OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 03:35:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Concerning the Eucharist as sacrifice.  (Read 2528 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peleg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox member
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 65



WWW
« on: May 13, 2009, 03:06:37 AM »

A gal friend of my wife's asked if the Orthodox view of the Eucharist, as a sacrifice, is not exhibiting the belief that Christ's death was not once for all but must continue to be sacrificed.  I've been looking up this question and came across some Orthodox info that explained it.  But there was one line I've read at both Orthodoxwiki and the Greek Orthodox site.  Here's the quote:

All the events of Christ's sacrifice, the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension are not repeated in the Eucharist, but they are made present.

What does it mean when it says are made present?
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2009, 03:10:20 AM »

A gal friend of my wife's asked if the Orthodox view of the Eucharist, as a sacrifice, is not exhibiting the belief that Christ's death was not once for all but must continue to be sacrificed.  I've been looking up this question and came across some Orthodox info that explained it.  But there was one line I've read at both Orthodoxwiki and the Greek Orthodox site.  Here's the quote:

All the events of Christ's sacrifice, the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension are not repeated in the Eucharist, but they are made present.

What does it mean when it says are made present?


When we take part in the Divine Liturgy, the Church Militant joins the Church Triumphant and does not remember the event as something that happened in the past, like one does when looking at a photo album. Rather, we join the cloud of witnesses around us and take part in the sacrafice as if we were witnessing it 2000+ years ago. We transcend time and space, and take part in the event that happened once and for all.

Hope this make sense.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2009, 06:46:53 AM »

A gal friend of my wife's asked if the Orthodox view of the Eucharist, as a sacrifice, is not exhibiting the belief that Christ's death was not once for all but must continue to be sacrificed.  I've been looking up this question and came across some Orthodox info that explained it.  But there was one line I've read at both Orthodoxwiki and the Greek Orthodox site.  Here's the quote:

All the events of Christ's sacrifice, the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension are not repeated in the Eucharist, but they are made present.

What does it mean when it says are made present?


A friend of mine had a recording "Berlin Philharmonic, April 23 1994: Beethonven's Fifth."  Every time he played it, he made that concert present.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2009, 10:49:41 AM »

A gal friend of my wife's asked if the Orthodox view of the Eucharist, as a sacrifice, is not exhibiting the belief that Christ's death was not once for all but must continue to be sacrificed.  I've been looking up this question and came across some Orthodox info that explained it.  But there was one line I've read at both Orthodoxwiki and the Greek Orthodox site.  Here's the quote:

All the events of Christ's sacrifice, the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension are not repeated in the Eucharist, but they are made present.

What does it mean when it says are made present?
I was reading the Ancestral Sin and Romanides had a very interesting way of putting the sacrifice into context, it was found in a caption at the bottom of the page. It goes something like this(I am paraphrasing):
The Eucharist is sacrifice because unslain bread becomes The Slain Lamb.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 10:49:59 AM by PoorFoolNicholas » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,786



« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2009, 03:44:28 PM »

A friend of mine had a recording "Berlin Philharmonic, April 23 1994: Beethonven's Fifth."  Every time he played it, he made that concert present.

Never heard of Beethonoven.  Must be new. Grin


The sacrifice of Christ was done once and for all on Calvary, but that event continually lives in the Liturgy every time we serve it.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 03:45:04 PM by scamandrius » Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,785



« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2009, 03:55:29 PM »

When we take part in the Divine Liturgy, the Church Militant joins the Church Triumphant and does not remember the event as something that happened in the past, like one does when looking at a photo album. Rather, we join the cloud of witnesses around us and take part in the sacrafice as if we were witnessing it 2000+ years ago. We transcend time and space, and take part in the event that happened once and for all.

