The Eucharistic Sacrifice

Sergius Bulgakov, Mark Roosien

• Editorial: University of Notre Dame Press
• Año: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780268201425
• Categoría: Theology & Religion
• Categoría: Christian Denominations

This first English translation represents Sergius Bulgakov's final, fully developed word on the Eucharist.

The debate around the controversial doctrine of the Eucharist as sacrifice has dogged relations between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches since the Reformation. In The Eucharistic Sacrifice, the famous Russian theologian Sergius Bulgakov cuts through long-standing polemics surrounding the notion of the Eucharist as sacrifice and offers a stunningly original intervention rooted in his distinctive theological vision. This work, written in 1940, belongs to Bulgakov's late period and is his last, and most discerning, word on eucharistic theology. His primary thesis is that the Eucharist is an extension of the sacrificial, self-giving love of God in the Trinity, or what he famously refers to as kenosis. Throughout the book, Bulgakov points to the fact that, although the eucharistic sacrifice at the Last Supper took place in time before the actual crucifixion of Christ, both events are part of a single act that occurs outside of time.

This is Bulgakov's concluding volume of three works on the Eucharist. The other two, The Eucharistic Dogma and The Holy Grail, were translated and published together in 1997. This third volume was only first published in the original Russian version in 2005 and has remained unavailable in English until now. The introduction provides a brief history of Bulgakov's theological career and a description of the structure of The Eucharistic Sacrifice. This clear and accessible translation will appeal to scholars and students of theology, ecumenism, and Russian religious thought.

CHAPTER 1

The Eucharist as Sacrifice

One of the imprecisions and ambiguities of eucharistic theology is an inadequate determination of the link between the Sacrament of Holy Communion and the eucharistic sacrifice.¹ Some (Protestants) simply deny the existence of the latter and know only “communion” (sacramentum altaris). Others—and here Orthodox doctrine does not differ from Catholic doctrine—place the Sacrament of Holy Communion side by side with the eucharistic sacrifice, as its fulfillment, so to speak.² The ambiguity here arises from the fact that “Eucharist” and “sacrifice” are treated separately, as if the one could exist separately from the other as a kind of completion “over and above,” while in reality they are the same thing. The Eucharist is, precisely, a sacrifice. Or, conversely, in its very constitution, the eucharistic sacrifice of praise presumes communion as one of its potential outgrowths. Pious practice has given priority to the latter aspect—the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Although in religious practice this bias is harmless, theologically it leads to untruth and onesidedness. Now, there is a similar one-sidedness in Roman practice in the case of abuses in the Mass, which was precisely what caused the Protestant conflict and led them into eucharistic heresy. The Lord’s words of institution contain not only thanksgiving (eucharistēsas) and blessing (eulogēsas), which are appropriate for a sacrificial offering, but also contain a direct attestation of an already-accomplished sacrifice: the words “broken for you (tó hypèr hymōn)” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:24) at the breaking of the bread, and, over the cup, “My Blood poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins” (cf. Matt. 26:28; Luke 22:20), and “My Blood of the New Covenant” (cf. Mark 14:24; 1 Cor. 11:25). The Last Supper is above all a sacrificial offering. It is by virtue of this fact that it is also communion, and it should be understood precisely with this connection in mind. The eucharistic theology of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John conceives of the communion of the Body and Blood in exactly this sense: “The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51). In particular, the fact that the Last Supper is timed to coincide with the celebration of Passover with its symbolic slaughter of the paschal lamb (no matter how we understand the precise connection between both of these events) again affirms communion’s sacrificial character, as instituted by the Lord: “. . . Our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed for us” (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7). This is the guiding idea of the theology of the apostle Paul in his doctrine of redemption through the Blood of Christ (see Rom. 5:9, 3:25; Eph. 1:7; and Col. 1:14, 20, to say nothing of the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews [see below]).³

