Memorial

Summary

1 The Biblical Concept of Memorial

1.1 Memorial: In the Old Testament

1.2 Memorial: In the New Testament

2 The Eucharistic Memorial

2.1 The Memorial and the Mysterial-Sacramental Understanding of the Eucharist

2.2 The Eucharist, a Memorial Sacrifice

2.3 In the Memorial We Live “Sacramental Time” or “Redeemed Time”

1 The Biblical Concept of Memorial (cf. CHENDERLIN, 1982; NEUNHEUSER, 1992)

The theological importance of the concept of “memorial” is rooted in Jesus’ command at the last supper, when instituting the Eucharist: “Do this as my memorial” (cf. 1Cor 11:24-25; Lk 22:19). Jesus says this in his historical and cultural context, from the Old Testament and Jewish horizon that is his own. It is therefore appropriate to return to the biblical roots of memorial/anámnesis/zikkaron.

“Memorial” – and not memory – is the best translation of the Greek anámnesis that occurs in the words of Jesus at the last supper when instituting the Eucharist and expresses what he commanded to be done every time we eat the eucharistized bread and drink the wine (cf. 1Cor 11:24-25). The Greek word, in turn, translates the Hebrew zikkaron which is found, for example, in Ex 12:14, in the narrative of the institution of the Jewish Passover supper.

1.1 Memorial: in the Old Testament (cf. EISING, 1977)

The first thing to say is that zakar (qal), mimne_iskomai (“to remember/to recall”), in the Bible, is not a mere action of a subjectivity clinging to the past. It is not historical or psychological retrospection. It could be said that “to remember” is a performative verb, it accomplishes something, expresses an action with consequences for the present and the future and, with that, an action that, from the past, erupts into the present, opening the future. To take a profane, non-liturgical case, think of the “remembrance” of Pharaoh’s cupbearer in Gn 40:14, 23 and 41:9. “To remember” Joseph is to intervene on his behalf. When the same verb appears in the religious context of worship or prayer, its performative dimension is reinforced, because when God “remembers,” he acts salvifically according to his promises. It is enough to consider that, in 68 Old Testament occurrences of the verb zakar in qal (one of the modes of Hebrew verb conjugation), God is the subject of “remembering” and the object is his action on behalf of humanity, and when the subject of zakar is the human being, 69 times the object from a grammatical point of view is God or his salvific action. This mention means that the remembered past becomes active, full of salvific efficacy. This perspective is proven by the opposite, when considering a text like Ps 34:17 or 9:7: God erases the memory of the wicked. Their disappearance, as if they had never been, is attributed to God. From which it is deduced that the “remembering” of someone by God is something that belongs, so to speak, to the ontological order, it is to exist before God and by the action of God. “The human being lives, because God remembers him and he has the duty to praise God, remembering his wonders” (EISING, 1977, p.586). On God’s part, zakar is a creative action in favor of his people (cf. EISING, 1977, p.591). “Remembering” is, therefore, effective, it produces an effect.

The subject of the action of “remembering” can be God or the human being, but the object, when in a religious context, is the covenant, God’s salvific action, and the positive or negative human response.

In this way, the semantic group around the word “memorial” should not be narrowed down to just one side, as if one aspect excluded the other. By affirming that the memorial aims to remind God, it is not excluded that it also aims to remind the human being and vice-versa.

In the context of the covenant, the group of words evokes the mode of persistent and widespread petition, coupled with thanksgiving, in which God is asked for the people […] to “remember his covenant promises,” a practice that, simultaneously, underlines that the petitioners are themselves remembering them (CHENDERLIN: 1982, p. 216-217, § 448).

With the concept of zikkaron, to the idea of “remembering” is added that of a sign, and for this reason, it is often linked to ‘ôt, sign (cf. Josh 4:6-7; Ex 13:9; Num 17:3, 5; Ex 12:13-14). And this sign can be for God as well as for human beings. And, therefore, have the purpose of reminding God as well as reminding human beings.

“To remember” appears, then, as a reference to the past that is made in the present. But it is also necessary to add its intentionality with respect to the future. Is 47:7 and Eccl 11:8, for example, show how the future can also be the object of “remembering.” The future can be remembered because it will come, with all certainty, and will have consequences that can be foreseen. Or also, because in it the promises of God, already known, will be fulfilled. By making God’s past salvific action present in worship, the promise of salvation linked to the event is updated, and thus salvation already happens. To cry out to God a cry that recalls his promises awakens hope: they will be fulfilled. To tell human beings to “remember” the actions of God in history incites obedience, observance of the commandments, and, consequently, to welcome God’s salvation.

