The teaching of St. Nicholas Kavasila on the Eucharist as Sacrifice

Contents Abstract Introduction 1. The initial premises of the teachings of St. Nicholas on the Eucharist as a Sacrifice: the connection of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with the Old Testament sacrifices and the economy of Christ 2. Stages of the Eucharistic sacrifice 2.1. Choosing a gift 2.2. Offering a gift 2.3. Making a Sacrifice 2.4. Communion of the Eucharistic Sacrifice Conclusion Sources Literature This article is an attempt at a systematic reconstruction of the teachings of St. Nicholas Kavasila on the Eucharist as Sacrifice. In the work of St. Nicholas “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy” The Eucharist appears as the Theanthropic Sacrifice, in which the Church as a whole and each Christian in particular, under the guise of gifts (bread and wine), sacrifices itself, its life as a sacrifice to God. God, in response to this gift, gives Life Itself, Himself. An important discovery was the determination of the semantic connection between the stages of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the stages of the Old Testament sacrifices and the stages of the economy of salvation accomplished by Christ. It was established that every sacrifice is made at the moment of a change of state: when the “gift” (δῶρον) becomes a “sacrifice” (θυσία). If the Calvary Sacrifice was accomplished through crucifixion, when Christ from a “Gift” to God became a “Sacrifice” to Him, and the Old Testament blood sacrifices were performed through slaughter, when a sacrificial animal from a gift became a sacrifice to God; then the Eucharistic Sacrifice is accomplished through transposition (μεταβολή), when the gifts (bread and wine) become the true Sacrifice, that is, the Body and Blood of the Lamb of Christ. St. Nicholas Kavasila († 1397) - Byzantine theologian, writer, politician. It was he who comprehended, synthesized and creatively generalized in his works the previous experience of theological understanding of the Eucharist by church Byzantine mystagogical writers and became the creator of a coherent, thoughtful and unique concept of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in patristic thought, within the framework of which many questions related to the theology of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice were resolved. Such problematic questions include the following: firstly, why the Eucharist is the true Sacrifice; secondly, what and when is sacrificed at the Eucharist; thirdly, by whom the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered and by whom it is received; fourthly, when and how the Eucharistic Sacrifice is performed. As we will see, St. Nicholas is the author of a harmonious and thoughtful Eucharistic concept, which he sets out mainly in his treatise “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy.” However, this concept requires reconstruction and analysis, because it is presented in the essay somewhat vaguely, inconsistently and, as it seems at first glance, lacks logical coherence in presentation. But the main connecting provisions of his concept, running like a red thread through the entire interpretation and intertwining with each other, form a single, complete theological and liturgical picture, representing the Eucharist as a divine-human Sacrifice. Let us note that the concept of the Eucharistic sacrifice of St. Nicholas has not yet been thoroughly studied and systematically presented either in Western or domestic patrolological studies 1 . In this work, for the first time, an attempt is made to analyze, describe and systematically present the doctrine of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice according to St. Nikolai Kavasile. The disclosure of the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist in the theological thought of Cabasilus will be relevant not only for patrolology, but also for dogmatic and liturgical theology. In view of the complexity of the material presented, it seems appropriate and essential to first present the initial premises of the concept of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which are its specific theological and liturgical basis. They are presented mainly in the first (“A summary of the meaning of the whole sacrifice”) and second (“Why honorable gifts are not placed on the throne from the very beginning”) chapters of the “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy.” Then we will sequentially analyze each of the stages of the Eucharistic sacrifice and draw conclusions. 1. The initial premises of the teachings of St. Nicholas on the Eucharist as a Sacrifice: the connection of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with the Old Testament sacrifices and the economy of Christ In his Exposition of the Divine Liturgy, Cabasilas primarily views the Eucharist as a New Testament sacrifice. According to Cabasilia, the Eucharist is a real Sacrifice: “This sacrifice is not an icon (μὴ εἰκόνα) or an image (τύπον) of the victim, but a true Sacrifice (θυσίαν ἀληθινήν)” 2. After the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Church itself, “following the example of Christ, makes the offering of gifts (ἡ Ἐκκλησία… τὴν προσαγωγὴν ποιεῖται τῶν δώρων)” 3 , that is, bread and wine. However, this gift is made by the hands of the priest: “The bread... the priest himself (ὁ αὐτὸς ἱερεύς)... brings it as a gift (ἀνατίθησι) to God, putting it on a sacred dish, and then, transferring it to the throne, brings it as a Sacrifice (θύει)” 4. The Church itself, as a collection of believers, prayerfully participates in the sacrifice and thus co-serves the priest 5 . In the Eucharist, every Christian is called to present not only themselves, but each other according to the law of love (διὰ τὸν τῆς ἀγάπης νόμον) (παρατιθέμεθα) to God 6 . Cabasilas understands the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a true sacrifice, which in the stages of its implementation is similar to the Old Testament bloody sacrifices. Comparing the order of the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the rite of the Eucharist, he writes: “Their owners separated other gifts (ἀφώριζον) from similar objects, brought them to the church and gave them into the hands of the priests, and the priests accepted and offered (ἀνετίθεσαν) them as a gift to God, or sacrificed (ἔθυον), or dealt properly with one or another of the things brought. But the Body of Christ, that is, the Eucharistic bread, is separated from objects of the same kind with it (ἀφωρίσθη τῶν ὁμογενῶν), brought (προσηνέχθη), accepted (ἀνελήφθη), offered (ἀνετέθη) to God and, finally, sacrificed (ἐτύθη) by the priest himself” 7 . Cabasilas speaks repeatedly about the stages of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in different places of his treatise, using various synonymous terms to name them. In general, the analysis of the text showed that Cabasilas distinguishes the following four stages of the Eucharistic Sacrifice: 1) election of a gift (ἀποκόπτω, ἀφαιρέω, ἀφορίζω, ἀποκοπή); set forth in chapters IV and V of the “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy”, found additionally in chapters VII, 1 and VIII, 1; 2) offering a gift (ἀνατίθημι, προσαγωγή); described in Chapters II, III, V, X, XXIV; 3) making a Sacrifice (θύω, θυσία); presented mainly in Chapter XXXII. It is additionally set out in the work “Explanation of the Rites of the Divine Liturgy”; 4) communion with the Sacrifice (κοινωνία), described mainly in Chapter LIII. Although the term itself appears many times in the “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy”: XV, 6; XIX, 1; XXVI, 3, 4; XXVII; XXIX, 11, 16; XXXIV, 9; XXXVI, 1; XXXVIII, 1. It becomes obvious that Cabasilas sees similarities between the stages of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the peace offering, which, in turn, has the following stages: 1) selection of the sacrificial animal from among other animals according to the principle of “life relationship” 8 ; 2) bringing him to the priests; 3) slaughter of the victim; 4) eating sacrificial meat or a meal 9. And this similarity, as Kavasila notes, is not accidental, for the Old Testament sacrifices themselves were prototypes of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 10. If in relation to the image, the order of its celebration, the Eucharist shows all the component stages of a bloody sacrifice (peaceful sacrifice), then in relation to the object of the offering (bread and wine), the Eucharist acts as a bloodless sacrifice, that is, as a “gift offering” (ἡ προσαγωγὴ τῶν δώρων) to God 11 , therefore, as Cabasilas writes, bread and wine “are not immediately placed