THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE
SE RGI US BU L GA KOV Translated with an introduction by
Mark Roosien
University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana
Bulgakov_Text.indd 3
4/1/21 1:55 PM
CONTENTS
Translator’s Acknowledgments
vii
Introduction by Mark Roosien
ix
CHAPTER 1
The Eucharist as Sacrifice
CHAPTER 2
The Special Character of Old Testament Sacrifices
1
7
CHAPTER 3
What Is “Remembrance” (anámnēsis)? 11
CHAPTER 4
Heavenly and Earthly Sacrifice
17
CHAPTER 5
The Eucharist and Its Institution
29
CHAPTER 6
Eucharistic Transmutation
39
CHAPTER 7
The Divine-Human Sacrifice I
43
CHAPTER 8
The Divine-Human Sacrifice II
53
CHAPTER 9
The Atoning Sacrifice (The Eucharistic Memorial)
65
v
Bulgakov_Text.indd 5
4/1/21 1:55 PM
vi Contents
C H A P T E R 10
The Eucharist and the Mother of God
77
Conclusion
93
Notes
95
Bibliography
111
Index
115
Bulgakov_Text.indd 6
4/1/21 1:55 PM
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 one- sidedness. 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 1
Bulgakov_Text.indd 1
4/1/21 1:55 PM
2 The Eucharistic Sacrifice
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 already- accomplished 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
Bulgakov_Text.indd 2
4/1/21 1:55 PM
The Eucharist as Sacrifice 3
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
Bulgakov_Text.indd 3
4/1/21 1:55 PM
4 The Eucharistic Sacrifice
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
Bulgakov_Text.indd 4
4/1/21 1:55 PM
The Eucharist as Sacrifice 5
Lamb brings 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, he 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—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.
Bulgakov_Text.indd 5
4/1/21 1:55 PM
Bulgakov_Text.indd 6
4/1/21 1:55 PM
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 7
Bulgakov_Text.indd 7
4/1/21 1:55 PM
8 The Eucharistic Sacrifice
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
Bulgakov_Text.indd 8
4/1/21 1:55 PM
The Special Character of Old Testament Sacrifices 9
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
Bulgakov_Text.indd 9
4/1/21 1:55 PM
10 The Eucharistic Sacrifice
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 testament in paganism also. Here, above all, we are struck by what can be defined as the universal instinct of sacrifice, common throughout the religious world, which prompts us to find in this religious phenomenology an ontological foundation for it too. The basic premonition of salvation and redemption, and the need for it, is common to all humanity, in such a way that this feeling was not clouded or distorted by meager, pagan intimations. One could say that it is inherent to the human being at the core of his humanity, along with reason and conscience—a sort of imprint of the image of God in him. Is it not one of the forms of that expectation of Christ among the nations that was and still is common to humanity? If the Old Testament was itself only a shadow of future blessings, then in paganism we have but a shadow of that shadow, even though it possesses its own messianic content. In this connection, it is telling that Melchizedek, although both king of “(Jeru)-Salem” and “priest of God Most High” (Gen. 14:18), was himself the figure of the eternal High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. But he himself does not emerge from the Old Covenant, but appears out of the darkness of time and of the nations in order to meet Abraham, and, even then, not in the Holy Land, but somewhere in the Valley of Shaveh, along with the king of Sodom. The borders between the Old Covenant and pagan world fade away at the appearance of the one who bears in himself the image of the Coming High Priest. Such is the “light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:32; NKJV). Melchizedek was a high priest defined not by the order of Aaron, but outside of it, as if from the person of all humanity. This feature is crucial for a full comprehension of this image.
Bulgakov_Text.indd 10
4/1/21 1:55 PM
CHAPTER 3
What Is “Remembrance” (anámnēsis)?
