Question: The Eucharist Being a Sacrifice

[~Anastasia~]

Originally Posted by buzuxi02
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.

There must be some fine distinction that I am not quite understanding.

I know we certainly would not allow an unregenerate person to receive the Eucharist and expect that it would remit his sins. Yet in our prayers of thanksgiving following communion, there are many things mentioned that we ask the Eucharist to be for us, and forgiveness of sins is mentioned within those.

I know there is a difference, but I wouldn't be able to explain it to anyone who asked, and I am not sure I fully understand it myself ...

 

[FireDragon76]

Kylissa, some of the attitudes to the Eucharist never made sense to me. If it is Christ's broken bodly and shed blood given for the remission of sins, then there is no reason for a sinner to not approach with "faith, reverence, and the fear of God". It is not a reward for good behavior.

 

[Cappadocious]

Speaking with Roman Catholics, I have become aware that they believe [1] the Eucharist is essentially an unbloody sacrifice, not separate from the one on the cross but perpetually always the same as that sacrifice. [2] This means that the sacrifice on the cross has essentially not been complete, for it continues daily in the Mass.

Why does [2] follow from [1]?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Kylissa, some of the attitudes to the Eucharist never made sense to me. If it is Christ's broken bodly and shed blood given for the remission of sins, then there is no reason for a sinner to not approach with "faith, reverence, and the fear of God". It is not a reward for good behavior.

Hmmmm. I need to think about this more to know how to answer (I may not be able to articulate it) but I know that no, an unrepentant sinner should NOT approach the chalice. That much seems discernable from Scripture alone, even.

I suspect it has to do with the fact that, although we seek to be conformed to the image of Christ, we are not there yet. Sins continually plague us, no matter how carefully we guard ourselves. We are not yet perfect, and thus continually require forgiveness.

I would welcome input from my Orthodox brothers and sisters on this, as I'm not quite sure.

 

[FireDragon76]

Hmmmm. I need to think about this more to know how to answer (I may not be able to articulate it) but I know that no, an unrepentant sinner should NOT approach the chalice. That much seems discernable from Scripture alone, even.

The Scriptures in 1st Corinthians are talking about a situation where people were eating and drinking excessively and neglecting the poor members of the congregation. Some Christians have used that through the centuries as a generalized warning about receiving the Eucharist unworthily, to the point it produces scruples against frequent communion. I think that's taking that passage way out of context.

But I'm not an Orthodox Christian, so I can't say what you should or should not do in your church. I do know that sort of attitude meant that few people regularly communed because they thought God might strike them dead or something like that. Imagine the gift of God to sinners being turned into a situation to become neurotic about their sins and avoid that gift altogether - it is the total opposite intention of Jesus Christ.

 

[Cappadocious]

The Scriptures in 1st Corinthians are talking about a situation where people were eating and drinking excessively and neglecting the poor members of the congregation.

What makes you think that? And why would they be exclusive readings?

 

[FireDragon76]

What makes you think that? And why would they be exclusive readings?

Because they were going against a value important to early Christians, respecting the dignity of the poor. That's what leads me to suspect this passage has been overgeneralized.

 

[Cappadocious]

Because they were going against a value important to early Christians, respecting the dignity of the poor. That's what leads me to suspect this passage has been overgeneralized.

I mean, where does this whole idea come from?

 

[FireDragon76]

I mean, where does this whole idea come from?

Could you please clarify your question?

By the way, do you know any cases, aside from the New Testament, modern or otherwise, of people becoming ill from receiving the Eucharist unworthily?

 

[ArmyMatt]

By the way, do you know any cases, aside from the New Testament, modern or otherwise, of people becoming ill from receiving the Eucharist unworthily?

St Theophan the Recluse often brought that kinda stuff up. that people were becoming sicker and more sinful because they were taking the Eucharist casually, and he wrote in the 19th century.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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.

I think it is for the remission of sins, I think the issue here is that how the heterodox view sins tends to be different than the Orthodox. I think your last paragraph is pretty spot on.

 

[Cappadocious]

Could you please clarify your question?

I've heard the notion that Paul's admonition just had to do with overeating, but I don't know who this originates from.

 

[Dialogist]

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?

I think one thing that distinguishes Orthodox outlook and theology from that of other Christian faiths is how the concept of time is understood.

On earth we are bound by chronological time, which advances second-by-second whether we wish it to or not.

We understand from special relativity that chronological time is, however, just one of four dimensions that we are bound by (although we are perplexed that chronological time seems to be irreversible, whereas the three spatial dimensions are).

There is, however, no reason to believe that God is bound by these same four dimensions in the way we are. Within Orthodoxy there is a notion of a different kind of time - called chiral time - which is not bound up the way that chronological time is. During the Divine Liturgy, the Lord's sacrifice on Golgotha is not being repeated or re-enacted in some chronological fashion. Rather, the sacrifice is something that has occurred, is occurring, and will occur continuously in a mystical fashion. Elder Cleopa of Romania in his book, On the Christian Mysteries, explains this as follows:

Truly, Christ was sacrificed once only, and His sacrifice is not repeated, for, if it could be, it would mean that it did not have the longed-for effect, and it would merely be on par with the sacrifices of the Old Testament. Because, however, His sacrifice did have this result, any repetition would be meaningless.

But from this it also follows that the Holy Eucharist cannot be the only unique sacrifice of the Lord on Golgotha ... This sacrifice recurs on Golgotha (that is, on the altars of the churches) and continually offers its fruits in the present and in the future, in our bodies and our souls, until the Second Coming of the Lord. This eucharistic sacrifice, which is offered in the churches is the sacrifice of Golgotha, which was not bloodless then, but is bloodless now. Our Saviour Himself urged that the sacrifice of His Body and Blood not cease to be carried out until His Second Coming (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:25). On the one hand it is said that His Sacrifice was offered one time alone, while on the other it is said that the same sacrifice must be offered until the Second Coming of the Lord (pp. 52-53).​

Perhaps this is a great over simplification, but it seems to me that the Roman Catholic theology of the Eucharist (and the Protestant theologies derived from it) attempt to somehow rationalize early Church dogma and re-express it in a way that was consistent with man's limited power of reason. Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury (neither of whose canonization is recognized by the Orthodox Church) occur to me as key founders of this particular school of theology. I find it interesting, however, that at the end of his life Aquinas referred to his great body of work as "just so much straw."