as a sacred Sacrifice on the throne... but are first offered, served and called honest gifts to God” 12. Since in relation to the subject of the offering (bread and wine) the Eucharist is a bloodless sacrifice (i.e., a gift offering), and in relation to the stages of its execution it acts as a bloody sacrifice, then, Cabasilas concludes, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, like the Sacrifice of Calvary, includes all types of sacrifices of the Old Testament and, like the New Testament Sacrifice, replaces them 13 . It was precisely the appeal to the Old Testament sacrifices and the comparison of the order of their performance with the celebration of the Eucharist that allowed Cabasilas to speak of the Eucharist precisely as the Sacrifice of the entire Church to God. However, the Eucharist is not only similar in the stages of its celebration to the Old Testament sacrifices, but also similar to the stages of the life of Christ. The life of Christ, or rather the economy of salvation completed by Him, also has the following stages: choosing the Gift, offering the Gift, making the Sacrifice and communion. Thus, the priest who at the proskomedia removes a lamb from a lamb prosphora symbolizes Christ, the lamb prosphora symbolizes human nature, and the lamb symbolizes the Body of Christ. Cabasilas sees the basis for such symbolism in the fact that “the Son of God Himself chose (ἐξεῖλεν) it, that is, His human Body for Himself, separating it from our confusion (φυράματος), and He Himself brought it as a gift to God” 14. Further, as Cabasilas notes, the life of Christ, or rather His Body, “was dedicated to God from the very time it was formed... and, finally, He Himself lifted it up on the cross and offered it as a Sacrifice” 15. Elsewhere, comparing bloody and bloodless (gifts) sacrifices with the life of Christ as the Lamb of God, he writes: “The ancients brought (προσήγοντο) to God sacrifices that consisted of the slaughter (σφαγή) of animals, bloody sacrifices, but they also brought gifts, such as gold or silver things. And the Body of Christ is both. It was a Sacrifice... but first It was offered (ἀνέκειτο) to God as a precious gift (δῶρον) and was accepted by Him..." 16. Christ, or rather His Body (σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ), as Cabasilas writes, was a “gift to God” for two reasons: 1) as “the firstfruits of the human race” (ἀπαρχὴ τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν) 17. Christ, the New Adam, the Head of saved humanity, as the “firstfruits” of all renewed human nature, is the first to offer Himself according to humanity, and with Him all human nature, as a Sacrifice to God 18; 2) as “first-born” (πρωτότοκος) 19. According to the Old Testament law (Ex. 13:11–13), the firstborn animals and even the firstborn babies had to be dedicated to God. So Christ, as the firstborn, according to Cabasilas, devotes Himself, His entire earthly life, to serving God in fulfilling the Law and the Prophets and to serving others in healing their spiritual and physical illnesses. As we see, the sacrificial life of Christ is divided into two main periods. First, most of His life was “a work of service to the salvation of the human race” 20 - a time when He was a “Gift” (δῶρον) to God and men. Secondly, Christ at the end of His life offered Himself as a Sacrifice for humanity for the sins of the world: “[Christ’s] sacrifice was accomplished precisely through the cross (διὰ σταυροῦ)” 21. So Christ, from a “Gift” to God, became a “Sacrifice” (θυσία) to Him 22. The completion of the economy of salvation accomplished by Christ is the “descent of the Holy Spirit on the Church” 23, which Cabasilas calls the “goal” (τέλος) and “fruit” (ἀποτέλεσμα) of “Christ’s sufferings, teaching and works” 24. Thus, the sacrificial life of Christ ends with the last stage of the economy of salvation - the communion of the Holy Spirit: “Then the Church received the Holy Spirit after the ascension of Christ into heaven, but now it accepts the gift of the Holy Spirit after receiving the Gifts into the heavenly altar, that is, after their consecration” 25. Thus, the economy of salvation accomplished by Christ, according to Cabasilias, also has four stages: 1) election of the Gift. In the sacrament of the Incarnation, from all human nature, Christ “chooses” (ἐξαιρεῖ) the human Body for Himself and becomes, according to His human nature, a “Gift” to God and people; 2) offering the Gift. Christ “devotes” (ἀνάκειται) His entire human life on earth to the service of God and all humanity. 3) making a Sacrifice. On Golgotha, Christ from the “Gift” (δῶρον) becomes the “Sacrifice” (θυσία) to God and all humanity. 4) communion. On the fiftieth day after the Resurrection, the entire Church becomes a participant in the Holy Spirit, which completes Christ’s economy. The stages of performing the Eucharistic sacrifice are similar to the stages of performing Old Testament sacrifices for the reason that they are images of the true prototype - “the economy of Christ” (τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ οἰκονομίας) 26, therefore Old Testament sacrifices and the Eucharistic Sacrifice appear in the “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy” as images (τύποι) of the sacrificial life of Christ. 2. Stages of the Eucharistic Sacrifice The election (ἀποκοπή) of the 27th gift is included in the rite of proskomedia and consists in the fact that from the offered “whole bread” (ὁλοκλήρων ἄρτων), the priest separates a lamb, which becomes a gift (ἀφαιρούμενος ποιεῖται δῶρον) 28 . Let us highlight and consider the characteristic features of the choice of gift in the Eucharistic sacrifice, on which Cabasilas himself places special emphasis. Let us first consider the question of the substance of the sacrament. Here the key concept that Cabasilas introduces and on which his entire concept of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is based is the concept of “the firstfruits of human life” (ἀπαρχὰς τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ζωῆς) 29 . He calls bread and wine the firstfruits of human life in the Eucharistic offering. Cabasilah reveals the essence of this concept by drawing parallels between the Old Testament practice of bringing gifts to the church and the Eucharistic offering: if during the times of the Old Testament the firstfruits of fruits (i.e., the first harvest), the firstborn of animals were brought to the church (Ex. 22, 28–29), then in the New Testament in the Eucharist as “the firstfruits of life” (ἀπαρχὰς τῆς ζωῆς) people are offered bread and wine as a gift to God 30 . Here we can highlight several reasons why bread and wine are the firstfruits of human life. Firstly, food itself (including bread and wine) is a symbol (σῆμα) of life, for all life is supported by food 31 . Secondly, it is bread and wine that are “exclusively human food” 32, for the need to bake bread and make wine is unique to humans. Bread and wine are something vitally important, what he values, what sustains his life and without which it fades away. Therefore, according to the thought of Cabasilas, if in the Old Testament, under the guise of the firstfruits of the harvest, the entire harvest was offered to God as a gift, then in the New Testament, under the guise of bread and wine (the firstfruits of human life), Christians in the Eucharist offer their lives as a gift to God, that is, they dedicate it to serving Him. Offering the “firstfruits of life” (bread and wine) is a symbol of offering all life to God. The main reason according to which gifts are offered precisely as “the firstfruits of life” and symbolize (σημαίνεται) human life is that Christ, in response to the offering of these gifts, gives Life Himself, Himself: “The Savior Himself, graciously accepting these gifts and valuing them above any legal service, gives in return (ἀντιδίδωσι) to us His Body and Blood" 33. Cabasilas notes that the gift brought “should not be completely different from the reward,” but must have some “similarity” (συγγενές) with the reward, for the One who gives it is the Righteous Judge, who “determines the weight and measure in everything” 34. Christ established in the sacrament of the Eucharist the offering of bread and wine, as what sustains temporary life, firstly, so that “we receive life for life, eternal life for temporary life”; secondly, that “grace may have an image of reward”; and thirdly, so that “the saying may be fulfilled: I will put My mercy on the scales” 35 . Every Christian prayerfully sacrifices his entire life to God at the liturgy under the form of bread and wine, and Christ Himself responds to this offering and gives a return gift: the Bread of