If we look at the structure and text of the Divine Liturgy, in both East and West, we find not only a “communion service,” but precisely a Eucharist—“a sacrifice of praise,” a “spiritual sacrifice without shedding of blood.” We see this aspect fully in the Proskomedia rite especially, because any partaking of the Lamb, that is, of communion, is completely absent.⁴ Instead, a symbolic preparation of sacrifice is made: “Sacrificed is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, for the life of the world and its salvation.”⁵ Any recollection of the Last Supper is completely absent in the Proskomedia, and appears only in the liturgy of the faithful. Instead, it is displaced by Old Testament sacrificial symbolism. Further, the sanctification of the Holy Gifts themselves in the liturgy (in the anaphorá with its prayers) has the character of an alreadyaccomplished sacrificial offering handed down to us by the Lord: “The sacred ministry of this liturgical sacrifice without shedding of blood,” in which, together with the priest who is serving (“Count me, your sinful and unworthy servant, worthy to offer these gifts to you”), Christ Himself is “the one who offers and is offered, who receives and is distributed” (Prayer of the Cherubic Hymn).⁶ This “Holy oblation” is offered as “a mercy of peace (a peaceful sacrifice), a sacrifice of praise”—“Offering you your own of your own—in all things and for all things.” This sacrificial offering is connected not only with the remembrance of all that took place at the Last Supper, but also with the partaking of communion, which is brought into the sacrificial offering.⁷

And so, the most New Testamental of all the sacraments, Holy Communion, is professed to be a sacrifice. But it is not one of the sacrifices of the Old Testament, but the sole sacrifice, offered “according to the order of Melchizedek.” Nevertheless, it finds its prototype in the sacrifices of the Aaronic priesthood, which are not merely canceled out by it but rather transfigured. Generally speaking, sacrifice is the essential and primordial phenomenon of religious life. Aside from a few exceptions, which can be explained by the circumstances in which they occurred (with the exception of early Buddhism; I am thinking here of the Koran, contemporary Judaism, and Protestantism), sacrifice is the mode of union between human beings and the Divine. In this sense it is a conscious a priori of religious life, like prayer. The character of a sacrificial offering reflects the level of religious life and the general state of religious consciousness, from the crudest paganism to the revealed religion that embraces law and set practice regulating the offering of sacrifices. Their emergence is part of the primordial human condition. The very first sacrifices were offered by the righteous Abel from the firstborn calves of his flock and from their flesh: Cain’s were from the fruit of the earth (Gen. 4:3–4), and Noah offered a whole burnt offering after the flood (Gen. 8:20). Sacrifices were offered by the patriarchs. Abraham first offered sacrifice in connection with the completion of the Covenant with God (Gen. 15:7ff.), and then in connection with his trial (Gen. 22:1–18). But the primary institution of sacrifice was, of course, the Passover at Israel’s exodus from Egypt (Exod. 12), which was then established as to the order of its celebration in the Law (Deut. 16:1–8). Special sacrifices were offered in the days of the Hebrews’ wandering in the wilderness: at the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood (Exod. 29:10– 28, 31–35) and at the consecration of the altar (Exod. 16–32). Daily sacrificial burnt offerings were instituted also. Detailed commands regarding sacrifices are laid out in the book of Leviticus. Here, the following types of sacrifice are instituted: whole burnt offerings (Exod. 1:9ff.), grain offerings (Exod. 2:1ff), sacrifices of peace offering (Exod. 3:1ff.), offerings for sins and trespasses (Exod. 4:1ff.), offerings called for in ritual purity law (Exod. 5:1–14), and guilt offerings (Exod. 5:15–19, 7:5–10).⁸ The raw material for sacrifices came from Canaan’s agricultural products, animals, bread, and fat. Old and young calves were taken from livestock, sheep and lambs, goats and kids were brought from herds, and among birds doves only were offered. Wild animals and fish were not offered as sacrifices. The way in which a sacrifice would be offered was twofold: sometimes it was offered entirely to God (whole burnt offerings) or, when it was only partial, the rest went either entirely to the priest or was divided among those offering. The Law of Moses, and also both oral and written liturgical tradition, provides more detail as to how various sacrifices are to be offered.