Anamnesis is thus a “remembering” of the origin that remains decisive for the present and for the future. The past is remembered to interpret the present and make the future possible (cf. FABRY, 1993, p. 590). The worship of Israel is always an anamnesis. The feasts – many of them or even all – originating from a religion of nature are historicized, becoming in the Old Testament an anamnesis of the great deeds of God: the liberation from Egypt (Passover), the giving of the Torah (Pentecost), the people’s stay in the desert (Feast of Tabernacles). In this way, the feasts testify to the permanent presence of God in history, combining remembrance of the past, permanent significance, and eschatological perspective. Thus it is seen that it is not a matter of purely revolving around something that is gone and will not return and is ever more distant, but to anamnesis is proper an actualizing force that reveals that the action of God is maintained in the present. Remembering is a mediation between the action of God in the past which, as such, remains in the past and is not repeated, and the permanent significance of that same action which has its roots and origins in that past that is evoked in the anamnesis and is mediated for today through a celebration or a specific liturgical gesture, such as the holding of the Passover supper each year.

1.2 Memorial: in the New Testament (cf. MICHEL, 1942)

The complexity of the terms memorial/anámnesis/zikkaron, to remember/zakar/mimimne_iskomai remains present in the New Testament. “The word of Jesus shows its power by remaining alive in the memory of the disciples” (MICHEL 1942, p. 681). Peter remembers Jesus’ prophecy about his denial and, therefore, weeps bitterly (cf. Mk 14:72; Mt 26:75; Lk 22:61-62). But it is especially after the resurrection that the effectiveness of the disciples’ “remembrance” is manifested (cf. Lk 24:6, 8). The Gospel of John insists on this aspect as a source of faith and of knowledge (cf. Jn 2:22 and 12:16). “To remember” is true knowledge because it results from the action of the Spirit (cf. Jn 14:26). “The Holy Spirit confirms, consolidates, clarifies the work of Jesus and thus brings with it a definitive, conclusive remembrance” (MICHEL 1942, p.681). Tradition, in the strong theological sense of the term, is this “remembering” that occurs through the action of the Holy Spirit in the transmission of the Word, in the Christian conformation of existence through love for the needy (cf. Heb 13:3), in the celebration of the liturgy. It is not a historicizing, nor intellectualist, nor doctrinal remembrance, but a vivification by the Word in an experience celebrated in the liturgy under the action of the Spirit of Christ. This affirmation of the Holy Spirit as the source and pledge of the salvific realism that operates in it is fundamental for the understanding of memorial/anámnesis/zikkaron in the New Testament sense.

Thanks to the action of the Holy Spirit, the memorial is effective; it does not run the risk of being the nuda commemoratio that the Council of Trent excluded as an explication of what happens in the Eucharist (cf. DH n. 1753). With the Spirit of Christ acting, one can recognize the efficacy of the memorial. It is capable of making the sacrifice of Christ perennial and making us participants in his salvific mystery.

Regarding the temporality of the memorial, the New Testament adds a new and essential aspect. The promises of God were definitively fulfilled in Jesus Christ (he is the “yes” of God, cf. 2 Cor 1:20), the eschatological times have arrived (cf. Heb 1:1), the future becomes present, because in the resurrection of Jesus the disciples touched with their hands (cf. 1 Jn 1:1) the future that belongs to us. Memory is thus also “memory of the future.”

It is by keeping in mind all this semantic richness of the biblical term memorial/anámnesis/zikkaron that one must understand the command with which Jesus established the iteration of the rite he created at the last supper. The interpretation of the command of iteration as “Do this to keep my memory alive” narrows and even distorts the meaning of “memorial.” Firstly, because it understands “memory” in an intimate psychological sense. If what Jesus did is not always repeated, he will fall into oblivion. It would depend on human action to keep the remembrance of the Lord and his salvific action alive. In this case, the memorial would be a mere human action and the presentification of the paschal mystery and our participation in the salvation given to us by Christ would depend on our initiative. We do not do the memorial “to keep alive” the memory of Jesus, but rather God himself calls us (as ekklesia) to celebrate the memorial and thus leads us to “keep alive” the memory of Jesus.

