1 Corinthians 11:29-30

[sandusky]

MichaelGazin

It occurred to me that I have missed answering your question again. You are asking about authority with respect to the bread. Is it the authority of the individual believer, or of some church authority, or of the authority of The Lord.

That is not spelled out in the N.T. If I want to grab some bread, or some wine, or some grape juice on a fishing trip, or camping outing with some other believers, and have a communion service, I can do that. I see no N.T. prohibition against it, as long as myself and others have examined our hearts, and do it in remembrance of Him.

 

[E.E.N.S]

So much does the protestant miss out on when he/she only has one of the three legs on the stool (Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Magisterium) to stand on.

 

[sandusky]

michaelgazin:

It should be translated as remembrance, however the hebraic understanding of this remembrance is different than the understanding we commonly apply to it today. As was stated, its use was commonly in reference to a sacrifice.

It should be translated as remembrance, because I have yet to find even a secondary definition. The definitions that I have shown you, and others, give one definition. It was used in cases of remembering, or memorializing someone. If the Hebrew mind understood something different, I submit that the Hebrew mind would have used a different word, to convey the understanding that it had. They certainly had other words in their vocabulary that were explicit as to sacrifice. I submit that there is a bias on the part of the one who wrote the commentary that you used, and have still not cited. The sources I have cited are reliable, and respected sources in the realm of biblical langauages and their usage.

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

Here is a nice article on anamnesis that you might find helpful. It is written by a Lutheran and there are references. Check it out at:
luthersem.edu/word&world/Archives/6-4_Romans/6-4_Jones.pdf#search=‘anamnesis’

 

[sandusky]

Ryan,

Thank you for your perception, and your considerate words.

RyanL:

True. That was the final aspect of the Passover. Could you please tell me on which house they were to place the blood (Ex 12:7)? Also, could you please quote Ex 12:8 in your response and tell me what kind of bread was to be used? Ex 12:11 - “…you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover.” (NKJV)

They were to put it on the house in which they ate it, then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

RyanL:

I made no such statement. I said that there was no biblical reason to believe this would certainly be the case. Catholic theology holds that those who have never partaken may also attain that promise (through desire or through the infinite mercy of God), so again your paraphrase is not my belief.

Understood.

Your response to my query on your Pt #2:

RyanL:

It was a sacrifice undertaken at the hands of the priests for the faithful.

To clarify, you are typing the Levites with the RCC priesthood. I am sure you know that will raise other issues for you to overcome, ie., is there any basis for a N.T. priesthood.

Your response to my query of baptism being necessary to partake of the Eucharist:

RyanL:

Gladly. Biblical prefigurements are quite common (and I can go on at some length, but would prefer another thread on which to do it). In this particular example, Ex 12:48 states “…No uncircumcised male may eat of it.” In other words, you had to enter a covenant relationship with God for the Passover to be properly observed. In the NT Church, baptism has replaced circumcision (Col 2:10-12). The Church teaches that you must be baptized to receive Holy Communion.

I don’t see how you can connect O.T. circumcision, with N.T. baptism. Circumcision was not peculiar to the Hebrews, even at the time of Abram, but its significance is, I believe similar to baptism, in that circumcision, while performed externally, symbolically showed man’s need for cleansing of the heart (Dt. 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Acts 7:51; Rom 2:29); and, it was an outward sign of that cleansing of sin that comes by faith in God (Rom 4:11; Phil 3:3).

But there is a fatal problem in carrying O.T. circumcision across to N.T. baptism as a replacement. Namely, that only men were circumcised, and not women, and in the N.T. we see women being baptized (Acts 16:14, etc.). I don’t see the need to replace circumcision, but it is your typological system, not mine.

Your response to my query on your Pt. #6, the penalty for not observing the Passover.

RyanL:

Failure to attend mass (read: keep the NT Passover) is a mortal sin.

That is peculiar to the RCC. I can think of no N.T. mandate regarding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, other than, “as often as you do this….”

RyanL:

Do the 10 Comandments belong to Israel or the Church? I am not advocating a return to Levitical law, but when God says to “do xxx forever”, we should probably listen; He doesn’t tend to change His mind.

The law was given to the Jews, and yes, the moral side of the law is binding upon everyone, believer and unbeliever unlike. The point that I was making is that Israel, and the Church are two separate things. Israel will be brought into the Church, but the Church will never be Israel.