^^^This.
Logged
Peleg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox member
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 65



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2009, 03:24:53 AM »

OK, that's a little more understandable but still a bit of an odd way of viewing things.  But, then again, I'm only out of Protestantism officially by a few months so, Lord willing, I will continue to gain the mind of Christ and His church.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2009, 10:17:34 AM »

All of the above is correct.   However, since you are still understandably having a tough time with this, I will approach it from another direction. When Christ offered the New Testament in His Blood in the cup at the last supper, it is the blood which "is shed," "is" being the continuous present.   In Protestantism you were used to the word "sacrifice" being used as a verb, or, in noun form, as a thing performed.  In Old testament terms, if we were to say "the sacrifice was immolated," the "sacrifice" is the lamb, the act is the offering and immolation of the sacrifice.  Thus, the "Sacrifice" on Calvary/Golgotha refers not to an "action that was done," but a Person--the Lamb of God who offered up His Body and Blood.   
      But the passages in question themselves tell us this.  Hebrews 10.10 states that the offering of Christ’s Body took place “once for all.”  Then in verse 12 states:  “But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.”  The “single sacrifice,” of course, is not a “thing done” as Protestants tend to read it, but rather, as it says in verse 10, is Christ’s own Body.   Therefore, one cannot say that Christ’s Body is made present and at the same time say that the “single sacrifice” is not made present, because they are one and the same thing, as the very Scriptures in question clearly say.   Again, verse 12 clearly says that He offered this Sacrifice (His Body) "for all time."  This is clear enough by itself.  However, when we look at the original Greek and see the words "eis to dienekes" it becomes more clear.  The term "dienekes" only has one meaning, "continuous."  "eis to dienekes" means, "continually" or "unto perpetuity"!  Thus, the passage itself clearly states that the "Sacrifice" is Christ's Body and that it is offered once "continually."  I hope this helps   
Logged
Peleg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox member
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 65



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2009, 09:26:27 PM »

All of the above is correct.   However, since you are still understandably having a tough time with this, I will approach it from another direction. When Christ offered the New Testament in His Blood in the cup at the last supper, it is the blood which "is shed," "is" being the continuous present.   In Protestantism you were used to the word "sacrifice" being used as a verb, or, in noun form, as a thing performed.  In Old testament terms, if we were to say "the sacrifice was immolated," the "sacrifice" is the lamb, the act is the offering and immolation of the sacrifice.  Thus, the "Sacrifice" on Calvary/Golgotha refers not to an "action that was done," but a Person--the Lamb of God who offered up His Body and Blood.   
      But the passages in question themselves tell us this.  Hebrews 10.10 states that the offering of Christ’s Body took place “once for all.”  Then in verse 12 states:  “But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.”  The “single sacrifice,” of course, is not a “thing done” as Protestants tend to read it, but rather, as it says in verse 10, is Christ’s own Body.   Therefore, one cannot say that Christ’s Body is made present and at the same time say that the “single sacrifice” is not made present, because they are one and the same thing, as the very Scriptures in question clearly say.   Again, verse 12 clearly says that He offered this Sacrifice (His Body) "for all time."  This is clear enough by itself.  However, when we look at the original Greek and see the words "eis to dienekes" it becomes more clear.  The term "dienekes" only has one meaning, "continuous."  "eis to dienekes" means, "continually" or "unto perpetuity"!  Thus, the passage itself clearly states that the "Sacrifice" is Christ's Body and that it is offered once "continually."  I hope this helps   

Thank you, thank you.  Yours was a very helpful writeup.  My wife also found it very helpful.
Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2009, 08:46:24 AM »

I was talking to my friend yesterday, who is a Reformed Presbyterian, and we had an interesting discussion. I think this would be a good thread for me to ask this question. He believes that in Communion Christ is Spiritually present, but not physically so. He says that to state Christ's body is present as well, seems to give His human nature certain Godly characteristics i.e. Omnipresence. For him this doesn't pan out, because there should be no co-mingling of the God/Man. How do I answer his question, in light of the nature distinction that he has raised regarding the body as being omnipresent in the Eucharist? Thanks, and God Bless!
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2009, 09:30:41 AM »

