Question: The Eucharist Being a Sacrifice

[abacabb3]

Speaking with Roman Catholics, I have become aware that they believe the Eucharist is essentially an unbloody sacrifice, not separate from the one on the cross but perpetually always the same as that sacrifice. This means that the sacrifice on the cross has essentially not been complete, for it continues daily in the Mass. Because the sacrifice is perpetually anew, it has power daily to forgive venial sins.

My question is this: Aside from the word "venial" (let's pretend that does not exist), do EO believe that the Eucharist is a continual sacrifice so that the propitiatory effect of the cross isn't a one time event, but an event that is anew each time the Eucharist is presented?

Please keep in mind: I'm not here to reject the Real Presence (found in Ignatius) or the term sacrifice (found in the Didache). Rather, I want to see if EO believe the sacrifice is something that is contiually anew instead of a commemoration with Christ's flesh and blood present.

 

[Lukaris]

We are giving thanks in memory of the Lord's sacrifice which we proclaim until the second coming.

"The Eucharist is a making present again of the sacrifice of Christ in a mysterious manner. The Sacrifice of Christ is presented in the New Testament as something that happened once for all, that can never be repeated and to which nothing can be added. The Sacrifice of Jesus may be made present again to us in Holy Communion today so that we may partake of its benefits, but still as that happened once for all. It is not a new sacrifice. For this reason it is called an "unbloody sacrifice." It is equally clear that the Eucharist in Orthodox worship is the remembering of the death of our Lord but also of His burial, Resurrection, Ascension, & Second Coming as well." quoted from Introducing the Orthodox Church by Fr. Anthony M. Coniaris, c. 1982 Light & Life Publ. isbn 0-937032-25-5

 

[abacabb3]

So, if I am an EO believer and I commit a sin this week and repent, am I forgiven because of the sacrifice 2,000 years ago or does the EUcharist this Sunday play any role whatsoever in my forgiveness?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So, if I am an EO believer and I commit a sin this week and repent, am I forgiven because of the sacrifice 2,000 years ago or does the EUcharist this Sunday play any role whatsoever in my forgiveness?

it's both. the Eucharist on Sunday is what plugs you into the eternal sacrifice on the Cross. through the sacraments we participate in Christ's life, which is eternal. so yes, you were forgiven 2000 years ago on Calvary, and the Body and Blood in the chalice is the very Body and Blood that was shed for you.

 

[abacabb3]

it's both. the Eucharist on Sunday is what plugs you into the eternal sacrifice on the Cross. through the sacraments we participate in Christ's life, which is eternal. so yes, you were forgiven 2000 years ago on Calvary, and the Body and Blood in the chalice is the very Body and Blood that was shed for you.

So, would it be accurate to say that we take part in a sacrament that represents to us Christ's very sacrifice, but it is only called a sacrifice because of what it represents (RE-PRESENTS). This would be similar to calling Sunday the Lord's Day, not because it literally is the day of the resurrection, but it in being the same day of the week does in a sense represent the actual day of the Lord's re-appearing 2,000 years ago. In the same way, the sacrifice of the eucharist represents the same one 2,000 years ago because Christ's flesh and blood is present, but it isn't literally one of the same sacrifice, as this would mean Christ's sacrifice was not completed 2,000 years ago and it would still be continuing today.

 

[truefiction1]

So, would it be accurate to say that we take part in a sacrament that represents to us Christ's very sacrifice, but it is only called a sacrifice because of what it represents (RE-PRESENTS). This would be similar to calling Sunday the Lord's Day, not because it literally is the day of the resurrection, but it in being the same day of the week does in a sense represent the actual day of the Lord's re-appearing 2,000 years ago. In the same way, the sacrifice of the eucharist represents the same one 2,000 years ago because Christ's flesh and blood is present, but it isn't literally one of the same sacrifice, as this would mean Christ's sacrifice was not completed 2,000 years ago and it would still be continuing today.

Yeah, that sounds about right. It is a "thankful commemoration" of things transpired and things promised. Our sacrifice is a "sacrifice of praise" (as stated in the Liturgy).

"The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou will not despise" (Psalm 51).

So the Eucharist is, in essence, a genuine acknowledgment of our brokenness along with humble repentance before the Lord of mercy, Who Loves so much as to accept being flogged, mocked, beaten, spat upon, hanged and tortured upon the Cross, in order to suffer death, in order to show His power over death and His power also to grant eternal life and resurrection, along with glorification. We accept His sacrifice and give the only sacrifice that He desires in return -- our deepest thanks!