At the Last Supper, while distributing communion to the disciples, the Lord explained this communion as an entry into a sacrificial offering. The words of Christ themselves, “broken for you,” “poured out for you and for many,” which He spoke about His Body and Blood, establish this sacrificial character. They establish a link between the Last Supper, as communion, and the sacrifice that Christ Himself accomplished on the Cross once and for all. At that time, they were commanded to do this in His remembrance, repeatedly and unendingly, “until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26), that is, until the end of the age, or, the Second Coming of Christ in glory. The correspondence between the communion at the Last Supper and its repetition until the end of the age is defined as a “remembrance.” What does such an anamnesis mean? Is it just a normal recollection, a reminder about the past that happened at one time but no longer exists, a subjective reflection in the soul and nothing more? Obviously, this interpretation of the words of Christ is completely unacceptable. The a postle Paul’s completely serious strictness when speaking of worthiness for communion contradicts it [this interpretation]: “Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment upon themselves” (1 Cor. 11:28–29). What also contradicts it is that the communion itself is explained not as a remembrance of the Last Supper, as the event that instituted the Eucharist, but as a proclamation (katangéllete) of the death of the Lord: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). In this way, “remembrance” is defined much more broadly according 11
Bulgakov_Text.indd 11
4/1/21 1:55 PM
12 The Eucharistic Sacrifice
to its power and meaning. It is not only a personal memory of a given event, all the more since the only immediate participants and witnesses were his twelve disciples present at the Supper (the apostle Paul himself was not in that group, although he “received from the Lord what [he] also handed on”; 1 Cor. 11:23), excluding all of those numberless Christian generations that have also engaged in that remembrance “until he comes.” Rather, “remembrance” is a genuine, creative power, existing in the world, and our co-remembrance is an entry into that power—a real, ontological communion with it. Plato also discusses the anamnesis of the ideas, the heavenly prototypes of being that the soul beholds before it descends to earth, but his notion of prototype remains at the level of abstract universality. Here, however, the power of anamnesis relates to a concrete event that occurred not in an abstract heaven, some other concrete reality, but in the world, alive in all of life’s fullness. “Remembrance” here is equal to that which is remembered, and possesses all of its power. The Lord communes even now His Sacrificial Body and Blood perfectly, just like He did at the Last Supper, regardless of all empirical distinction, which obtains only on a surface level. “Remembrance” implies precisely the power of identification, ontological oneness, and not a merely subjective assimilation; this is what the sacrament of “transmutation” consists in. And this power of identification established at the command of the Lord has the force of a creative act, entrusted to us: “with this, you make my remembrance.” We have to fully grasp and accept this oneness of an act that, in a sense, multiplies itself, sacramentally repeating in endless repetitions, removing the boundaries of space and time in their limitedness. Generally speaking, nothing in the world disappears, nothing returns to non- being, to the nothingness out of which the world was created, although it may vanish from our subjective memories and be forgotten. The world’s memory of everything that has happened within it, and of all human life, will be revealed at the Dread Judgment of Christ: the books will be opened (Rev. 20:12), and all the past will repeat itself as if by its own power, although it will not have abiding significance and will be abolished, submerged in the “outer darkness.” However, in a completely special, unique, and exceptional sense, the world preserves the “remembrance” of the earthly life of the Godman, in which Divine power is imprinted in the total, sinless holiness of a creaturely human existence. The
Bulgakov_Text.indd 12
4/1/21 1:55 PM
What Is “Remembrance” (anámnēsis)? 13
complete fullness of the earthly life of the Savior, accomplished in time, is preserved in a way that continues or repeats itself for all time. The Lord is with us always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. A symbolic testimony of this is given in the Church year, in which not only are the feasts called to mind, but also the whole gamut of events and features of the earthly life of Christ, even if only in consecutive recollections of the events in the Gospel in the weekly cycle of readings. Repetition in time and on specific dates reveals the inexhaustible power of Divine actions. How can one express in the language of time these supratemporal events, which, although they bear the stamp of temporality (for they were confined to the boundaries of space and time), at the same time abide beyond it? They are eternal in their Divine power, but are welded together in time, and are revealed in it and through it. This dual, antinomical