All of the above is correct.   However, since you are still understandably having a tough time with this, I will approach it from another direction. When Christ offered the New Testament in His Blood in the cup at the last supper, it is the blood which "is shed," "is" being the continuous present.   In Protestantism you were used to the word "sacrifice" being used as a verb, or, in noun form, as a thing performed.  In Old testament terms, if we were to say "the sacrifice was immolated," the "sacrifice" is the lamb, the act is the offering and immolation of the sacrifice.  Thus, the "Sacrifice" on Calvary/Golgotha refers not to an "action that was done," but a Person--the Lamb of God who offered up His Body and Blood.   
      But the passages in question themselves tell us this.  Hebrews 10.10 states that the offering of Christ’s Body took place “once for all.”  Then in verse 12 states:  “But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.”  The “single sacrifice,” of course, is not a “thing done” as Protestants tend to read it, but rather, as it says in verse 10, is Christ’s own Body.   Therefore, one cannot say that Christ’s Body is made present and at the same time say that the “single sacrifice” is not made present, because they are one and the same thing, as the very Scriptures in question clearly say.   Again, verse 12 clearly says that He offered this Sacrifice (His Body) "for all time."  This is clear enough by itself.  However, when we look at the original Greek and see the words "eis to dienekes" it becomes more clear.  The term "dienekes" only has one meaning, "continuous."  "eis to dienekes" means, "continually" or "unto perpetuity"!  Thus, the passage itself clearly states that the "Sacrifice" is Christ's Body and that it is offered once "continually."  I hope this helps   
Thanks Father. This discussion about the Greek is very helpful.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2009, 09:35:40 AM »

I was talking to my friend yesterday, who is a Reformed Presbyterian, and we had an interesting discussion. I think this would be a good thread for me to ask this question. He believes that in Communion Christ is Spiritually present, but not physically so. He says that to state Christ's body is present as well, seems to give His human nature certain Godly characteristics i.e. Omnipresence. For him this doesn't pan out, because there should be no co-mingling of the God/Man. How do I answer his question, in light of the nature distinction that he has raised regarding the body as being omnipresent in the Eucharist? Thanks, and God Bless!
Here is my answer to that question. Not sure if its too western for you all.
It is true that under natural and normal circumstances, a human body cannot be present in more than one location. This is due to our finitude. This is why Protestants conclude that the Apostolic View of the Eucharist tends towards a mixing of Christ's human and divine nature, making his human nature divine, so that his body can be nearly "omnipresent". However, there is a major flaw in their arguement and that is the fact that they don't realize that the Eucharist is not "normal" or "natural". It is not the limited natural presences of Christ, but rather a miraculous supernatural persence. Yes, in a natural mode of presence Christ's body could only be present in once place. But in the Eucharist Christ becomes present in a supernatural mode. If we can distinguish between the different modes of presences, then the limiting factor disappears.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Father H
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2009, 09:51:43 AM »

I was talking to my friend yesterday, who is a Reformed Presbyterian, and we had an interesting discussion. I think this would be a good thread for me to ask this question. He believes that in Communion Christ is Spiritually present, but not physically so. He says that to state Christ's body is present as well, seems to give His human nature certain Godly characteristics i.e. Omnipresence. For him this doesn't pan out, because there should be no co-mingling of the God/Man. How do I answer his question, in light of the nature distinction that he has raised regarding the body as being omnipresent in the Eucharist? Thanks, and God Bless!

Good question.  I think that the best approach would be to gently do the following:  
1.  Point out that we know from the Gospels that after the Resurrection, Christ's Body had properties that were transformed.  For example, we have him vanishing from the disciples on the road to Emmaeus, we have him appearing suddenly in the midst of the Apostles "the doors being shut."  "They thought that they were seeing a spirit" so Christ showed him the nailprints to show him that, though His Body now has a fully transformed state with different properties, that it is still Him in full divinity and humanity.  

2.  Get him to identify what he means by "spiritually."  Does this mean in divinity only?  Or perhaps it is in both His divinity and soul but not His body?   If one tries to say only in divinity but not in soul then they are stuck with regard to Eph. 4.8-10 says clearly that He descended to Hades (in his human soul), and "He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens that He might fill all things."  Now, since His divinity already filled all things, what can this passage be talking about except for that the purpose of the Ascension was so that the whole Christ, not only divinity, but also his humanity, body and soul, fill all things?  This is not a mingling of the two natures but rather the ultimate fulfillment of His human nature.  It is, in the words of the 6th Ecumenical Council, His full theosis--full union without confusion or commingling (although this latter part may not be beneficial to the conversation since you are going into language and sources that your friend does not recognize--the Scriptural evidence is enough).  Moreover, it states earlier in Ephesians that, since the Ascension, His Body is the "fullness of Him that fills all in all" (Eph. 1.23).  

