“However, the writer of Hebrews doesn’t encourage the idea that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, requiring a human priest. For one thing, it is repeatedly pointed out that the sacrifice of Jesus is PAST, and that “he did this once for all”. And it also points out that Jesus is the one acting as Priest, not any human. He offers himself - he is not offered by a man.”
Mr. R, the very earliest of the Fathers are quite uniform in their commentary and instruction that the Eucharist is a continuing and necessary “once for all” sacrifice. Indeed, they condemn those who deny that the Eucharist is not the very body and blood of Christ. The Eucharist celebrated in Orthodox and Latin and Oriental Orthodox Churches IS the Last Supper. I suppose the easiest way to explain it is to say that it exists off any mundane time line. At the Divine Liturgy distinctions between heaven and earth vanish.
I understand your point of view. However, scripture takes precedence over church fathers, and scripture is quite clear - it was a past event, done once for all.
In remembrance? Yes.
A proclamation? Yes.
An actual sacrifice of Jesus? No.
I understand the timeline argument, except that isn’t the way the God-breathed words of scripture describe it. When it says, “But when Christ had offered [past tense] for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down [past tense] at the right hand of God, waiting from that time [present tense] until his enemies should be made [future tense] a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering [not single sacrifice, even, but single offering] he has perfected [past tense] for all time those who are being sanctified.”, I take it to mean what it says.
It may be the Greek has more subtlety of meaning than comes through in an English translation. I’ll be glad to learn as needed.
Now, is your soul imperiled by believing it is “the very body and blood of Christ”? Not that I know of...the thief on the cross had very imperfect theology, I suspect, but he went to be with Jesus in Paradise.
Is mine for not believing? Maybe...I’m not sure how strongly the Orthodox would condemn me, and the Catholics used to, but now say it is forgivable. I believe God judges our heart, although if we build badly, then our works will be destroyed and we will enter heaven with empty hands.
But I cannot teach what I believe scripture contradicts, nor would I ask you to change your beliefs on my say so. You can and have read the scriptures, how you interpret them is between you & God, and perhaps your Church.
Kolo, the proper context of this must be sought in the story of Exodus and the role played by the Paschal lamb. It is a conflation with the story of the Yom Kippur goat, and some strange and unusual (cultist) practices.
What was salvific about the Paschal lamb is that its blood marked the Jewish homes, leading the Spirit of God (understood in Judaism as the power of God) to spare or bypass their households, and in that sense, the blood of the lamb "saved" the Jews. Never mind the naive notion that God needed a marker..it was a one time event. No one in commemoration of the Passover kills lambs and places its bloody mark over their doors!
The lamb is eaten, as part of the commemorative remembrance of the event, which has no salvific effect. Nothing in the Seder implies that the sins are taken away by eating it. The Passover lamb was not slaughtered to take away the sins but to get its blood to mark the homes so the wrath of God would not befall the Hebrews, but only the Egyptians.
Also, nothing in the act of eating of the lamb implicitly imparts eternal life on anyone.
The idea of an animal taking away the sins is associated with the goat of Yom Kippur. By laying one's hands on the goat's head, your sins are believed to be transferred onto the goat, which is then either killed (and thus "takes" away your sins) or, more commonly, allowed to run away (with your sins).
The "strange customs" part is the cultist drinking of the blood (strictly forbidden in Judaism) and eating of the flesh (likewise not allowed)! The NT even mentions the disgust of the Jews upon hearing that eating Jesus' flesh will give them eternal life... In fact one of the bad raps of early Christians was that they worship a dead man on a tree, eat his flesh and drink his blood, i.e. a mixture of necrophilia and cannibalism, otherwise known to cause a specific disease known as kuru, which has been practiced throughout ages in many societies.
The conflation of the stories and the cultist flavor was possible because, remember, the NT was written for the pagan Greeks who were not turned off by blood, and in Greek, who knew nothing of the Jewish law, customs or the Old Testament God and would therefore be much more open to such teachings.