Life (His Body) and the Cup of Life (His Blood). This is how Cabasilas builds his Eucharistic paradigm: “Life for life” (ζωὴν ἀλλαττόμεθα ζωῆς) 36 . A person can receive the gift of life in Christ only when he gives his whole life, his whole self, to God as a gift. Archbishop Francesco Pio Tamberrino notes that a Christian has only one worthy way to express the apophatic character of life in Christ - martyrdom (mediante il martirio) 37, that is, to be a living martyr for Christ all his life, a sacrifice to Christ, devoting his entire life to Him. Now it becomes obvious that in the Eucharistic Sacrifice the principle of “life relation” is preserved in the selection of the gift, which was the main criterion for the selection of the gift in the Old Testament sacrifices. Describing the election of the gift, St. Nicholas also draws attention to the fact that in the Eucharistic offering the priest offers as a gift to God (δῶρον ποιεῖται) not all the bread (ὁλόκληρος), brought (προσενεχθέντας) by 38 Christians on proskomedia, but only that part of it that he himself cuts out of it (ἀποτέμνει) 39 . And in this the saint sees the peculiarity of the New Testament offering. If in the Old Testament the donor himself chose and brought the sacrificial animal to the priests to perform the sacrifice, then in the Eucharistic offering it is not Christians, but the priest himself who cuts (ἀποτέμνει) a lamb from bread, offers it as a gift to God (ἀνατίθησι) and sacrifices (θύει) 40. Why did the function of electing and bringing the gift pass from the owners of the gift (as it was in the Old Testament) to the priests (as it exists in the New Testament)? Cabasilas sees the answer to this question in the economy of salvation. Just as Christ in the Incarnation Himself “chose” (ἐξεῖλεν) His Body, “separating” (ἀφελών) it from human nature, and Himself brought (ἔδωκεν) it as a gift to God, “placing it in the bosom of the Father,” so the priest, as the image of Christ, of his own free will chooses, that is, cuts out, a certain part of the bread and offers it as a gift to God 41. Let us note that Cabasilas sees the principle of a symbolic offering of life to God not only in the sacrament of the Eucharist, but also in the sacrament of Baptism. In Baptism we “receive life in exchange for life, we give one, and receive another in its place” 42 . At Baptism, the giving of life occurs only “in image and image” (ἐν εἰκόνι τινὶ καὶ γραφῇ), and the return of life is true, authentic (ἀληθής) 43 . Here the gift that the baptized brings to God is only “imitation” (μιμεῖσθαι) of the death of the Lord. God, in response to the figurative image of death, to figurative dying with Christ, gives the gift of real eternal life in Christ (ἡ δ᾽ ἀναβίωσις ζωή ἐστιν ἀληθής) 44 . A similar thing happens in the Eucharistic sacrifice: a Christian sacrifices his life to God only symbolically, figuratively, in the guise of bread and wine, but he receives a real reward - the true Life-giving Body and Blood of Christ. In the sacred rite of choosing the gift, several important points can be identified that characterize the Eucharist as a New Testament Sacrifice: 1) bread and wine are “the firstfruits of human life” and mean (σημαίνεται), symbolize his life; 2) Christians in the image (ἐν εἰκόνι), under the guise of bread and wine, offer their lives, themselves as a sacrifice to God; 3) The Lord, in return for this symbolic offering by Christians of their lives, rewards them with true Life - His Life-giving Body and Blood. The next stage of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which occurs after the election of the gift, is the offering. Here again we see a parallel with the characteristic features of Old Testament sacrifices. In the Old Testament, after choosing a sacrificial animal (or any thing), the donor brought it to the church and dedicated it to God. That is, before the sacrifice was made as an act of slaughter, the animal itself became a gift to God 45. We see something similar in the Eucharist: a lamb cut from a prosphora and placed on a paten becomes “offered” (ἀνατεθήναι) to God, a “gift” (δῶρον) to Him 46 . Here we are dealing with sacrificial terminology. Cabasilas introduces a new term: “gift” (τὸ δῶρον). The gift refers to the chosen, specially selected and specially offered bread and wine to God in the rite of proskomedia. If before the moment of offering bread and wine were the “property” (ἰδιοκτησία) of the Church, then after offering them to God they become gifts dedicated to Him 47 . The main purpose of bringing gifts, as we noted above, is to receive “in return” Life itself, that is, the consecration of gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ. But Cabasilas also lists other “purposes” (τὰ αἴτια) for which gifts are brought. Every gift, as he notes, is given either as an expression of gratitude, or as a means of propitiation, in order to receive something. The Eucharistic offering is both “thanksgiving” (χαριστήριος) and “propitiatory” (ἱκέσιος) 48 . The gifts are offered in gratitude, because the Church thanks Christ for the economy of salvation He accomplished, as well as for all the saints and “in particular” (ἐξαίρετως) for Mary the Mother of God, in whom this sacrament of salvation has already been accomplished. But by bringing gifts, the Church also asks God for mercy for all Christians, both living and dead, asking them for “forgiveness of sins and inheritance of the Kingdom” 49 . The offering of the gift, that is, bread and wine, occurs in stages throughout the entire liturgy: from the separation of the gift, performed at the proskomedia, to its consecration and the appearance of the Sacrifice Himself, Christ 50. It is performed by the priest on behalf of the entire Church. The offering occupies a large part of the liturgy: from the proskomedia to the epiclesis. And this is not accidental, for every sacred act, performed, including due to practical necessity (τῆς χρείας ἕνεκα), at the same time designates (σημαίνει) some stage of the house-building of Christ 51 . In the sacrament of the Eucharist, the gift (bread and wine) brought by the Church before its consecration symbolizes Christ Himself (τὰ τίμια δῶρα, δι᾽ ὧν Χριστός σημαίνεται) 52, and therefore “on bread exactly just as on the board, the whole economy of Christ is depicted and written (ἐν τῷ ἄρτῳ καθάπερ ἐν πίνακι γραφομένης)” 53 . In the rites of the liturgy, we first, “as in an image, contemplate (ὡς ἐν τύπῳ θεωροῦμεν) Christ and the Child, and suffering, and led to the crucifixion. Then we see this very bread, in which we contemplated the whole life of Christ, transposed into that very Body, which truly endured all this, and was resurrected, and ascended, and now sits at the right hand of the Father” 54 . However, all symbolic sacred rites are only history (ἱστορία) 55, image (εἰκών) 56, description (γράφην), likeness (τύπον) 57 of the life and death of the Lord. Cavasila contrasts this area of ​​Eucharistic symbolism with the area of ​​Eucharistic realism - the real offering of gifts to God by the Church and their real consecration into the Body and Blood of Christ. Here we see how, over time, the real sacred act of offering gifts by the Church began to be strung together with symbolism depicting the economy of salvation 58 . According to Cabasilia, the Eucharistic Sacrifice is a “work” (ἔργον) 59, a “real sacrifice” (πρᾶγμα θυσίας) 60. It is “neither an image of a sacrifice” (οὐ τύπος θυσίας), “nor a likeness of blood” (οὐδὲ αἵματος εἰκών), “nor an image of a slaughter” (οὐ τύπος σφαγῆς), but “true slaughter and Sacrifice” (ἀληθῶς σφαγὴ καὶ θυσία) 61. And the priest himself, who makes the Eucharistic Sacrifice on behalf of the Church, is called a “priest”, “who makes the sacrifice” (θύτης) 62. And here we immediately encounter a number of problems. If we accept the thesis that the Eucharistic sacrifice is “a true slaughter and sacrifice,” then what, when and how is slaughtered on it. Cabasilas raises these questions in chapter XXXII of his “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy” (“On the Sacrifice itself and what is offered in the Sacrifice”) and in a separate treatise “Explanation of the Rites of the Divine Liturgy” in a section entitled in the critical edition of Severian Salaville as “The Nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice” (Nature du sacrifice eucharistique). Let's see how Cabasilas himself resolves these issues, try to analyze his statements and draw the appropriate conclusions. First, let us consider the question of what is sacrificed and what is slaughtered in the Eucharist. In beginning to answer this question, Cabasilas consistently proves that the slaughter of bread at the