3.  Don't let your friend change the subject by simply coming back with "counterclaim" passages.  First have him explain these passages in light of his current position, then tell him you will be glad to address the Scriptures that he comes back with (just be sure that you in turn do not simply give him "counterclaim" passages, but deal with the passages themselves).  Whatever help you would need with that, we are here!   This is just one suggestion of how to deal with it, but I think that it may be profitable.  

Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2009, 10:54:40 AM »

Good question.  I think that the best approach would be to gently do the following:  
1.  Point out that we know from the Gospels that after the Resurrection, Christ's Body had properties that were transformed.  For example, we have him vanishing from the disciples on the road to Emmaeus, we have him appearing suddenly in the midst of the Apostles "the doors being shut."  "They thought that they were seeing a spirit" so Christ showed him the nailprints to show him that, though His Body now has a fully transformed state with different properties, that it is still Him in full divinity and humanity.  

2.  Get him to identify what he means by "spiritually."  Does this mean in divinity only?  Or perhaps it is in both His divinity and soul but not His body?   If one tries to say only in divinity but not in soul then they are stuck with regard to Eph. 4.8-10 says clearly that He descended to Hades (in his human soul), and "He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens that He might fill all things."  Now, since His divinity already filled all things, what can this passage be talking about except for that the purpose of the Ascension was so that the whole Christ, not only divinity, but also his humanity, body and soul, fill all things?  This is not a mingling of the two natures but rather the ultimate fulfillment of His human nature.  It is, in the words of the 6th Ecumenical Council, His full theosis--full union without confusion or commingling (although this latter part may not be beneficial to the conversation since you are going into language and sources that your friend does not recognize--the Scriptural evidence is enough).  Moreover, it states earlier in Ephesians that, since the Ascension, His Body is the "fullness of Him that fills all in all" (Eph. 1.23).  

3.  Don't let your friend change the subject by simply coming back with "counterclaim" passages.  First have him explain these passages in light of his current position, then tell him you will be glad to address the Scriptures that he comes back with (just be sure that you in turn do not simply give him "counterclaim" passages, but deal with the passages themselves).  Whatever help you would need with that, we are here!   This is just one suggestion of how to deal with it, but I think that it may be profitable.
As far as point 1, that was kind of what I was thinking. As far as point 2, I think that it will suffice theologically to him more. Point 3 is not very applicable, he is a good friend, and one that is't hostile, or a "prooftexter". Thanks for all the great thoughts, and if anyone else has anything else I may pass along to him, please feel free to give me your thoughts. God Bless!
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2009, 04:24:24 PM »

Ok guys, I'm going to revive this thread because I have some issues concerning this.  The following quote is provided from this article:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sermon_st_seraphim.htm

They were washed with their sufferings and made white in the communion of the immaculate and life-giving Mysteries of the Body and Blood of the most pure and spotless Lamb - Christ - Who was slain before all ages by His own will for the salvation of the world, and Who is continually being slain and divided until now, but is never exhausted (in the Sacrament of Communion). Through the Holy Mysteries we are granted our eternal and unfailing salvation as a viaticum to eternal life, as an acceptable answer at His dread judgment and a precious substitute beyond our comprehension for that fruit of the tree of life of which the enemy of mankind, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, would have liked to deprive the human race.

I'm having difficulty understanding this passage in bold from the article.  I have difficulty reconciling that our Savior is continually being slain or punished for our sins.  It was a one time sacrifice, this seems to make it into a perpetual sacrifice so that He is tortured into infinity. Anyone care to intrepret this?
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2009, 04:41:55 PM »

Ok guys, I'm going to revive this thread because I have some issues concerning this.  The following quote is provided from this article:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sermon_st_seraphim.htm

They were washed with their sufferings and made white in the communion of the immaculate and life-giving Mysteries of the Body and Blood of the most pure and spotless Lamb - Christ - Who was slain before all ages by His own will for the salvation of the world, and Who is continually being slain and divided until now, but is never exhausted (in the Sacrament of Communion). Through the Holy Mysteries we are granted our eternal and unfailing salvation as a viaticum to eternal life, as an acceptable answer at His dread judgment and a precious substitute beyond our comprehension for that fruit of the tree of life of which the enemy of mankind, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, would have liked to deprive the human race.

