On the Sacrifices...
DISCLAIMER: When I ran this by my priest/pastor/spiritual father for review, he said that nothing immediately jumped out at him as incorrect. However, he did say that it reads like it is my own speculation, made without reference to the teaching of the Church. In this, he is correct. So take it for what it's worth, which is to say -- it's my so-far-uninformed opinion on the matter. :) I do look forward to delving into the teaching of the Fathers (old and new) on the Liturgy, but I haven't done so yet.
------------------------------------------
Ok, this is going to wander a bit, but bear with me.
I find it interesting that in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, prior to the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts, the offering is referred to as "this reasonable and unbloody service"; whereas after the invocation, they are referred to as "this reasonable service."
Why the difference? Because the invocation itself calls upon the Holy Spirit to
Prior to this, the gifts are our offering to God as a royal priesthood, and are symbolic of "ourselves and our whole lives," and all that we have received from Him in the first place. It is "Thine own of Thine own" that "we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all, and for all."
The language around this is reminiscent of St. Paul's admonition to the Romans (12:1,2), and to use, that we "present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is" our "reasonable service."
Now, according to the prayer, we
However, as these are unbloody at that point, it is evident that they do not take away these sins themselves, for
No, we offer these gifts unworthily, and ask that they may be changed into bloody Gifts in which there is remission, since we cannot offer anything of ourselves that would suffice.
And so the very next sentence is:
This is fulfilled later, in the invocation and change of the gifts into Gifts by the Holy Spirit. The reason being that any offering by the priests is made acceptable only in and through and in conjunction with the offering of the High Priest. And Christ, being our High Priest, has offered Himself upon the Altar.
So when we offer our unworthy oblations (for we received from the Father even that which we offer), we ask that they be "for our sins and for the errors of the people", not in themselves, but in what they will become.
This becoming is not by our power or due to our worthiness, as though this were some magic ritual in which we punch the cosmic vending machine and out pops our treat.
No rather, they are fulfilled,
We ought not take these things for granted!
And again,
"Therefore", as I noted above, the apostle beseeches us,
Selah. [Stop and think about it.]
Ok, moving on. :)
Note that at the invocation, the request is not just that the Holy Spirit descend upon the Gifts. Rather, it is that God would
Then comes the request regarding the gifts specifically, that they be changed by Him into the Body and Blood of Christ.
But to what purpose?
Id est, the Holy Spirit makes the Sacrifice present to us so that we may partake of it, and receive it
If the Holy Spirit is present only in the Gifts, and not in us also, we do not receive the benefit, for
The Flesh has no power of it's own, even as it had not power of it's own before it was offered (i.e. while Christ was "in the days of his flesh").
Nevertheless, we must eat the Flesh, since it is actually what was offered (cf. Heb. 10:5-10). The saving action is from the nature of God, and not inherent to the nature of the Flesh.1 However, the Power is mediated to us by means of the Flesh, for two reasons.
1) The natures are two, true, but the Person is One, and so cannot be separated or divided.
2) We also have flesh, which is to be included in our salvation, as the author says previously,
And so we must have faith, yes, but we must also eat the Body and Blood.
Since the Holy Spirit is the superintendent (and Actor) of this whole "operation of God", we ask for Him to come down upon not only the Gifts, but us also, that we may be partakers.
This is what is meant by "the communion of the Holy Spirit".
Selah.
Now, some refer to the Liturgy as the "perpetual sacrifice of Christ". Unfortunately, there is a common misunderstanding regarding this. Many propose (some antagonistically, others dogmatically) that we are "re-sacrificing Christ".
But this is an error, as I intend to show.
The epistle to the Hebrews makes this quite clear:
And later,
And again,
No, we do not "re-sacrifice Christ". Rather, by the Holy Spirit, the corruptible, "unbloody" gifts that we set forth (unworthily!) are changed into the already sacrificed Body and already shed Blood of Christ, so that we may eat the sacrifice, and thereby be included in the new covenant of which it is the seal, receiving therein the remission of sins, as was promised,
It is "perpetual" in that we perpetually receive it, perpetually partake of it, and therefore are perpetually cleansed by it.