liturgy is impossible and ultimately meaningless. Firstly, bread, as a bloodless offering, cannot be a sacrifice, cannot be slaughtered, for it is an inanimate object, and slaughter always implies the shedding of blood. Secondly, the purpose of the sacrament of the Eucharist, as Cabasilas writes, “is not to see the bread being killed (σφαττόμενον), but to see the Lamb who by his slaughter takes away the sin of the world” 63. In order to finally refute the idea of ​​​​the possibility of slaughtering bread, Cabasilas places it on a different plane: if bread is slaughtered, then when does this happen? If bread becomes a sacrifice before consecration, that is, before the prayer of the epiclesis, it means that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is performed exclusively by the forces of the Church, without the participation of the Holy Spirit. From this it follows that the high priest, the performer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, is the Church, and not Christ. The Eucharist in this case is not the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God (οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ θυσία τοῦ Ἀμνοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ) 64, which, as Cabasilas says, contradicts the “true teaching” (τῇἀληθεῖ δόξῃ) 65 . Here Cabasilas refers to the teaching of the Church about the unity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Calvary Sacrifice, of which Christ is the only High Priest. The lack of connection between the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Sacrifice of Calvary thus contradicts the “true teaching.” If bread is sacrificed after consecration, then in this case we will no longer be talking about the slaughter of bread, but about the slaughter of the Body of Christ. The offering of bread before its consecration breaks the connection between the Eucharist and Calvary and makes the Eucharist only a human sacrifice to God. In addition, even if the bread itself were symbolically slaughtered, the believers would not receive any benefit from this, therefore the slaughter of bread at the liturgy by Cabasilas is rejected. Thus, sacrificing bread is impossible and meaningless, because: 1) it is impossible to slaughter inanimate bread; 2) the possible sacrifice of bread would not achieve the goal of the Sacrament - the sanctification of believers, therefore, it is meaningless and useless; 3) in this case, the Eucharistic Sacrifice would be a sacrifice performed exclusively by human power, and this contradicts the teaching that its Performer is Christ; 4) The Eucharistic Sacrifice would have no connection at all with the Calvary Sacrifice, and therefore would not impart its saving gifts. If it is impossible to sacrifice bread, then is it possible to sacrifice the consecrated Bread of Life, that is, the Body of Christ itself, at the Eucharist? The answer to this question boils down to three points for Cabasilah. First, the sacrifice of the Body of Christ at the Eucharist would be nothing more than the performance of a new sacrifice, different from the Sacrifice of Calvary. And as a result, at each liturgy a new sacrifice would be made, different from all previous Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Sacrifice of Calvary. In this case, Christ Himself becomes the Sacrifice many times over (πολλάκις θύεται ὁ Χριστός), which contradicts the teaching of the Holy Scriptures about the one-time Sacrifice of Christ: “Christ once offered Himself as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28) 66. Secondly, if the bread had become the Body of Christ before consecration, then in the Eucharist Christ Himself would have been slaughtered by the hands of the priest. And if we assume, as Cabasilas writes, that this would be possible, then it would follow that those who offer the sacrifice are crucifiers (σταυροῦντας), since at the Eucharist a true slaughter is performed, and not just a form or image of the slaughter 67 . However, the priest is called “priest, priest” (θυτής) in the sense that he makes an offering of bread and wine as a gift to God on behalf of the Church. But the priest is not the performer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, for its Sacrifice and Priest is Christ ἱερεῖον) 68 . Thirdly, the Body of Christ after the Resurrection is unharmed (ἀκήρατον), immortal (ἀθάνατον) and resides in heaven at the right hand of God the Father. It can no longer be slain again or undergo any changes (οὐ γὰρ σφαγῆναι ἔτι ἢ πληγῆναι δύναται) 69 . Through the logical method of reduction to the absurd (reductio ad absurdum), Cabasilas shows that neither the slaughter of bread nor the slaughter of the Body of Christ is possible in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, therefore he comes to the conclusion that the Eucharistic sacrifice is performed neither before nor after consecration, but at the very moment of consecration (ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ ἀγιάζεσθαι) gifts 70. The Eucharist, according to Cabasilia, is called in the proper sense of the word Sacrifice and Sacrifice, because the result of its celebration is the appearance through the transfiguration of the real Sacrifice - the slain Lamb of God. Thus, the reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice depends on the transposition (μεταβολή) of the gifts, which is the slaughter (σφαγή) of the Lamb of God that took place in the past. The theme of the transformation of the offered gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ is key to the theology of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. To explain the image, the method of performing the Eucharistic Sacrifice through transfiguration, Cabasilus again compares it with the Old Testament sacrifices. During the Old Testament sacrifice, through the act of slaughter, a sheep from a gift became a victim, for from “unslaughtered” it turned into “slaughtered”: “When a sheep is sacrificed, from unslaughtered (ἀπὸ μὴ ἐσφαγμένου) it turns (μεταβολή) into the slaughtered one (εἰς τὸ ἐσφαγμένον).” And as a consequence, this “change in the sheep makes it a true sacrifice ἐργάζεται)" 71 . Thus, through the very act of slaughter, the sheep passed from the state of “gift” to the state of “sacrifice”, and this is how the sacrifice was performed. A similar thing happens in the Eucharist: “Just as when a sheep is sacrificed, it turns from not being slaughtered into being slain, so in the Eucharist, the non-sacrificial bread (ὁ ἄρτος ἄθυτος) is offered (μεταβάλλει) into the Sacrifice (τεθυμένον), since bread from unslaughtered (μὴ ἐσφαμγμένου) turns into the very Body of the Lord, truly slain (τὸ σφαγὲν ἀληθῶς)" 72 therefore, continues Cabasilah, “just as a change (ἠ μεταβολὴ) in a sheep makes it a true sacrifice, so here too through a change (μεταβολήν) 73 the true Sacrifice is made. For the bread is changed (μεταβάλλει) not into an image (οὐκ εἰς τύπον), but into “an object of slaughter” (εἰς πρᾶγμα σφαγῆς), into the very Body of the Lord, sacrificed (εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα Κυρίου τὸ τεθυμένον)" 74 . From the above quotes it is clear that, according to the thought of Cabasilas, every sacrifice is made at the moment of a change in “state”: when the “gift” becomes a “sacrifice” 75. For the Old Testament blood sacrifices, this moment of transition from “gift” to “sacrifice” took place in the act of slaughter. The Eucharist, as a bloodless Sacrifice, is accomplished not through the slaughter of bread or a new slaughter of the Body of Christ, but through the change of bread into the real Body of the Lord, truly slain on Calvary. The slaughter, according to Cabasilia, is not the subject of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, for nothing is slaughtered on it: “The sacrifice is not accomplished through the slaughter of the Lamb at that very time, but through the breaking (μεταβαλλομένου) of the bread into the slain Lamb” 76 . As Cabasilah scholar Markus Biedermann notes, “The sacrifice in the Eucharist is not the bread, which was served only as a gift, but the Body of Christ Himself” 77 . In the Eucharist, bread “non-sacrificial” (ἄθυτος) becomes (μεταβάλλει) “sacrificial” (τεθυμένον) and from a gift offered by the Church to God, becomes (μεταβάλλει) Sacrifice, that is, Body and Blood Lamb of Christ. The transformation is made from (ἀπό) the unslain bread into (εἰς) the true slain Body of Christ: “Μεταβάλλει γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄρτου μὴ "78 . Translation, according to Cabasilia, is a way, an image of performing the Eucharistic Sacrifice (διὰ τὴν μεταβολὴν), while the way of performing the bloody Old Testament sacrifice is the act of