so we can still participate in it eternally - it “makes present” that sacrifice. It is similar to the OT Passover - it was made present “Anamnesis”, not repeated. It is, however, truly the body and blood of Christ - the bloodless sacrifice. It is the same sacrifice that was already completed once and for all, made present through the Eucharist.

ETA: Scripture says that Jesus is our Passover, our pasch, so that connection is a Biblical concept.

 

[All4Christ]

@Markie Boy Just to make it clear, even though we uphold and adhere to Holy Tradition (of which Scripture is the central part), we cannot contradict it. Scripture is like the center diamond in a setting of beautiful gemstones - it is at the core of Holy Tradition.

 

[FenderTL5]

Is there anything in Scripture that points to it as eternal, and not completed?

Scripture seems more to refer to it as something completed, and he now sits at the right hand of God.

It was once explained that the language of 1 Corinthians 11:24 is ἀνάμνησιν, which is translated into English as remembrance, goes a lot further than just a mere remembering a past event. It's as-if you are there, full participation in the event.
wikipedia says it this way: "This memorial aspect is not simply a passive process but one by which the Christian can actually enter into the Paschal mystery."

the teaching as far as I can understand is that the sacrifice is eternal and outside of time, so when we partake of the eternal Christ, we step outside of time, not back in time.

Agree. It was mentioned in our Bible study last week, something I had not noticed before; in the prayers at the Anaphora we remember the saving acts of Christ:
“Remembering this saving commandment and all those things which have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious Coming.”

The thing of note, we are "remembering" the second glorious Coming. How so? Because in the Divine Liturgy we are outside of time constraints.

 

[Albion]

It is completed. The Eucharist is outside space and time, so we can still participate in it eternally - it “makes present” that sacrifice. It is similar to the OT Passover - it was made present “Anamnesis”, not repeated. It is, however, truly the body and blood of Christ - the bloodless sacrifice. It is the same sacrifice that was already completed once and for all, made present through the Eucharist.

ETA: Scripture says that Jesus is our Passover, our pasch, so that connection is a Biblical concept.

IMHO, the heart of the issue here is whether or not the benefits of a sacrifice come from each mass or Divine Liturgy.

In the OT a victim was literally sacrificed and doing that was believed to effect something. They didn't sacrifice the same victim more than once, for obvious reasons. We may talk about timelessness and all of that, but does each Communion service today accomplish that same thing...or not?

If "yes" then doesn't this mean Christ IS believed to have been slain and offered up once again and that this is not just a "re-presenting" of the original sacrifice of the Cross to the Father (if that even makes sense)?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I didn't quite understand your comment. Could you please elaborate, I'm a tad slow at times

I agree that scriptural support is not necessary for validating the teachings of the Catholic Church. My argument was that the traditions in the church were by divine revelation and ratified by ecumenical council and that the scriptures were also the result of such divine revelation and were not always backed by OT scriptures. So basically if the apostles held to sola scriptura we wouldn’t have a New Testament. I also used Peter’s revelation that Christ is the Son of God as an example by pointing out that the OT does not support the idea that the Messiah is the Son of God. So even tho Peter had no scripture to support his claim he was still correct about Jesus being the Son of God. So when I asked weren’t the scriptures a result of divine revelation the person said no. So at that point I didn’t see any point in any further discussion because such a person who denies that the scriptures were the result of divine revelation is clearly rejecting what is fundamentally accepted as truth throughout Christianity.

 

[All4Christ]

IMHO, the heart of the issue here is whether or not the benefits of a sacrifice come from each mass or Divine Liturgy.

In the OT a victim was literally sacrificed and doing that was believed to effect something. They didn't sacrifice the same victim more than once, for obvious reasons. We may talk about timelessness and all of that, but does each Communion service today accomplish that same thing...or not?

If "yes" then doesn't this mean Christ IS believed to have been slain and offered up once again and that this is not just a "re-presenting" of the original sacrifice of the Cross to the Father (if that even makes sense)?

I can’t write long since I’m at work now, but there is a difference between the two. We no longer need the additional sacrifices to have that amamnesis, as Scripture and Holy Tradition both clearly state. It is the same sacrifice, but we do have the same benefit from it each time it is made present. It is already complete once and for all, but participating in it is also outside of our understanding of time and space. This was upheld and taught from the early Church, far before Scripture was even compiled.

Apologies in advance for the brevity and the resulting lack of clarity. I need more time to properly explain our view.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I agree that scriptural support is not necessary for validating the teachings of the Catholic Church. My argument was that the traditions in the church were by divine revelation and ratified by ecumenical council and that the scriptures were also the result of such divine revelation and were not always backed by OT scriptures. So basically if the apostles held to sola scriptura we wouldn’t have a New Testament. I also used Peter’s revelation that Christ is the Son of God as an example by pointing out that the OT does not support the idea that the Messiah is the Son of God. So even tho Peter had no scripture to support his claim he was still correct about Jesus being the Son of God. So when I asked weren’t the scriptures a result of divine revelation the person said no. So at that point I didn’t see any point in any further discussion because such a person who denies that the scriptures were the result of divine revelation is clearly rejecting what is fundamentally accepted as truth throughout Christianity.

Thank you. Yes, I understand. Dont waste your time on people with progressive views on scripture.

 

[Albion]

Apologies in advance for the brevity and the resulting lack of clarity. I need more time to properly explain our view.

I'm sure that's true, and I was just throwing out a question. I know that it rather glossed over any differences between EO and RC thinking on the matter, but I cannot reconcile myself to the idea that one single sacrifice can be offered a thousand times and the spiritual benefits of a sacrifice be realized each time. Whatever it is that the sacrifice of any victim is believed to accomplish, you have to have a new victim for each new sacrifice.