In other words: the memorial is a gift. The memorial is an action of the Holy Spirit in a sacrament, in mystery, in likeness, according to the proper dynamic of sacramental action (cf. GIRAUDO, 2003, p. 509-512). It is primarily an action of God who calls us (ek-klesía) to, in the power of the Holy Spirit, perform the sign (ôt) which is a memorial (zikkaron) of the mystery of Christ. The sign is the gesture of taking bread and wine according to Jesus’ command. It becomes a memorial when we pronounce over the offerings the thanksgiving for the salvific work accomplished by Christ. Memorial is pure grace, because it is obedience to the Lord’s command. It is Christ who acts in the Holy Spirit to make us “contemporaries” of Calvary and of the tomb of the Risen One, partaking of the bread that makes us the body of Christ to be given for others.

The concept of memorial/anámnesis/zikkaron does not, therefore, correspond to the everyday use of the vocabulary of “remembrance, memory” which denotes subjectivism. In a nostalgic moment, I turn my thoughts to the past and “recall” the happy moments or painful passages of life. The past remains past, the present is nourished by a recollection that awakens certain feelings, and life goes on. It is pure nostalgia. In the biblical, liturgical, theological context, memorial is much more; it is an institution established by God that refers us to the past, gives meaning to the present, and opens us to the future.

2 The Eucharistic Memorial

The biblical and Jewish roots of “memorial” and its use in the context of the institution of the Jewish Passover supper (cf. Ex 12:14) illuminate the Eucharist as the Christian Passover, since it is obedience to the command of iteration given by the Lord at the last supper, which the Synoptic Gospels identify as a Passover supper (cf. GIRAUDO, 2003, p. 127-143; GIRAUDO, 1989, p. 162-186).

2.1 The memorial and the mysterial-sacramental understanding of the Eucharist

The Jewish understanding of the Passover memorial becomes very clear from the saying attributed by Talmudic tradition to Rabbi Gamaliel, who would be either Paul’s own master in Judaism (cf. Acts 22:3), or his grandson of the same name. He summarizes in a lapidary way what every pious Jew experienced when eating the paschal lamb, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs annually (cf. GIRAUDO, 2003, p. 112-115; GIRAUDO, 1989, p. 143-146):

In every single generation, everyone is obliged to see himself as having himself come out of Egypt, as it was said “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of this that the Lord did for me [what he did], when I came out of Egypt” [Ex 13:8]. Not only our fathers did the Holy One – blessed be He! – redeem, but also us he redeemed with them, as it is said: “And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he had sworn to our fathers” [Dt 6:23]. (GIRAUDO, 2003, 112s; bold mine, italics from the author)

First, observe what is in italics, namely: expressions that include in the founding event – the liberation from Egypt – the one who now celebrates the Passover. It was not only them, our fathers, but us today who left Egypt, us the Almighty redeemed. This perspective is confirmed by another moment of the Passover ritual: the allegory of the four sons. The second son, classified as wicked, does not include himself in the salvation wrought in the liberation from Egypt and thus neither in the community of Israel, therefore denying his roots (cf. GIRAUDO, 1989, p. 137; GIRAUDO, 2003, p. 107).

It is so fundamental to know oneself to be included in the celebration of the historical and unrepeatable intervention of YHWH that not to do so excludes one from the salvific effect proper to the divine action. It is, therefore, a mysterial-sacramental understanding of the Passover supper, in which the notion of sacramental memory is at stake. This is the first point that must be kept in mind to understand the Eucharist as a memorial.

A second point to observe in Gamaliel’s clause is what is in bold. It is the interpretation of Ex 13:8. “It is because of this.” One might ask, “this” what? In the case of the Jewish Passover: the lamb, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs (cf. Ex 12:1-14). That is to say: the essential elements that cannot be missing from the Jewish Passover supper are the sacramental signs that figuratively refer the participants of the supper to the paschal event of the crossing of the Red Sea (cf. Ex 14:15-31), a unique and unrepeatable event. Today’s partakers become present in mystery to the founding event, they are transported by these signs to the crossing of the Sea which, like every historical event, can no longer be repeated. Today’s Passover is the same Passover of the fathers. Under the salvific aspect, on the mysterial-sacramental plane, there is no difference between the lamb, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herb of that last supper in Egypt and the same elements of the current Passover. And “it is because of this” (of the lamb, of the unleavened bread, of the bitter herb) that the Lord redeemed us.