slaughter. As Yiannis Spiteris, Archbishop of Corfu, notes, Cabasilas was the first of the Eastern Fathers to define the communion as the moment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 79 . This comparison of the method of performing the Eucharistic Sacrifice with the Old Testament sacrifices allowed Professor Archbishop Job (Gecche) to conclude that by transfiguration Cabasilias understands consubstantiation, that is, the existence in the Holy Gifts after consecration of two natures simultaneously: the nature of bread and wine and the nature of the Body and Blood of Christ 80 . A brought sheep, which has become a gift to God, by its nature remains a sheep both before and after the slaughter; only its state changes: from a gift it becomes a sacrifice. Also in the Eucharistic presentation, the nature of the bread before and after the presentation remains the same. But if before the transformation the bread was a gift to God, then at the moment of the transformation it becomes a Sacrifice, since it is united with the sacrificial Body of Christ, therefore, according to Archbishop Job (Gecchi), in the Eucharistic Sacrifice after the transformation, as in the case of the sacrifice of a sheep, bread by its nature will remain bread, but will already exist in a different status, in the status of a Sacrifice, and not a gift. Indeed, if we consider the comparison given by Cabasilas as describing precisely the essence of the concept of “translation,” then we can come to a similar conclusion. However, this conclusion “contradicts the teaching of Cabasilas about the central act of the liturgy: the transformation of gifts into the true Body and Blood of Christ” 81. Did Archbishop Job (Geccha) adequately express Cabasilas' teaching on translation? It is possible to answer this question only by turning to the ancient Greek original and carefully studying the context of the place of interpretation where the above comparison is described. In Chapter XXXII of “Explanations of the Divine Liturgy,” Cabasilas writes primarily about the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and compares its celebration with the slaughter of a sheep. After the comparison we have described, Cabasilas makes an important remark: "Ἐπεὶ δὲ ἀμφότερα μετεβλήθη καὶ τὸ ἄθυτον καὶ ὁ ἄρτος καὶ γέγονεν ἀντὶ μέν ἀθύτου τεθυμένος, ἀντὶ δὲ ἄρτου σῶμα Χριστοῦ, διὰ τοῦτο ἡ σφαγὴ ἐκείνη οὐκ ἐν τῷ ἄρτῳ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ θεωρουμένη τῷ σώματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὐ τοῦ ἄρτου ἀλλὰ τοῦ Ἀμνοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ θυσία καὶ ἔστι καὶ λέγεται" 82 . “Since a double change took place in the bread: instead of non-sacrificial bread, it became sacrificial, and instead of bread, it became the Body of Christ, then the slaughter, contemplated not in the bread, but in the substance of the Body of Christ, is and is called the sacrifice not of bread, but of the Lamb of God.” From this quotation we see that transmutation as a way of performing the Eucharistic Sacrifice includes a “double change” (ἀμφότερα μεταβολή), that is, it consists of the following two aspects: firstly, the bread changed 83 (γέγονεν) and became instead (ἀντὶ) non-sacrificial (ἀθύτου) sacrificial (τεθυμένος); secondly, the bread changed (γέγονεν) in such a way that instead of (ἀντὶ) bread it became the Body of Christ 84 . It becomes obvious that through transfiguration there really is a change of bread into the Body of Christ, described by the verb “γίγνομαι.” But what quality is this change? We see that this change, formation is characterized by the preposition “ἀντὶ”, that is, such a change occurs, after which the presence of (ἀντὶ) bread is assumed to be the Body of Christ. In other words, the bread changed (γέγονεν) to such an extent that instead of bread it became the Body of Christ. In addition, from the above quote we see that the consequence, the result of the transformation is the contemplation of the “slaughter” (ἡ σφαγή). This slaughter once really took place and is now contemplated not in bread, “but in the substance of the Body of Christ (ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ 85 θεωρούμενη τῷ σώματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ)" 86 . The participle ὑποκείμενον is adapted by Cabasilas to denote the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Cabasilah testifies that the ὑποκείμενον of the Body of Christ can be discovered under the form of bread, for the form of bread does not change. In patristic literature, the term ὑποκείμενον is used as a synonym for ὑπόστασις, which has the following meanings: “truly existing”, “substrate of matter or essence, supposedly underlying all sensory phenomena” 87. If Cabasilah was associated with this terminological tradition, then "ὑποκείμενον" could then be described as the "essence" or "substance" of the Body of Christ 88 . Cabasilas himself in no way clarifies the meaning of the term he uses and uses it only once in his “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy.” However, the key point for understanding ὑποκείμενον is precisely the context of its use. The slaughter is not contemplated in the bread, for it is not slaughtered, but it is contemplated in the present Body of Christ, which was actually once crucified and offered as a Sacrifice, that is, it was slain. Just as we saw above, Cabasilas also uses another term close to ὑποκείμενον. He writes that in the Eucharist the bread changes into “an object of slaughter” (πρᾶγμα σφαγῆς) and further explains, that is, “into the very Body of the Lord, sacrificed” 89. The term πρᾶγμα, in turn, has the following meanings: “object”, “thing”, “matter” 90. However, here, too, the context is important to us, the valuable clarification that Cabasilas himself makes, namely: “the subject of the slaughter” is “the Body of Christ Itself.” The equality that Cabasilas himself makes between the “subject of the slaughter” and the Body of Christ also allows us to rightly assert that the term πρᾶγμα in this context should be understood as essence or nature. By using the terms ὑποκείμενον and πρᾶγμα, Cabasilas tries in every possible way to emphasize the reality of the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. All this indicates to us that St. Nikolai understands transformation precisely as a change in nature, which can be conveyed by the term transubstantiation (transsubstantiatio). Thus, the very concept of μεταβολή implies a double change (ἀμφότερα μεταβολή): 1) change (transformation) of the nature of bread into the nature of the Body of Christ 91; 2) change (translation) of state: the gift (bread and wine) becomes the Sacrifice (Body and Blood of Christ). Moreover, the second change, from gift to Sacrifice, is a consequence of the first change, from bread to Body. In other words, the very performance of the Eucharistic Sacrifice would not have been possible if the gift (bread and wine) had not been changed into a Sacrifice (the Body and Blood of Christ). With his teaching on μεταβολή as a double change, Cabasilas made a significant contribution to the Orthodox teaching on transformation, although many researchers have not yet noticed this contribution. Having defined the content of the concept ἀμφότερα μεταβολή, we can establish similarities and differences between the Old Testament and Eucharistic sacrifices. In a blood sacrifice, the transition from gift to sacrifice occurs at the moment of slaughter: through slaughter, the sheep becomes a sacrifice instead of (ἀντὶ) a gift. Here the transition from gift to sacrifice is exclusively a “change of state,” that is, the second change mentioned above, for a sheep by its nature remains a sheep both before and after the slaughter, but only becomes a sacrifice instead of a gift. In the Eucharistic Sacrifice, in contrast to the bloody Old Testament, transfiguration has a double change (ἀμφότερα μεταβολή): both a change in state and a change in nature. If the Eucharistic transformation, like the transformation of the Old Testament sacrifices, had only one aspect - the transformation of state, then in this case we would have to admit that it is the bread that is slain in the Eucharist. And since, according to Cabasilas, the purpose of the sacred act is to “see the Lamb Himself” 92, then in the bread it is precisely the transformation of nature and, as a consequence, the transformation of state that occurs. Cabasilas insists that the result of the transformation is the appearance of the historical, actual Body of Christ: “The bread of the Body of the Lord (ἄρτος τοῦ Κυριακοῦ σώματος) is no longer a type (τύπος), no longer a gift like (εἰκόνα) to the true Gift or representing, as if in