I'm having difficulty understanding this passage in bold from the article.  I have difficulty reconciling that our Savior is continually being slain or punished for our sins.  It was a one time sacrifice, this seems to make it into a perpetual sacrifice so that He is tortured into infinity. Anyone care to intrepret this?

"The problem with understanding the Last Supper as the Passover seder and by extension of understanding the Eucharist as a re-presentation of the Last Supper is that it results in the observance becoming a dramatic memorial. The Last Supper was a historical event that occurred once. In contrast, the Eucharist is the actual experience of the Lamb who was eternally offered on the cross. True, the crucifixion occurred once in time and need not occur again, as the New Testament clearly states. But, the crucifixion of Christ is an event with eternal consequences. Through this event all humankind before and after the cross, in fact all creation, may be saved; and in this sense it is an eternal sacrifice. Not that Christ is eternally re-sacrificed, but that the scope of the crucifixion is eternal — reaching out to each communicant in the Eucharist."

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/early_christian_liturgics.htm
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2009, 06:51:07 PM »

Ok guys, I'm going to revive this thread because I have some issues concerning this.  The following quote is provided from this article:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sermon_st_seraphim.htm

They were washed with their sufferings and made white in the communion of the immaculate and life-giving Mysteries of the Body and Blood of the most pure and spotless Lamb - Christ - Who was slain before all ages by His own will for the salvation of the world, and Who is continually being slain and divided until now, but is never exhausted (in the Sacrament of Communion). Through the Holy Mysteries we are granted our eternal and unfailing salvation as a viaticum to eternal life, as an acceptable answer at His dread judgment and a precious substitute beyond our comprehension for that fruit of the tree of life of which the enemy of mankind, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, would have liked to deprive the human race.

I'm having difficulty understanding this passage in bold from the article.  I have difficulty reconciling that our Savior is continually being slain or punished for our sins.  It was a one time sacrifice, this seems to make it into a perpetual sacrifice so that He is tortured into infinity. Anyone care to intrepret this?

I had a recording of the Berlin symphony playing Beethoven's fifth on May 5, 1987 (not the real date, which I forget. But the recording had the date on it).  No matter how many times I replay it, it still remains one symphony.

As to the question of Christ eternally suffering, by the communication of the idioms (i.e. the divine and human natures in one Christ) the human nature in time, by union with the divine, which by nature is outside of time, suffered what the divine nature, by its nature, could not:the divine nature, offended by all sins of which He is aware always, could not suffer from them.  But the human nature could, and in union with the divine nature was made aware of them all.  But once He suffered all that in time, He said "it is finished."  It no longer has dominion over Him.

So the sin we commit today, the Son is eternally aware.  The Son suffered it by virute of the Incarnation in the past, on the Cross. So it is not that we make Him suffer anew (though that's another question, if that is possible) but we made Him suffer of old on Calvary.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2009, 06:10:34 AM »

I think i'm starting to get it. I never really had problem with this teaching until I encountered this passage.
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,874


« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2009, 08:15:34 AM »

Does this answer the question? "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1 Corinthians 11:26,KJV).
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2009, 04:32:12 PM »

Does this answer the question? "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1 Corinthians 11:26,KJV).

That is a good verse concerning the eucharist in general, but it doesn't really say much about the sacrificial aspect of it.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2009, 04:38:53 PM »

I suppose the teaching of baptisms are consistent with this notion also. We actively partake in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ during our baptism, although these things were performed once and for all by him 2000 years ago.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494



« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2009, 07:48:54 PM »

Perhaps you could ask your spiritual father if you could read some works by Father Alexander Schmemann. I have in mind For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press; 2nd Expanded edition edition (March 1, 1997). He has also penned the best introduction to the Mystery of Baptism IMHO: Of Water and the Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism, also from Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press (March 1, 1997). They are widely available to include Amazon.