This perspective of the Jewish Passover supper clarifies the meaning of the Eucharist. With the same intention of instituting a zikkaron/memorial/anámnesis, Jesus broke the bread and distributed the chalice. The mysterial-sacramental perspective inherited from Judaism allows for understanding the scope of Jesus’ gesture. Plagiarizing Gamaliel’s admonition, it is fitting to say:

From generation to generation, each one of us is obliged to see himself – with the piercing eyes of faith – as having been there at Calvary on the first Good Friday and before the empty tomb on the morning of the resurrection. For not only our fathers were there; but also all of us, gathered here today to celebrate the Eucharist, were there with them, about to die in the death of Christ and to rise in his resurrection (GIRAUDO, 2003, p. 90; GIRAUDO, 1989, p. 116).

In the signs of the bread and wine left by Jesus, we become today salvifically contemporary with the redemptive event of the Lord’s death and resurrection. In mystery or sacrament, we participate in the unique and unrepeatable historical event that brought redemption to us. Through this bread and this wine over which the memorial thanksgiving was pronounced and for which the coming of the Holy Spirit was invoked, we are truly transported – in faith – to the founding event and we participate in it. “It is because of this” (the sign of the bread and wine over which the memorial of thanksgiving was pronounced) that we are redeemed (cf. JOHN PAUL II, 2003, n. 4; GIRAUDO, 2008, p. 51).

The transposition of Jewish mystagogy to the Eucharist allows for a better grasp of the realism of the Eucharist: through the memorial of the Lord’s self-giving under the signs of bread and wine, we appropriate the redemption in Christ and he becomes present, as the true Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. We too can say: this bread that we now break, is the one that Jesus broke, prophetically signifying his body given for us; this wine that is now here in the chalice is that wine that Jesus drank at the last supper, prophetically announcing his blood poured out (cf. GIRAUDO, 1989, p. 221-222; GIRAUDO, 2003, p. 168-169).

2.2 The Eucharist, a Memorial Sacrifice

From the salvific realism of the memorial, one can recognize the Eucharist as a sacrifice. On this point, the first thing to do is to underline that the sacrificial character of the Eucharist does not tarnish the unicity of Christ’s sacrifice. He is the unique priest of the new and eternal covenant; his sacrifice is also unique, as it is not ritual, but historical, experiential, existential and, like every historical fact, unrepeatable. To express it, however, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes use of cultic, ritual, and priestly vocabulary, but intrinsically transforms it, applying it to the profane reality of Jesus’ historical existence. The constant reference to the Levitical cult serves to distance oneself from it and to show it surpassed by the historical worship carried out by Jesus, which culminates in his death on the cross. As a historical event, with all the horrors of the tortures to which people condemned as evildoers are subjected, the sacrifice of Christ is absolutely unrepeatable; it happened once for all (cf. Heb 9:12 and 26) and, with that, abolished all sacrifices. Thus, Christ is the end of the priesthood and of sacrifices, as he is of the Law (cf. Rom 10:4). End means both “termination” and “goal.” In this sense, Christ is the end and the fulfillment of all priesthood, and his life, culminating in the cross and resurrection, is the end and fulfillment of all sacrifice. In this condition, further sacrifices become unnecessary, because by his life he definitively, eschatologically, realized the claim of every sacrificial act: to present us to God and to be welcomed with a benevolent gaze.

From this irreducible affirmation of the unicity of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, the meaning of the Eucharist and its sacrificial character is illuminated. The Eucharist is not the New Testament pendant to the temple sacrifices. In the temple of Jerusalem (and in the sacrifices of all religions), each sacrifice is a new sacrificial act, distinct from the previous one, so that they can be numbered, and thirty sacrifices are worth more than ten. The Eucharist, on the contrary, is the whole of Calvary and nothing more than Calvary. And nothing is added to it.

To understand how, despite the unicity and sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, the Eucharist can be and is a “sacrifice <in the> true and proper sense” (DH n. 1751), the concept of memorial comes to our aid. It allows us to see the Eucharist as totally relational to the sacrifice of the cross. It is a sacrifice because it is a memorial; it is a sacrifice because it is a sacrament of the one sacrifice (cf. AVERBECK, 1967).