a picture (ὥσπερ ἐν πίνακι), a certain outline of the saving Passion, but the true Gift itself, the very all-holy Body of the Lord, which truly received all those reproaches, reproaches, wounds, crucified, perforated... endured strangling, beating, spitting, tasting bile. Likewise, Wine is the Blood itself, flowing from the perforated Body. This Body and this Blood are formed by the Holy Spirit, born of the blessed Virgin, buried, raised on the third day, ascended into heaven and seated at the right hand of the Father" 93 . Another important topic is closely related to the theme of transposition - the theme of “acceptance” (τὸ οἰκειώσασθαι) of gifts by God. To accept a gift, according to Kavasila, means to make it your property, to assimilate it to yourself (οἰκειόω). In the Eucharist, God “accepts” (οὕτως οἰκειοῦται) to Himself the gifts of the Church, bread and wine, to such an extent that He makes them not just His property, but the very Body and Blood of Christ 94. The transfiguration itself, as well as the acceptance of gifts, is performed by all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity 95. At the same time, the acceptance of gifts and the very reality of the celebration of the Eucharist is made dependent on the correct observance of the form of the Sacrament: “Gifts that are always offered in such a way as pleases God (κατὰ τὸ ἀρέσκον τῷ Θεῷ), accordingly, are pleasing to Him, and are always accepted by Him” 96 . So, we have found out that Cabasilas introduces a definition and differentiation of the concept of the Eucharistic presentation. Change (μεταβολή) is change. There are two types of transformation: transformation of nature, which consists in a change in nature, and transformation of state, characterized by a qualitative change. In the Eucharist, a change in nature leads to a qualitative change. 2.4. Communion of the Eucharistic Sacrifice Now let us briefly consider the final stage of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Kavasila notes that just as the purpose of the economy of Christ was the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Church 97, so the purpose (τέλος) of the celebration of the liturgy is the sanctification of believers through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord 98. And just as the final element of the peace offering was the festive meal 99, so the Eucharist ends with the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is called to regular participation in the Eucharist 100 unless he has committed mortal sins (ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον) that separated him from Christ. Here Cabasilas, following the First Epistle of John the Theologian (1 John 5:16–17), distinguishes two types of sin: “sin leading to death” (ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον) and “sin not leading to death” (ἁμαρτία οὐ πρὸς θάνατον). “Sin does not lead to death... does not make a person dead,” such a person is a living member of the Body of the Church and is united with Her Head, and he is called by the Church to receive communion 101. Cabasilas notes that “sins that do not lead to death” are forgiven to Christians who partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord, for “the first effect of the Holy Gifts” is the “forgiveness of sins” (ἄφεσιν λαβεῖν ἁμαρτιῶν), according to the words of Christ: This is My Body, broken for you, for forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26, 27) 102. On the contrary, one who has fallen away from the Body of the Church through committing a “sin leading to death” receives communion without benefit for himself, for “life will not pass on to the dead and severed members” 103. All who partake become “saints for the sake of the Holy One,” for by partaking of Him, “they are members of His Body, flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones” 104 . The Body and Blood of Christ, upon Their acceptance, do not turn into the human body, do not dissolve in it, like any other food. But the Body of Christ itself “transforms” (μεταβάλλεται) Christians into itself, for “the best overcomes the worst” 105. Through the performance of a joint sacrifice and the communion of the One and Indivisible Lamb, all members of the Church renew and maintain unity with each other and with their Head - Christ. In his Exposition of the Divine Liturgy, Cabasilas describes the Eucharist primarily as a true Sacrifice (θυσία ἀληθινή), in which the Church offers bread and wine as gifts to God. For St. Nicholas, the economy of Christ and His sacrificial life as a Gift and as a Lamb led to the slaughter is the prototype for the Eucharistic Sacrifice and for the Old Testament sacrifices. As a result, the stages of the economy of Christ, the stages of performing the Old Testament bloody sacrifices (peaceful sacrifice), the stages of the Eucharistic Sacrifice are similar, have the same order and structure: choosing a gift, offering a gift, making a sacrifice, communion. The Eucharistic Sacrifice, in relation to the stages of its implementation, acts as a bloody sacrifice, and in relation to the object of the offering (bread and wine) it is a bloodless sacrifice, i.e., a gift offering. At the beginning of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the selection (ἀποκοπή) of gifts is performed: a lamb is separated (ἀποκόπτειν) from the lamb prosphora and brought to the paten, wine is poured into the chalice. Thus bread and wine become gifts dedicated to God by the Church. The gifts themselves are the “firstfruits of life” (ἀπαρχὰς τῆς ζωῆς) of a person and symbolize (σημαίνενται) the life of both each individual Christian present at the liturgy, and the Church as a whole, the entire church assembly. At the same time, the gifts brought by the Church symbolize Christ, therefore the Eucharistic Sacrifice also depicts the entire economy of salvation - from the birth of Christ to the descent of the Holy Spirit. Next comes the offering (προσαγωγή) of gifts, which is performed by the priest and symbolizes the Church’s offering of itself as a sacrifice to God. Cabasilus formulates the essence of the Eucharist as a gift in the Eucharistic paradigm: “Life for life” (ζωὴν ἀλλαττόμεθα ζωῆς). Every Christian “in image” (ἐν εἰκόνι), under the guise of offering bread and wine, prayerfully promises God to become a living sacrifice to Him, i.e. dedicate your whole life to Him. The entire Church, giving its life as a gift to God under the guise of bread and wine, asks for a return gift from God, asks to give it Life itself. Christ accepts this offering and gives a return gift - the Bread of Life (His Body) and the Cup of Life (His Blood). Thus, in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Christians receive Eternal Life from God, giving and dedicating their temporary life to Him. Cabasilah teaches that every blood sacrifice takes place at the moment of slaughter, when the gift ceases to be a gift, but becomes a sacrifice. In the Eucharist, as in a bloodless Sacrifice, there is no slaughter, for here the slaughter of a gift is meaningless. In the Eucharistic sacrifice, slaughter is replaced by transfiguration (μεταβολή), when the gifts offered by the Church (bread and wine) become the true Sacrifice, that is, the true Body and Blood of the Lamb of Christ. Thus, the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the Theanthropic Sacrifice. On the one hand, without Christ’s making the Sacrifice of the Cross and without the sanctifying grace of all three Hypostases of the Holy Trinity, it would not have been possible to transfer the gifts into the Sacrifice (the Body and Blood of Christ), that is, to make the Eucharistic Sacrifice. On the other hand, if the Church did not offer bread and wine as a gift to God and did not ask for their consecration, then even in this case the Eucharistic Sacrifice could not be accomplished. Christ, as the Eternal High Priest and Eternal Sacrifice, connects His Sacrifice of the Cross with the Eucharistic Sacrifice. For although He offered Himself as a Sacrifice by human nature once on Golgotha, in any historical period of the Church’s existence in the Eucharist He reveals Himself as the Eternal Sacrifice in the true image, His Body and Blood. This is how Christ fulfills His promise: Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen (Matthew 28:20). Nicolaus Cabasilas. De vita in Christo, libri septem, I–IV / ed. M.-H. Congourdeau // SC. No. 355. 1989. P. 74–357. Nicolaus Cabasilas. De vita in Christo, libri septem, V–VII/ed. M.-H. Congourdeau // SC. No. 361. 1990. P. 12–221; 234–245 [Index des mots grecs]. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio / ed. S. Salaville // SC. No. 4 bis. 2 1967. P. 56–307. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Explicandum autem ritus celebrationem Divinae Liturgiae persolvendas / ed. S. Salaville // SC. No. 4 bis. 2 1967. P. 368–381. Asmus M., diac. On the issue of the consecration of funeral particles during the Divine Liturgy // Bulletin of PSTGU. Episode 1: Theology. Philosophy. 2005. No. 14. P. 5–22. Borner R. Byzantine interpretations of the 7th–15th centuries. for the Divine Liturgy. M.: PSTGU, 2015. Gideon (Pokrovsky), priest. Archeology and symbolism of Old Testament sacrifices. Kazan: type. Imperial University, 1888. Elimanov V. E. Eucharistology of St. Nikolai Kavasila: general overview and assessment of modern research // Metaphrast. 2020. No. 1 (3) (in print). Job (Gecha), archimandrite. The doctrine of the Eucharist by St. Nikolai Kavasila and Blessed. Simeon of Thessalonica // Materials of the V International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, November 13–16, 2007 / ed. priest M. Zheltova, A. I. Kyrlezheva. M., 2009. pp. 201–231. A Greek-English Lexicon / compiled by H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. Drisler. New York: Harper, 7 1883. A Patristic Greek Lexicon / ed. by G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. Biedermann H. M. Die Lehre von der Eucharistie bei Nikolaos Kabasilas (gest. 1371) // Ostkirchliche Studien. 1954. Bd. 3. S. 29–41. Eirini A. The Fulfillment of the Church Through the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist According to Nicholas Cabasilas // Roda da Fortuna. 2016. Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 165–179. Jungmann J. A. The mass: an historical, theological and pastoral survey. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1976. Kallistos (Ware), bishop. Not an Image or a Figure: St. Nicolas Cabasilas on the Eucharistic Sacrifice // Le Feu sur la terre. Melanges offerts au Père Boris Bobrinskoy pour son 80e anniversaire. Paris: Presses Saint-Serge-Institut de théologie orthodoxe, 2005. (Analecta Sergiana; vol. 3). P. 141–150. Metso P. J. Divine Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland, 2010 (diss). Papathanasiou C. La prassi della comunione frequente secondo l’insegnamento di Nicola Cabasilas // Nicola Cabasilas e la divina liturgia / a cura di Sabino Chialà e Lisa Cremaschi. Bose, 2007, pp. 127–138. Salaville S. Le christocentrisme de Nicolas Cabasilas // Échos d᾽Orient. 1936. T. 35. No. 182. P. 129–167. Spiteris Y. Cabasilas: teologo e mistico bizantino. Nicola Cabasilas Chamaetos e la sua sintesi teologica. Roma: Lipa, 1996. Spiteris Y. Ostatni Ojcowie Kościoła. Kabasilas. Palamas. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Księży Marianów, 2006. Tamburrino F.O., arciv. Secondo la “Vita in Cristo” di Nicola Cabasilas // Simposio Cristiano / edizione dell᾽Istituto di Studi Teologici Ortodossi S. Gregorio Palamas. 1978–1979 No. 4–5. P. 243–255. The Doctrine of St. Nicholas Cabasilas on the Eucharist as Sacrifice postgraduate student of the Moscow Theological Academy Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra, Sergiev Posad 141300, Russia For citation: Elimanov V. E. “The Doctrine of St. Nicholas Cabasilas on the Eucharist as Sacrifice.” Theological Herald, No. 1 (40), 2021, pp. 151–177 (in Russian). DOI: 10.31802/GB.2021.40.1.008 Abstract. This article is an attempt at a systematic reconstruction of the doctrine of st. Nicholas Cabasilas on the Eucharist as Sacrifice. In the work of st. Nicholas "Commentary on the Divine Liturgy", the Eucharist appears as a God-Human Sacrifice, in which the Church as a whole, and every Christian in particular, under the guise of gifts (bread and wine), offers itself, its life as a sacrifice to God. God responds to this gift and gives back Life itself, Himself. An important discovery was the definition of the semantic relationship between the stages of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the stages of the Old Testament sacrifices, and the stages of The Economy of Salvation, accomplished by Christ. It was established that every sacrifice is made at the moment of state change: when a “gift” (δῶρον) becomes a “sacrifice” (θυσία). If the Sacrifice of Calvary was made by crucifixion, when Christ from the “Gift” to God became the “Sacrifice” to Him, and blood sacrifices in the Old Testament were made by slaughter, when the sacrificial animal from the gift became the sacrifice to God; then the Eucharistic Sacrifice is performed by the transformation (μεταβολή), when the gifts (bread and wine) become the true Sacrifice, i.e., the Body and Blood of the Lamb of Christ. Keywords: the Eucharistic Sacrifice, st. Nicholas Cabasilas, offering, gift, sacrifice, Old Testament sacrifices, the Lamb of God, the Church, double transformation (ἀμφότερα μεταβολή), transubstantiation, Eucharistic realism, Eucharistic symbolism, the Eucharist as a God-Human Sacrifice. Asmus M. (2005) “K voprosu ob osviashchenii pominalʹnykh chastits za Bozhestvennoi liturgiei” [“On the Question of the Consecration of Memorial Particles During the Divine Liturgy”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, no. 14, pp. 5–22 (in Russian). Biedermann H. M. (1954) “Die Lehre von der Eucharistie bei Nikolaos Kabasilas (gest. 1371).” Ostkirchliche Studien. Würzburg: Augustiner Verlag, vol. 3, pp. 29–41. Borner R. (2015) Vizantiiskie tolkovaniia VII–XV vv. na Bozhestvennuiu liturgiiu. [Byzantine interpretations of the 7th – 15th centuries to the Divine Liturgy] Moscow: PSTGU (in Russian). Eirini A. (2016) “The Fulfillment of the Church Through the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist According to Nicholas Cabasilas.” Roda da Fortuna. Revista Eletronica sobre Antiguidade e Medievo, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 165–179. Elimanov V. E. (2020) “Eucharistologiia sv. Nikolai Kavasily: obshchii obzor i otsenka sovremennykh issledovanii” [“Eucharistology of St. Nicholas Cabasila: an overview and assessment of modern research”]. Metaphrast. No. 1 (3), pp. 174–204. (in Russian). Gecha J., Zheltov M., Kyrlezheva A. I. (eds.) (2009) “Uchenie o Evkharistii u Sv. Nikolaia Kavasily i blzh. Simeona Solunskogo” [“The doctrine of the Eucharist by St. Nicholas Cabasili and Blessed Simeon Solunsky”] in Materialy V Mezhdunarodnoi bogoslovskoi konferentsii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. Moscow, 13–16 November 2007 Moscow, pp. 201–231 (in Russian). Jungmann J. A. (1976) The mass: an historical, theological and pastoral survey. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press. Lampe G. W. H. (ed.) (1961) A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Metso P. J. (2010) Divine Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland, (diss.). Papathanasiou C., Chialà S., Cremaschi L. (eds.) (2007) “La prassi della comunione frequente secondo l’insegnamento di Nicola Cabasilas”, in Nicola Cabasilas e la divina liturgia. Bose, pp. 127–138. Salaville S. (1936) “Le christocentrisme de Nicolas Cabasilas.” Échos d᾽Orient, t. 35, no. 182, pp. 129–167. Spiteris Y. (1996) Cabasilas: teologo e mistico bizantino. Nicola Cabasilas Chamaetos e la sua sintesi teologica. Roma: Lipa. Spiteris Y. (2006) Ostatni Ojcowie Kościoła. Kabasilas. Palamas. [The last Church Fathers. Kabasilas. Palamas]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Księży Marianów (in Polish). Tamburrino F. O. (1978–1979) “Secondo la ‘Vita in Cristo᾽ di Nicola Cabasilas.” Simposio Cristiano, edizione dell᾽Istituto di Studi Teologici Ortodossi S. Gregorio Palamas, no. 4–5, pp. 243–255. Ware K. (2005) “Not an Image or a Figure: St. Nicolas Cabasilas on the Eucharistic Sacrifice” in J. Getcha, M. Stavrou (eds.) Le Feu sur la terre. Melanges offerts au Père Boris Bobrinskoy pour son 80e anniversaire. Paris: Presses Saint-Serge-Institut de théologie orthodoxe, pp. 141–150. (Analecta Sergiana, vol. 3). See: Elimanov V. E. Eucharistology of St. Nikolai Kavasila: general overview and assessment of modern research // Metaphrast. 2020. No. 1 (3). pp. 174–204. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXII, 10 // SC. 4. P. 204. Ibid. XLIX, 24 // SC. 4. P. 286. Ibid. V, 4 // SC. 4. P. 80. Ibid. XXV, 1 // SC. 4. P. 166. Ibid. XIV, 7 // SC. 4. P. 120. Ibid. V, 3 // SC. 4. P. 78. The principle of “life relationship” was key to the selection of the gift in the Old Testament sacrifices. It consisted, firstly, in the fact that the gift must be chosen from the property of the donor, acquired by his own labor and efforts; secondly, the gift must be a means of subsistence for the person himself; thirdly, the gift must be valuable for the donor himself, the best of everything he has. See: Gideon (Pokrovsky), Hierom. Archeology and symbolism of Old Testament sacrifices. Kazan, 1888. pp. 29–32. About the stages of a peace offering, see in more detail: Ibid. P. 36. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio V, 2–3 // SC. 4. P. 78. Ibid. X, 1 // SC. 4. P. 92. Ibid. II, 5 // SC. 4. P. 72. Ibid. II, 4 // SC. 4. P. 70. Ibid. V, 3 // SC. 4. P. 78–80. Ibid. II, 4 // SC. 4. P. 72. Here it is obvious that Cabasilas follows the theory of “recapitulation” (Latin recapitulatio, Greek ἀνακεφαλείωσις - “heading”). Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio II, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 72. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XVI, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 128. Ibid. VIII, 3 // SC. 4 bis. P. 88. Ibid. XVI, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 128. Ibid. XXXVII, 3 // SC. 4 bis. P. 228. Ibid. XXXVII, 6 // SC. 4 bis. P. 228. Ibid. XVI, 5 // SC. 4 bis. P. 128. Greek ἀποκοπή - literally translated as “cutting out”, “cutting off”, since we are talking about removing the lamb from the lamb prosphora. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio VI, 2 // SC. 4 bis. P. 80. Ibid. III, 2 // SC. 4 bis. P. 72. The idea of ​​offering bread and wine in the Eucharist as fruits of the earth and perceiving them as symbols of human life and human labor has been formulated liturgically since the end of the 3rd century, for example, in the hymn “offertorium”. Jungmann J. A. The mass: an historical, theological and pastoral survey. Collegeville, Minnesota, 1976. P. 222, 120; See: Metso P. J. Divine Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. P. 158. Ibid. III, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 74. Ibid. XLVIII, 7 // SC. 4 bis. P. 272. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio IV, 2 // SC. 4 bis. P. 76. Ibid. IV, 2–3 // SC. 4 bis. P. 76. Ibid. IV, 3 // SC. 4 bis. P. 76. Tamburrino F.O., arciv. Secondo la “Vita in Cristo” di Nicola Cabasilas // Simposio Cristiano. 1978–1979 No. 4–5. P. 253. The use of the participle in the plural is the result of the unclear formulation of Kabasila's thought. See for more details: Asmus M., diac. On the issue of the consecration of funeral particles during the Divine Liturgy // Bulletin of PSTGU. Episode 1: Theology. Philosophy. 2005. No. 14. P. 11. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio V, 1 // SC. 4 bis. P. 78. Ibid. V, 1, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 78–80. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio V, 3 // SC. 4 bis. P. 78. Ibid. IV, 3 // SC. 4 bis. P. 76. See also: Nicolaus Cabasilas. De vita in Christo, libri septem II, 83 // SC. 355. P. 210. Gideon (Pokrovsky), priest. Archeology and symbolism of Old Testament sacrifices. pp. 35–36. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio VI, 1 // SC. 4 bis. P. 80. Ibid. XLVII, 2–4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 264–267. Ibid. X, 6 // SC. 4 bis. P. 94. Ibid. X, 7 // SC. 4 bis. P. 94. On the theological significance of the offering of funeral particles, see: Borner R. Byzantine interpretations of the 7th–15th centuries. for the Divine Liturgy. M., 2015. pp. 279–280. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio I, 9 // SC. 4 bis. P. 62. Ibid. XVIII, 3 // SC. 4 bis. P. 138. Ibid. XXXVII, 2 // SC. 4 bis. P. 226. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXVII, 2 // SC. 4 bis. P. 226. Ibid. I, 7 // SC. 4 bis. P. 62. Ibid. XI, 1 // SC. 4 bis. P. 98. Ibid. I, 9 // SC. 4 bis. P. 62. Ibid. LI, 1 // SC. 4 bis. P. 294. Ibid. XXXII, 11 // SC. 4 bis. P. 204. Ibid. XXXII, 2. // SC. 4 bis. P. 202. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Explicandum autem ritus celebrationem Divinae Liturgiae persolvendas 9 // SC. 4 bis. P. 374. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXII, 3 // SC. 4 bis. P. 202. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXII, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 202. Ibid. XXX, 15 // SC. 4 bis. P. 196. Ibid. XXXII, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 202. Ibid. XXXII, 8 // SC. 4 bis. P. 204. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXII, 12 // SC. 4 bis. P. 204. That is, through proposal. Metropolitan came to similar conclusions. Callistus (Ware). He finds it extremely important that the act of transfusion is placed by Cabasilas at the very core of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Metropolitan Callistus notes that at the moment of consecration the bread is not sacrificed, but is transformed into the Body of Christ. Interpreting Cabasilah's idea of ​​change, he calls the changes of bread and wine a “rite of passage.” See: Kallistos (Ware), bishop. Not an Image or a Figure: St. Nicolas Cabasilas on the Eucharistic Sacrifice // Le Feu sur la terre. Melanges offerts au Père Boris Bobrinskoy pour son 80e anniversaire. Paris, 2005. (Analecta Sergiana; vol. 3). P. 149. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXII, 15 // SC. 4 bis. P. 206. Biedermann H. M. Die Lehre von der Eucharistie bei Nikolaos Kabasilas (gest. 1371) // Ostkirchliche Studien. 1954. Bd. 3. S. 30. See: Spiteris Y. Cabasilas: teologo e mistico bizantino. Nicola Cabasilas Chamaetos e la sua sintesi teologica. Roma, 1996. P. 135. This conclusion is a necessary consequence of the archbishop’s interpretation. Job, chapter 32 of “Explanations of the Divine Liturgy.” The researcher notes that, according to Kavasila, there is no change from the “substance” of the bread into the “substance” of the Body. However, he immediately admits that “this does not prevent Cabasilas from speaking about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic Bread and Wine.” The fallacy and inconsistency of the researcher’s thoughts are obvious. See: Job (Gecha), archimandrite. The doctrine of the Eucharist by St. Nicholas Cabasilas and Blessed. Simeon of Thessalonica // Materials of the V International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, November 13–16, 2007 / ed. priest M. Zheltova, A. I. Kyrlezheva. M., 2009. pp. 212–213. Metso P. J. Divine Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Joensuu, 2010. P. 83. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXII, 14 // SC. 4 bis. P. 204–206. γίγνομαι (Greek) "to become", "to change". Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXII, 14 // SC. 4 bis. P. 204. ὑποκείμενον – lit. “base”, “subject”, “subject”, “type”. Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXII, 14 // SC. 4 bis. P. 206. See: A Greek-English Lexicon / compiled by H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. Drisler. New York, 1883. P. 1630; A Patristic Greek Lexicon / ed. by G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford, 1961, pp. 1449–1450. Metso P. J. Divine Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Nicholas Cabasilas. Joensuu, 2010. P. 95. A Patristic Greek Lexicon / ed. by G. W. H. Lampe. P. 1126; A Greek-English Lexicon / compiled by H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. Drisler. P. 1262. In this study we say that in the Eucharist at the moment of transfiguration there is a change in nature (φύσις), and not in essence (οὐσία), for Cabasilas himself extremely rarely uses the term “οὐσία”, preferring it to the term “φύσις”. See, for example, the “index of Greek words” given by M. Congourdeau: Congourdeau M.-H. [Index des mots grecs] // SC. 361. P. 241, 244. Despite the fact that Cabasilas read the third part of the “Summa theologiae” of Thomas Aquinas in the translation of Prochorus Kydonis, he does not use the concept of “property” in relation to the consecrated Gifts, as Aquinas did. Thus Kavasila, apparently, consciously avoids the problems associated with the distinction between nature and properties in the consecrated Gifts. Ibid. XXVII // SC. 4 bis. P. 174. Ibid. XLVII, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 266. See: Ibid. XLVII, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 266; XXX, 15 // SC. 4 bis. P. 196; XXVIII, 2 // SC. 4 bis. P. 178. Ibid. XLVI, 10 // SC. 4 bis. P. 262. Ibid. I, 1 // SC. 4 bis. P. 56. Gideon (Pokrovsky), priest. Archeology and symbolism of Old Testament sacrifices. pp. 75–77. Read more about the teachings of St. Nicholas Cabasilas on frequent communion and its benefits, see: Papathanasiou C. La prassi della comunione frequente secondo l’insegnamento di Nicola Cabasilas // Nicola Cabasilas e la divina liturgia / a cura di S. Chialà e L. Cremaschi. Bose, 2007, pp. 127–138. See: Nicolaus Cabasilas. Sacrae Liturgiae interpretatio XXXVI, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 224. Ibid. XXXIV, 2 // SC. 4 bis. P. 212. Ibid. XXXVI, 4 // SC. 4 bis. P. 224. Ibid. XXXVI, 1 // SC. 4 bis. P. 222. Ibid. XXXVIII, 2 // SC. 4 bis. P. 230.