The following aspects of a sacrifice can be differentiated and analyzed: (1) the approach to the place of offering (usually an altar or a sanctuary) by the one who is offering, along with his victim; (2) the imposition of his hand upon the head of the victim, a symbol of identification with it, which is relevant to the idea of redemptive or substitutionary sacrifice: the sin of the one offering is transferred to the victim; (3) the victim is killed, usually by the one who is offering (only on the day of purification does the high priest do the killing); (4) here the participation of the priest begins: he takes the blood and either sprinkles or pours it on the altar; (5) the flesh, either in its entirety or just a piece of it, is burned on the altar; and (6) a piece of it (except in the case of a whole burnt offering) is eaten either by the priests or by the one who is offering. The basic idea of sacrifice consists, in the first place, in offering a gift to God in the form of specific things expressly selected in thanksgiving to God. Second, it consists in liberation from guilt or sin by an offering as a ransom in their place via the death of the animal sacrificed. And third, it consists in a kind of deification through union with the Divine in the communion of the sacrificial flesh, which is made holy after immolation. Redemption and deification, immolation and communion, these are the definitive aspects of sacrifice both in pagan and Old Testament consciousness, and this idea wholly guides New Testament consciousness also: “Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons” (1 Cor. 10:18–20). Redemption through self-identification with the sacrifice, and deification through union in partaking of it, such is the scheme of sanctification through sacrifice, which is transferred in full from the Old Testament to the New with just one difference: redemption through the Blood of Christ and communion with the New Testament Lamb bring together, on a higher plane, in its totality, the meaning of all sacrifices.

Old Testament sacrifices are distinct both in each separate instance and in the variety of their forms, but are all united in being unpleasant. One need simply imagine the whole atmosphere of meat production in the Old Testament temple, with the multitude of slaughtered animals, their death throes and screams, the stench and smoke from the burning flesh and fat, the scent of the burned meat when the priests eat it, and, finally, the constant sprinkling of blood and pouring it around the altar.⁹ Against the background of this vast sea of blood is the smoke of incense. One must have a special Old Testament strength of nerves and hardened sense of smell in order to endure all that. We find it unbearable even to hear or read about the survival of blood sacrifices. In any case, the essential element of sacrifice and its offering is blood. According to Moses, the soul of the living being resides in the blood, and it is, in this sense, the element of life—it is life itself. This expresses all the more the vicarious nature of sacrifice: a life for a life, the single identity of the life being offered and the one who is offering it. Since a sacrifice offered to God in this way becomes divine itself, it is through it that deification is available, though to varying degrees. In this way, an atoning sacrifice is one of the forms of this deification, a path to it, along with the actual partaking of sacrificed flesh. The blood itself is not consumed, it is merely sprinkled upon the altar and sometimes—though not always—on the offering. This is enough to achieve communion with this new life, this source of Divine power. The Divine help and strength given through sacrificial offering differs in accordance with the nature of a given sacrifice (offering for sin, peace offering, burnt offering, etc.), but in all cases it takes the human being out of his sinful limitations and provides him with a transcensus to a different, Divine, life. One could say that human beings are endowed with a religious organ of sacrifice, and if you exclude those who lack any religious sensitivity whatsoever, and [exclude] crude rationalism, the existence of that organ is a shared phenomenon of religious life; whatever the quality of one’s faith is, so also is the quality of one’s sacrifice (and vice versa). The nature of sacrificial offering and its theology expresses perfectly the very nature of religion.

CHAPTER 2

The Special Character of Old Testament Sacrifices

If the difference between sacrifices is determined by the quality of the religion they express, then it is obvious that sacrifice to the True God differs root and branch from the idolatrous sacrifices that express the various forms of pagan piety. The apostle Paul warns his children of them just as he warns them of service to idols. It is as if they exist alongside sacrifices to the True God, in competition with them in their preeminence. This of course does not prevent these sacrifices in and of themselves, along with all pious paganism, from expressing a low level of religious consciousness unenlightened by revelation. As “natural revelation,” which does not oppose true religion yet remains ignorant of it, these pagan sacrifices, as with paganism in general, do seem to possess a certain positive religious value. However, that is abolished when set next to true religion and does stand in opposition to it. One such pagan counterfeit and temptation in religious life is magic, accompanied by the ritual mechanization of sacrifice. It is well known that not only the worship of false gods but also the false worship of the True God is the subject of stern denouncements by the prophets (in Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Jeremiah, etc.). Against this ritualism and magic the prophets valorize the worship of God in the spirit of truth, the spiritual sacrifice that is a truly human act (Isa. 1:11–17, Jer. 7:20–22, Amos 5:21–22). “. . . For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6; NKJV). “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit” (Ps. 50:19 [LXX]). However, these kinds of judgments do not indicate an annulment or even disparagement of the sacrificial law. The whole piety of the chosen people and their rites in connection with sacrifices and priests forms a priestly Typikon, just as the temple itself is above all a place of sacrifice, with the altar at the center.¹ The truth of sacrifices to the True God was not destroyed by the sinful limitations and abuses of Old Testament Israel that the prophets railed against. As such, these quotations do not support the idea that they vacillated about the institution of sacrifice itself.