This is contra the Protestant error which says that "the blood is applied by faith alone", and their other error of "once saved always saved." If these were not errors, then we would either not need the Eucharist at all (in direct contradiction to the command of the Lord), or need to partake only once (also in direct contradiction to the command of the Lord).
This is because the Sacrifice cleanses the sins that are past (Rom. 3:25), but not those that are not yet committed. This is indicated by the quotation of the promise of the new covenant by the author of the letter to the Hebrews (10:16, 17):
and by his conclusion based on this:
This is scary! It seems that if we sin willfully after our baptism and first communion, "there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."
And yet no man is without sin, and so we must "find the way through repentance", confess our sins, and partake (again) of the sacrifice, and so be cleansed (again) from all unrighteousness.
That is why the author included the word "willfully". We must take the context of the letter into account. First, he writing to Jews, who were being tempted to return to Judaism. Pursuant to this, he makes it clear (10:29, 38, 39) that he is referring to a willful rejection of the Christian Faith, not the incidental sins which we may commit "whether voluntary or involuntary, of word or of deed, in knowledge or in ignorance" due to the weakness of the flesh.
He is not referring to the sincerely repentant sinner, but to "a man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition..., knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself", whom we are to "reject", seeing that God already has done so (Hos. 4:6).
------------------------------------------------
1See Hippolytus, "Against Beron and Helix", beginning at the part (Fragment V), which reads:
Which doctrine was also condemned at Chalcedon.
------------------------------------------
Ok, this is going to wander a bit, but bear with me.
I find it interesting that in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, prior to the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts, the offering is referred to as "this reasonable and unbloody service"; whereas after the invocation, they are referred to as "this reasonable service."
Why the difference? Because the invocation itself calls upon the Holy Spirit to
make...that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ.
Prior to this, the gifts are our offering to God as a royal priesthood, and are symbolic of "ourselves and our whole lives," and all that we have received from Him in the first place. It is "Thine own of Thine own" that "we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all, and for all."
The language around this is reminiscent of St. Paul's admonition to the Romans (12:1,2), and to use, that we "present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is" our "reasonable service."
Now, according to the prayer, we
offer unto Thee gifts and spiritual sacrifices for our [the priests'] sins and for the errors of the people.
However, as these are unbloody at that point, it is evident that they do not take away these sins themselves, for
without the shedding of blood is no remission.
No, we offer these gifts unworthily, and ask that they may be changed into bloody Gifts in which there is remission, since we cannot offer anything of ourselves that would suffice.
And so the very next sentence is:
and make us worthy to find grace in thy sight, that our sacrifice may be acceptable unto thee; and that the good spirit of thy grace may dwell upon us and upon these gifts here offered, and upon all thy people...
This is fulfilled later, in the invocation and change of the gifts into Gifts by the Holy Spirit. The reason being that any offering by the priests is made acceptable only in and through and in conjunction with the offering of the High Priest. And Christ, being our High Priest, has offered Himself upon the Altar.
So when we offer our unworthy oblations (for we received from the Father even that which we offer), we ask that they be "for our sins and for the errors of the people", not in themselves, but in what they will become.
This becoming is not by our power or due to our worthiness, as though this were some magic ritual in which we punch the cosmic vending machine and out pops our treat.
No rather, they are fulfilled,
through the compassions of thine Only-Begotten Son, with Whom Thou art blessed, together with thine all-holy and good and life-giving Spirit: now and ever, and unto ages of ages.
We ought not take these things for granted!
How marvelous are thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast thou made them all.
And again,
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen!
"Therefore", as I noted above, the apostle beseeches us,
by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.And how reasonable!
Selah. [Stop and think about it.]
Ok, moving on. :)
Note that at the invocation, the request is not just that the Holy Spirit descend upon the Gifts. Rather, it is that God would
send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth...
Then comes the request regarding the gifts specifically, that they be changed by Him into the Body and Blood of Christ.
But to what purpose?
Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast.
Id est, the Holy Spirit makes the Sacrifice present to us so that we may partake of it, and receive it
unto cleansing of soul, unto the remission of sins, unto the communion of Thy Holy Spirit, unto the fulfillment of the kingdom of Heaven, unto boldness toward Thee, and not unto judgment or condemnation.