2.3 In the Memorial We Live “Sacramental Time” or “Redeemed Time” (PAMPALONI, 2008, p. 87-103)

If the memorial makes us contemporaries of the historical action that is the death of Jesus and his manifestation to the disciples as the Risen One, it can be explained by distinguishing between “physical time” and “sacramental time.” Responding to Calvin’s questioning, who denied the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic bread because, being in heaven at the right hand of the Father, he could not, at the same time, be on earth under the species of bread and wine, the Council of Trent makes an important distinction between “physical space” and “sacramental space,” declaring there is no contradiction between them (cf. GIRAUDO, 2003, p.540). The presence of Christ in heaven, at the right hand of the Father, does not prevent him from being present to us sacramentally in his substance, in many other places, “according to a mode of existence that, although we can hardly express it in words, we can recognize through thought illuminated by faith as possible for God and in which we must firmly believe” (DH n. 1636).

In other words: there is no contradiction between the physical presence – which by definition is unique – and the sacramental presence, multiple, in all the Eucharists that are celebrated on the face of the earth. In the same way, it must be possible to affirm that there is no contradiction between the physical time in which the sacrifice of Calvary was realized and its perpetuation in each “today” of the Eucharistic celebrations. The concept of “sacramental time” is very apt because it evokes that it is in sacrament, in mystery, that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit (cf. CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 2003, n. 1333; TABORDA, 2015, p. 287-309), we become here and now contemporaries of the event of Calvary and of the experience had by the women on Sunday morning at the tomb of the Risen One.

Massimo Pampaloni suggests that we understand “sacramental time” as an irruption of God into chronological time, qualifying the latter as “redeemed time” (PAMPALONI, 2004, p. 98-100; TABORDA, 2015, p. 79-84). In the liturgy, we live immersed in the sacramental anticipation of the redeemed time which is the “time” we will experience in the definitive and eschatological communion with God. Liturgical time is, therefore, redeemed time that does not experience the fragmentation of the here-and-not-there, of the now-and-not-later. The liturgy is not a repetition of the past; but, by transporting us through faith and sacramental signs to the founding event, it is, each time it is celebrated, a further step on our journey towards the definitiveness of the full union with the Lord in the eschatological ecclesial body.

Our contemporaneity with the past and the future is possible thanks to the resurrection of Christ, because, having ascended to heaven, this junction is already realized in him. We could illustrate this through two biblical perspectives found, respectively, in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in Revelation.

In Revelation, the seer sees the Lamb who is at the center of the throne, standing and as if slain (cf. Rev 5:6). The Lamb is the Risen One in the glory of the Father. He is standing, as a victor, as one who has a special dignity and can stand before God (cf. Acts 7:55). But he is “as if slain,” because the Risen One is the Crucified One, and Jesus is in the glory of the Father with his whole history that culminates and is summarized in his death. We – each of us – are what we become in the course of our history. No one is born ready; we make ourselves day by day, through our decisions in the face of the struggles we suffer, before the circumstances in which our existence unfolds, the scene in which we live. We make ourselves each day, and only at the moment of death can we say who we truly are, for only then do we enter into definitiveness. That is why Jesus, being true man, is with the Father with his history, his life of self-giving unto the cross.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is presented as the true priest who surpasses and fulfills the Levitical priesthood. The starting point is the liturgy of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the great day of expiation, the maximum feast of the temple of Jerusalem (cf. Lv 16:3-34). On this one day of the year, the High Priest (and only he), to offer the blood of the victims to God, passed through the veil that separated the most sacred part of the temple, the Holy of Holies, from profane gaze. But, in order to have access to the presence of the Most High, he needed to purify himself of his own sins by the sacrifice of bullocks and goats.

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews sees in this temple liturgy a “shadow of the good things to come” (Heb 10:1). The true priest is Christ who entered once for all into the true Holy of Holies, heaven, without needing to purify himself beforehand, because he was made like us in everything but sin (cf. Heb 4:15). And he entered not by a ritual act, but by a historical act, his death as a condemned man, put outside the sacred place and even of the Holy City, having to bear upon himself the ignominy of the cross (cf. Heb 13:12-13). His sacrifice is himself, his life, his history. For this very reason, he surpasses all ancient worship and there he is, with the Father, interceding forever for us (cf. Heb 7:25), presenting to the Father his life from his entry into the world (cf. Hb 10:5-7) to his death on the cross (cf. Hb 13:12). He is, as the liturgy says, “at the same time priest, altar, and lamb” (ROMAN MISSAL, Preface of Easter V).