character was inherent in the Incarnation and its dual-naturedness, in which the True God united Himself with human nature, and became the True Man. Divinity reveals itself to humanity, and the latter receives in itself the revelation of the Divine. This is the whole mystery of the Incarnation, and it also includes the Divine Eucharist. Though it occurred on one day, at a specific place and time, it also takes place supratemporally in heaven in just the same way that it is “repeated” on earth as “remembrance.” By the power of God, in this frequent repetition, they are fused together into a unity reaching all the way to the total identification that is sacramentality. A sacrament is a manifestation of the power of God that creates and completes oneness under the veil of empirical actions in the flesh of the world, and in this sense it is an ever-occurring, or repeating, Incarnation. Thus, the Eucharist is a single sacrificial offering. In it, sacrifice is offered to God. What is this sacrifice and how is it offered? What are its contents? Its contents are defined, in Christ’s words of institution, as His death on the Cross through the “breaking of the Body” and the “shedding of Blood.” This is what allows for the possibility of communion. However, such a narrow, limited understanding of the sacrificial offering is contradicted by the fact that the Last Supper, with the communion of the Body and Blood, occurred before the sacrifice itself, “in the night in which Christ was handed over,” and not on Great Friday when He was crucified and exclaimed, “It is finished!” and delivered His spirit to the Father. In this way, the limited power of time as a mere succession of events is jettisoned, and the whole earthly activity of Christ is
Bulgakov_Text.indd 13
4/1/21 1:55 PM
14 The Eucharistic Sacrifice
synthesized together, including the offering of sacrifice. The sacrifice itself in the words of the Lord (in the teaching on the Eucharist in John 6) is presented as independent of time and temporal succession, as a kind of indwelling praesens: “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life . . . for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”— this is the Incarnation in its full capacity. This “separation” of the liturgical offering that took place at the Last Supper from its “accomplishment” in time at the death on the Cross on Golgotha, in addition to the explanation of its supratemporality in St. John, precludes us from conceiving of it merely as one among many events in the earthly life of the Lord. Rather, it demands that we see in it an all-encompassing event or union-event that synthesizes all things in itself. In other words, we necessarily come to the conclusion that the whole matter of sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ itself, is not only the crucifixion but His entire cruciform life, which was, in its entirety, a path to Golgotha, beginning in the manger in Bethlehem and the persecution of Herod. The latter also is not some accidental occurrence in His life that may not have happened. On the contrary, in a concentrated way, it expressed the sacrificial quality of all its events, and for this reason could not not have happened. The only sinless One, coming into the sinful world, breathing its plague-stricken air and living among sinners, inevitably needed to taste the agony of the Cross even before approaching the Cross on Golgotha. Its total inevitability, outward and inward, was for Him completely obvious and repeatedly expressed by Him with increasing urgency.1 For this reason it is strange and incorrect to measure the length of his sacrificial path as stretching merely from Gethsemane to Golgotha, when in fact it bore Him on through all the places of his earthly advent, beginning in Bethlehem and continuing on through Egypt.2 The point is that the sacrifice of Christ encompasses his entire earthly life, the whole Incarnation, as is expressed in the following texts from the Epistle to the Hebrews: “When Christ came into the world, He said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me’. . . . Then I said, ‘See, God, I have come to do Your will, O God’ (in the scroll of the book it is written of me)” (Heb. 10:5,7); “And by God’s will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all” (Heb. 10:10). This notion of the universal character of the sacrifice of Christ is also expressed
Bulgakov_Text.indd 14
4/1/21 1:55 PM
What Is “Remembrance” (anámnēsis)? 15
in liturgical texts, which likewise by no means allow one to treat the Divine Liturgy simply as a mere recollection of the Last Supper. Consider, in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the prayer of offering at “It is right and fitting”: “You brought us out of non-existence into being, when we had fallen you raised us up again, and left nothing undone until you had brought us up to heaven and had granted us your Kingdom that is to come . . . ,” and further, at the beginning of the epiclesis: “Remembering therefore this our Savior’s command and all that has been done for us: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, the Second and glorious Coming again. Offering you your own of your own—in all things and for all things” (and likewise, but even more extensively, in the liturgy of St. Basil the Great).
Bulgakov_Text.indd 15
4/1/21 1:55 PM