Nevertheless, Old Testament sacrifices, precisely by belonging to the Old Covenant, have merely a limited, typological meaning, as expressly laid out in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Above all, this stems from the contingency and insufficiency of the Old Testament priesthood per se. On the one hand, the high priest that is supplied for the worship of God for the offering of gifts and sacrifices for sin “does not presume to take this honor, but takes it only when called by God, just as Aaron was” (Heb. 5:1, 4). However, on the other hand, “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office” (Heb. 7:23). Besides, “Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who approach. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers cleansed once and for all would no longer have any consciousness of sin? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:1–4). “And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins” (Heb. 10:11). Herein lies the difference between the true, New Testament, absolute high priesthood of Christ and that of the Old Testament: Christ “had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God. . . . For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Heb. 10:12, 14). And in Him we have “a great priest over the house of God” (Heb. 10:21), “who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, (and is) a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up” (Heb. 8:1–2). In this way, both the priesthood and the law itself in the Old Testament possessed a merely anticipatory significance, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one” (Heb. 8:7), but “the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary” (Heb. 9:1), and the tabernacle of old “is a symbol of the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper . . . but [were] imposed until the time comes to set things right” (Heb. 9:9–10). The Old Testament knew only “the sketches of the heavenly things,” but not “the heavenly things themselves” (Heb. 9:23).

It is clear from the entirety of the New Testament that He [Christ] transcended and abrogated the Old Covenant, as the priesthood “according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 109:4 [LXX]) abolishes the Abrahamic priesthood.² However, this does not mean that one should belittle the great power and genuineness of that priesthood and the sacrificial law in their proper place and for their time. One need only recall the exceptional seriousness with which they were treated when first established. At a peace offering, that Old Testament Eucharist, while reading the book of the Covenant, Moses sprinkled the people with sacrificial blood, saying, “See the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8); at which point Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders ascended the mountain and saw the God of Israel, and “under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness” (Exod. 24:9–10). The significance of the sacrifices of the tabernacle and of the Aaronic priesthood is explained thus: “I will dwell among the Israelites, and I will be their God” (Exod. 29:45), while individual sacrifices are defined as “most holy” before the Lord (Exod. 29:29, 37; 31:10, 29; Lev. 2:3, 7:1, etc.).³ The Old Testament people of God were being trained by the law of sacrifices for the coming of the Lord and were being prepared, in the elect among them, to meet Him. Such was the saving power of Old Testament types, even though they were but shadows of the Prototype. There is an inner, ontological necessity for such a path toward the Lord, and therefore the Aaronic order is not so much canceled out as it is absorbed, and also reconstituted anew, in the New Testament priesthood.

The Old Testament, as a law fencing in the Lord’s inheritance and the chosen people amidst the sea of paganism, does not, of course, only disallow a certain, even relative, recognition of the pagan priesthood, but struggles irreconcilably with it. However, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that this betrays an intentional simplification or pedagogical stylization particular to the educative approach of the Old Covenant for the sake of the salvation of the people. But this approach already loses its power for New Testament humanity inasmuch as it becomes able to see a natural old testa...

Índice

• Title
• Copyrights
• Contents
• Translator’s Acknowledgments
• Introduction by Mark Roosien
• Chapter 1 The Eucharist as Sacrifice
• Chapter 2 The Special Character of Old Testament Sacrifices
• Chapter 3 What Is “Remembrance” (anámnēsis)?
• Chapter 4 Heavenly and Earthly Sacrifice
• Chapter 5 The Eucharist and Its Institution
• Chapter 6 Eucharistic Transmutation
• Chapter 7 The Divine-Human Sacrifice I
• Chapter 8 The Divine-Human Sacrifice II
• Chapter 9 The Atoning Sacrifice (The Eucharistic Memorial)
• Chapter 10 The Eucharist and the Mother of God
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index