In view of these two biblical perspectives from Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews, there were those who postulated the admission of a “heavenly sacrifice” (LEPIN, 1926, p. 737-758). The history of each person is what identifies them as this person (it is the “body” of the person). Now, in the eschatological fullness, we do not lose our identity; on the contrary, we affirm it, for there too we will “carry” – for good and for ill – our own history, which is the history of our freedom. The same is true of the glorious Christ, so that the “heavenly sacrifice” is not “another sacrifice,” to which the Eucharist would refer, but the same sacrifice of Calvary made perennial in glory as a “heavenly sacrifice” that serves as a mediation so that, in celebrating the Eucharist, we become contemporaries of the sacrifice of the cross perpetuated by the existence of Christ in eternity, the victor over death who bears in his body the wounds of the Crucified One (cf. Jn 20:20 and 27).

In short: the Eucharistic memorial makes Christ present, and with him, his life, death, resurrection, manifestation in the Spirit, and parousia, because in his paschal mystery Christ redeems time. Through the memorial, under the action of the Holy Spirit (epiclesis), we participate in this “redeemed time,” and with that, Christ becomes present to us and in us, transforming us, through communion, into his ecclesial body. Therefore, in the Eucharistic prayer, after praising the Father, remembering (= memorial) what he did for us in his Son Jesus and in view of him, we implore that he send the Spirit with the dual purpose: to transform the gifts of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, so that, in receiving communion, we may be transformed into the ecclesial body (cf. GIRAUDO, 2003, p. 306-318; GIRAUDO, 1989, p. 436-439).

Francisco Taborda SJ – Jesuit Faculty of Philosophy and Theology. Original Portuguese text. Posted in December 2020.

References

AVERBECK, W. Der Opfercharakter des Abendmahls in der neueren evangelischen Theologie. Paderborn: Bonifatius-Druckerei, 1967.

CATECISMO DA IGREJA CATÓLICA. São Paulo; Petrópolis: Loyola, Paulinas, Ave-Maria, Paulus, Vozes, 1999 (reprint: June 2003).

CHENDERLIN, F. “Do This as My Memorial”.  The Semantic and Conceptual Background and Value of ‘anamnesis’ in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982.

EISING, H. zakar. In: BOTTERWERK, G; RINGGREN, H. (eds.). Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. v. 2. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln; Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1977. p. 571-593.

FABRY, H.-J. Anamnese. III. Biblisch. In: KASPER, W. et al. (eds.). Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. 3.ed. v. 1. Freiburg; Basel; Rom; Wien: Herder, 1993. p. 590-591.

GIRAUDO, C. Eucaristia per la Chiesa: Prospettive teologiche sull’eucaristia a partire dalla lex orandi. Roma: Gregorian University Press; Brescia: Morcelliana, 1989.

______. Num só corpo: tratado mistagógico sobre a eucaristia. São Paulo: Loyola, 2003.

______. Admiração eucarística: para uma mistagogia da Missa à luz da encíclica Ecclesia de Eucharistia. São Paulo: Loyola, 2008.

JOÃO PAULO II. Encíclica Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 17 de abril de 2003. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/pt/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch.html. Accessed on: 27 Feb 2020.

LEPIN, M. L’idée du sacrifice de la Messe d’après les théologiens depuis l’origine jusqu’à nos jours. Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1926.

MICHEL, O. Mimine_iskomai ktl. In: KITTEL, G. (ed.). Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. v. 4. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1942. p.678-687.

NEUNHEUSER, B. Memorial. In: SARTORE, D.; TRIACCA, A. M. (org.). Dicionário de Liturgia. São Paulo: Paulinas, 1992. p. 723-736.

PAMPALONI, M. A liturgia como pastor do tempo. In: BARROS, P. C. (org.). A serviço do Evangelho: estudos em homenagem a J. A. Ruiz de Gopegui, SJ, em seu 80º aniversário. São Paulo: Loyola, 2008. p. 87-103.

______. Lettura strutturale del Sermone In Ascensione Christi di Gregorio di Nissa: teologia e percorsi sacramentali del testo. Roma: Facoltà di Scienze Ecclesiastiche Orientali. Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2004 (pro manuscripto).

TABORDA, F. O memorial da Páscoa do Senhor: ensaios litúrgico-teológicos sobre a eucaristia. 2.ed. São Paulo: Loyola, 2015.