 

[abacabb3]

That sounds like what I thought it would be from the Scripture and Fathers, can anyone else confirm this?

 

[abacabb3]

Anyone?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So, would it be accurate to say that we take part in a sacrament that represents to us Christ's very sacrifice, but it is only called a sacrifice because of what it represents (RE-PRESENTS). This would be similar to calling Sunday the Lord's Day, not because it literally is the day of the resurrection, but it in being the same day of the week does in a sense represent the actual day of the Lord's re-appearing 2,000 years ago. In the same way, the sacrifice of the eucharist represents the same one 2,000 years ago because Christ's flesh and blood is present, but it isn't literally one of the same sacrifice, as this would mean Christ's sacrifice was not completed 2,000 years ago and it would still be continuing today.

yeah in a way. since Christ's sacrifice was an eternal one, since He is outside of time, we can participate in that sacrifice fully today. the Liturgy takes us beyond space and time and into eternity, because God is outside space and time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That sounds like what I thought it would be from the Scripture and Fathers, can anyone else confirm this?

when Christ says to do this in remembrance of Me at the Last Supper, the word he uses means to make present a past reality and participate in it.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

My understanding was/is that, in a way, the Eucharist is the sacrifice of the cross brought into the present time with us.

 

[abacabb3]

yeah in a way. since Christ's sacrifice was an eternal one, since He is outside of time, we can participate in that sacrifice fully today. the Liturgy takes us beyond space and time and into eternity, because God is outside space and time.

Well, let e quibble with that. The sacrifice was in time, the consequences of the sacrifice are eternal. Or, do you want to specifically say that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was outside of time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, let e quibble with that. The sacrifice was in time, the consequences of the sacrifice are eternal. Or, do you want to specifically say that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was outside of time.

it's both. Christ was slain during the Passover in the early 30's AD outside of Jerusalem, and the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

 

[buzuxi02]

Speaking with Roman Catholics, I have become aware that they believe the Eucharist is essentially an unbloody sacrifice, not separate from the one on the cross but perpetually always the same as that sacrifice. This means that the sacrifice on the cross has essentially not been complete, for it continues daily in the Mass. Because the sacrifice is perpetually anew, it has power daily to forgive venial sins.

Hmm, this doesnt sound right. The sacrifice was completed on the cross in golgotha full stop. The Eucharist is that same blood shed on the cross one in space and time. Christ said do this in remembrance of me. Hebrews 10.3-4 explains what this remembrance is, that is while " Yom Kippur" brought a 'remembrance' of sin annually by the slaughtering of a different unblemished lamb & sprinkling of their blood for the remission of sins anew every year, Christ on the other hand accompkished that once for all time.

. The Eucharist is the bloodless sacrifice already offered being "remembered" that is being re-actualized in the chalice. The Eucharist is medicine for the healing of body and soul not for the purpose of remitting sins. In fact it has an adverse effect if consumed by an unrepentant sinner. In the OT we are commanded not to eat flesh with its blood because the blood is where the life force of the animal is concentrated. When we eat and drink of the blood of Christ we recieve life more abundantly, that deified eternal life.

So it would be wrong to say it has not been completed, see Heb 6.4-8 & 10.26

 

[abacabb3]

. The Eucharist is the bloodless sacrifice already offered being "remembered" that is being re-actualized in the chalice. The Eucharist is medicine for the healing of body and soul not for the purpose of remitting sins. In fact it has an adverse effect if consumed by an unrepentant sinner. In the OT we are commanded not to eat flesh with its blood because the blood is where the life force of the animal is concentrated. When we eat and drink of the blood of Christ we recieve life more abundantly, that deified eternal life.

ArmyMatt, does this sound good?

Further, don't you think Rev 13:8 does not mean that Christ was literally sacrificed before the foundation of the world, but rather that the sacrifice was preordained. I know that the NASB Bible doesn't even agree with that rendering of the Greek and says, "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.."

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah, that sounds good to me. I brought up the thing in Revelation because time is not sequential to God, since He exists outside of it. so when we speak of something involving Him, like the Eucharist, we have to understand that it is not merely a sequential series of events.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I know this is an old thread, but it reminds me too ...