If the Holy Spirit is present only in the Gifts, and not in us also, we do not receive the benefit, for
It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing...
The Flesh has no power of it's own, even as it had not power of it's own before it was offered (i.e. while Christ was "in the days of his flesh").
Nevertheless, we must eat the Flesh, since it is actually what was offered (cf. Heb. 10:5-10). The saving action is from the nature of God, and not inherent to the nature of the Flesh.1 However, the Power is mediated to us by means of the Flesh, for two reasons.
1) The natures are two, true, but the Person is One, and so cannot be separated or divided.
2) We also have flesh, which is to be included in our salvation, as the author says previously,
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same...
And so we must have faith, yes, but we must also eat the Body and Blood.
Since the Holy Spirit is the superintendent (and Actor) of this whole "operation of God", we ask for Him to come down upon not only the Gifts, but us also, that we may be partakers.
This is what is meant by "the communion of the Holy Spirit".
Selah.
Now, some refer to the Liturgy as the "perpetual sacrifice of Christ". Unfortunately, there is a common misunderstanding regarding this. Many propose (some antagonistically, others dogmatically) that we are "re-sacrificing Christ".
But this is an error, as I intend to show.
The epistle to the Hebrews makes this quite clear:
[Christ] needs not daily, as those high priests [under the Law], to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
And later,
nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many...
And again,
...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
No, we do not "re-sacrifice Christ". Rather, by the Holy Spirit, the corruptible, "unbloody" gifts that we set forth (unworthily!) are changed into the already sacrificed Body and already shed Blood of Christ, so that we may eat the sacrifice, and thereby be included in the new covenant of which it is the seal, receiving therein the remission of sins, as was promised,
...their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
It is "perpetual" in that we perpetually receive it, perpetually partake of it, and therefore are perpetually cleansed by it.
This is contra the Protestant error which says that "the blood is applied by faith alone", and their other error of "once saved always saved." If these were not errors, then we would either not need the Eucharist at all (in direct contradiction to the command of the Lord), or need to partake only once (also in direct contradiction to the command of the Lord).
This is because the Sacrifice cleanses the sins that are past (Rom. 3:25), but not those that are not yet committed. This is indicated by the quotation of the promise of the new covenant by the author of the letter to the Hebrews (10:16, 17):
'"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days," saith the LORD, "...their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."'
and by his conclusion based on this:
Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. ... For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins...
This is scary! It seems that if we sin willfully after our baptism and first communion, "there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."
And yet no man is without sin, and so we must "find the way through repentance", confess our sins, and partake (again) of the sacrifice, and so be cleansed (again) from all unrighteousness.
That is why the author included the word "willfully". We must take the context of the letter into account. First, he writing to Jews, who were being tempted to return to Judaism. Pursuant to this, he makes it clear (10:29, 38, 39) that he is referring to a willful rejection of the Christian Faith, not the incidental sins which we may commit "whether voluntary or involuntary, of word or of deed, in knowledge or in ignorance" due to the weakness of the flesh.
He is not referring to the sincerely repentant sinner, but to "a man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition..., knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself", whom we are to "reject", seeing that God already has done so (Hos. 4:6).
------------------------------------------------
1See Hippolytus, "Against Beron and Helix", beginning at the part (Fragment V), which reads:
For lately a certain person, Beron, along with some others, forsook the delusion of Valentinus, only to involve themselves in deeper error, affirming that the flesh assumed to Himself by the Word became capable of working like works with the deity by virtue of its assumption, and that the deity became susceptible of suffering in the same way with the flesh by virtue of the exinanition; and thus they assert the doctrine that there was at the same time a conversion and a mixing and a fusing of the two aspects one with the other.
Which doctrine was also condemned at Chalcedon.
Comments
Post a Comment
Hi! Feel free to comment. However, I was getting posts from different Anonymous people, and it's difficult to know who is who so I can keep the conversation straight in my head. So I'm requesting that you please bear with my weakness, and identify yourself. Even if you want to use a different name than your real name -- that's fine. But give yourself a handle for me, please. :) Thanks...