Here is a snippet from a paper he had written on the Eucharist and theology to give you a flavor of his writings: "For the Eucharist, we have said, is a passage, a procession leading the Church into "heaven," into her fulfillment as the Kingdom of God. And it is precisely the reality of this passage into the Eschaton that conditions the transformation of our offering — bread and wine — into the new food of the new creation, of our meal into the Messianic Banquet and the Koinonia of the Holy Spirit. Thus, for example, the coming together of Christians on the Lord’s Day, their visible unity "sealed" by the priest ("ecclesia in episcopo and episcopus in ecclesia") is indeed the beginning of the sacrament, the "gathering into the Church." And the entrance is not a symbolical representation of Christ going to preach but the real entrance — the beginning of the Church’s ascension to the Throne of God, made possible, inaugurated by the ascension of Christ’s Humanity. The offertory — the solemn transfer of bread and wine to the altar is again not the symbol of Christ’s burial (or of His entrance into Jerusalem) but a real sacrifice — the transfer of our lives and bodies and of the whole "matter" of the whole creation into heaven, their integration in the unique and all-embracing sacrifice of all sacrifices, that of Christ. The prosphora (offering) makes possible the anaphora — the lifting up of the Church, her eschatological fulfillment by the Eucharist. For Eucharist — "thanksgiving" — is indeed the very content of the redeemed life, the very reality of the Kingdom as "joy and peace in the Holy Spirit," the end and the fulfillment of our ascension into heaven. Therefore, the Eucharist is consecration and the Fathers called both the prayer of consecration and the consecrated gifts "Eucharist." The insistence by the Orthodox on the epiclesis is nothing else, in its ultimate meaning, but the affirmation that the consecration, i.e., the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, takes place in the "new eon" of the Holy Spirit. Our earthly food becomes the Body and Blood of Christ because it has been assumed, accepted, lifted up into the "age to come," where Christ is indeed the very life, the very food of all life and the Church is His Body, "the fullness of Him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:23). It is there, finally, that we partake of the food of immortality, are made participants of the Messianic Banquet, of the New Pascha, it is from there, "having seen the true light, having received the heavenly Spirit," that we return into "this world" ("let us depart in peace") as witnesses of the Kingdom which is "to come." Such is the sacrament of the Church, the "leitourgia" which eternally transforms the Church into what she is, makes her the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit."

From http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/theologyandeucharist.html
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2009, 05:15:04 AM »

Thank you for the recommendation.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2011, 02:50:24 AM »

All of the above is correct.   However, since you are still understandably having a tough time with this, I will approach it from another direction. When Christ offered the New Testament in His Blood in the cup at the last supper, it is the blood which "is shed," "is" being the continuous present.   In Protestantism you were used to the word "sacrifice" being used as a verb, or, in noun form, as a thing performed.  In Old testament terms, if we were to say "the sacrifice was immolated," the "sacrifice" is the lamb, the act is the offering and immolation of the sacrifice.  Thus, the "Sacrifice" on Calvary/Golgotha refers not to an "action that was done," but a Person--the Lamb of God who offered up His Body and Blood.   
      But the passages in question themselves tell us this.  Hebrews 10.10 states that the offering of Christ’s Body took place “once for all.”  Then in verse 12 states:  “But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.”  The “single sacrifice,” of course, is not a “thing done” as Protestants tend to read it, but rather, as it says in verse 10, is Christ’s own Body.   Therefore, one cannot say that Christ’s Body is made present and at the same time say that the “single sacrifice” is not made present, because they are one and the same thing, as the very Scriptures in question clearly say.   Again, verse 12 clearly says that He offered this Sacrifice (His Body) "for all time."  This is clear enough by itself.  However, when we look at the original Greek and see the words "eis to dienekes" it becomes more clear.  The term "dienekes" only has one meaning, "continuous."  "eis to dienekes" means, "continually" or "unto perpetuity"!  Thus, the passage itself clearly states that the "Sacrifice" is Christ's Body and that it is offered once "continually."  I hope this helps   

bump
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2011, 02:52:32 AM »

oops, i got confused which thread in and bumped this post, sorry for reviving. Neverthless, I think this quote might be helpful to others who are currently goin through similar struggles in their understanding of the eucharist.
Logged
Tags: Eucharist communion 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.109 seconds with 51 queries.