The first time I participated in Holy Week services, it was incredibly powerful in that it almost seems to take one back in time to walk beside Christ that last week of His life. I later heard priests discussing that this is EXACTLY the Church's intent, and that this is the same amnesis with which we "remembrance" Christ's sacrifice through the Eucharist.

It made more sense to me after I understood and had experienced that. I'm not sure if that would make sense or help, but I thought I'd mention it.

I also needed to be sure the Church did not consider the Eucharist to be a continual re-sacrificing of Christ, which it can sound like from listening only to the prayers.

 

[buzuxi02]

I know this is an old thread, but it reminds me too ...

The first time I participated in Holy Week services, it was incredibly powerful in that it almost seems to take one back in time to walk beside Christ that last week of His life. I later heard priests discussing that this is EXACTLY the Church's intent, and that this is the same amnesis with which we "remembrance" Christ's sacrifice through the Eucharist.


I also needed to be sure the Church did not consider the Eucharist to be a continual re-sacrificing of Christ, which it can sound like from listening only to the prayers.

Yes this going back.
This word anamnesis is a somewhat mysterious word which is only used twice in the NT. Actually three times if you include Paul's account of the last supper in 1Cor 11.24-25 (Nkjv):

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me

The only other place its used is in Hebrews 10.3 where Paul uses it to describe the annually repeated ritual of the slaughter of animals as a sacrifice:
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. (Heb 10.1-4)


So the Eucharist is not a re-sacrifice nor a never-ending continuation of Christ's passion. Instead this remembrance transports you back to that one and same event everytime the Eucharist is celebrated.
I Dont know if im making sense, I'm trying to find the right terminology to convey this anamnesis. Perhaps, One in space and time with Calvary. A true realization or re-actualizing of the one and same crucufixion. Or maybe not being transported back but the sacrifice of the Passion being transported to the present .

Whereas in Hebrews this anamnesis is an actual repeatable blood slaughter for the sins that have accumulated annually. The Eucharist is the repeated bloodless sacrifice of that holy blood already shed millenia ago that continues and will continue to remit sin till the end of time. If someone else has a better way of putting it i'm all ears.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes this going back.
This word anamnesis is a somewhat mysterious word which is only used twice in the NT. Actually three times if you include Paul's account of the last supper in 1Cor 11.24-25 (Nkjv):

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me

The only other place its used is in Hebrews 10.3 where Paul uses it to describe the annually repeated ritual of the slaughter of animals as a sacrifice:
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. (Heb 10.1-4)


So the Eucharist is not a re-sacrifice nor a never-ending continuation of Christ's passion. Instead this remembrance transports you back to that one and same event everytime the Eucharist is celebrated.
I Dont know if im making sense, I'm trying to find the right terminology to convey this anamnesis. Perhaps, One in space and time with Calvary. A true realization or re-actualizing of the one and same crucufixion. Or maybe not being transported back but the sacrifice of the Passion being transported to the present .

Whereas in Hebrews this anamnesis is an actual repeatable blood slaughter for the sins that have accumulated annually. The Eucharist is the repeated bloodless sacrifice of that holy blood already shed millenia ago that continues and will continue to remit sin till the end of time. If someone else has a better way of putting it i'm all ears.

I do think it's difficult to explain. Your words helped a little more.

I recently moved to another usual place in Church, to see a particular icon of Christ painted on the wall behind the altar. From my new perspective, I realize more clearly that the icon is of Christ seated at a table, holding a chalice. The table extends forward in the icon, and from my perspective, the altar is a continuation of it.

So the altar where the priest prepares the Eucharist is a table presided over by Christ, Who is offering a chalice. It is something visual that helps convey the immediacy of the institution, though of course I would more closely connect the Eucharist with the crucifixion which almost immediately followed. I am glad to have discovered this visual reminder around Holy Week - the timing was perfect.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Eucharist is medicine for the healing of body and soul not for the purpose of remitting sins.

That seems strange considering Jesus says the wine is his blood given for the forgiveness of sins. So it would seem he is suggesting his blood remits sins.

It's always been the western understanding that the Eucharist brings remission of sins. The Roman Catholics still believe it remits venial sins, and Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans believe it is assurance that we are pardoned by God if approached in faith, but not only are we pardoned, we are made one with Christ that "we may ever more dwell in him, and he in us".

The Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving joined mystically to the one Sacrifice that is finished.. It is not the priest offering up Jesus Christ to be sacrificed anew. I believe Orthodox and Protestants agree here.