 

[RyanL]

sandusky,

I’m very pleased that you desire dialog. Thank you.

sandusky:

They were to put it on the house in which they ate it, then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

Yes. Eating was (and still is) a very important part of the Passover. I assert that God commanded it for a reason. History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme…

sandusky:

To clarify, you are typing the Levites with the RCC priesthood. I am sure you know that will raise other issues for you to overcome, ie., is there any basis for a N.T. priesthood.

Yeah, the priesthood can get to be a pretty lengthy discussion. I assure you, however, that it is biblical. If you would like to start a new thread about it in the apologetics forum, we could hash it out…

sandusky:

I don’t see how you can connect O.T. circumcision, with N.T. baptism.

Actually, I didn’t. God did.
Col 2

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: **** 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (KJV)

sandusky:

… circumcision, while performed externally, symbolically showed man’s need for cleansing of the heart (Dt. 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Acts 7:51; Rom 2:29); and, it was an outward sign of that cleansing of sin that comes by faith in God (Rom 4:11; Phil 3:3).

Certainly, this aspect is present. I would submit to you, however, that every Jew would disagree that this is merely the case. It was never understood to be an “optional” thing that “merely symbolized”. They would tell you that it’s not an either/or, it’s a both/and. It is an entering into a covenential relationship with God, as well as an outward sign of the cleansing.

sandusky:

… I don’t see the need to replace circumcision, but it is your typological system, not mine.

Actually, it’s God’s (2 Col 2:11-12). The important difference is that while circumcision could not save a person (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “Baptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21). But this thread isn’t about baptism, either. Again, a new thread in the apologetics forum would probably work best.

sandusky:

That is peculiar to the RCC. I can think of no N.T. mandate regarding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, other than, “as often as you do this….”

Peculiar to the Church does not mean “incorrect”. Also, we’re not a “Bible-based church”, the Bible is a “Church based book”. Unless you know how to read it, it won’t make perfect sense (see: Ethiopian of Acts 8). Don’t expect all knowledge to come from the Bible alone - seek the interpretations of the Early Church Fathers. See what the first Christians believed. See what the disciples of the Apostles taught (Ignatius, for starters). See if it is consistant with the Catholic Church, and if it is it should probably be given weight. Remember, the Greek in 2 Pet 3:16 is not “unlearned”, it’s αμαθεις, or “un-discipled”. How do you get discipled? In the Church.

sandusky:

The law was given to the Jews, and yes, the moral side of the law is binding upon everyone, believer and unbeliever unlike. The point that I was making is that Israel, and the Church are two separate things. Israel will be brought into the Church, but the Church will never be Israel.

Amen. Where does the Bible say that only the moral side is still binding? Where does it say that we should no longer keep the Passover, after God said we should keep it forever?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[sandusky]

Yes, though we are on completely different sides of the fence, I enjoy the discussions.

RyanL:

Certainly, this aspect is present. I would submit to you, however, that every Jew would disagree that this is merely the case. It was never understood to be an “optional” thing that “merely symbolized”. They would tell you that it’s not an either/or, it’s a both/and. It is an entering into a covenential relationship with God, as well as an outward sign of the cleansing.

Circumcision was not an option, yes. But circumcision, as baptism, cannot save. That is Paul’s point about Abram and his justification in Rom 4:9-10. So if you bring circumcision to baptism, you must admit that baptism does not save. It is the same as Abram, he was justified (saved by God), and then he was circumcised. That is the N.T. example in Acts: repent/believe, be baptised. Further, what about the women?

RyanL:

Actually, it’s God’s (2 Col 2:11-12). The important difference is that while circumcision could not save a person (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “Baptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21). But this thread isn’t about baptism, either. Again, a new thread in the apologetics forum would probably work best.

Yes this is not a thread about baptism, but you are not reading Peter carefully. He says that baptism now saves you not by the removal of dirt from the flesh, but by what?

RyanL:

Amen. Where does the Bible say that only the moral side is still binding? Where does it say that we should no longer keep the Passover, after God said we should keep it forever?

God says: You shall not… and You shall… There is no statement that the moral law is still binding, but God never retracts the two introductory statements I’ve given. Again, you must understand this: The Passover was given to Israel, the Passover is not for the Church. Christ is for the church. Yes, Paul says Christ is our Passover Lamb, but the Passover is distinctly Jewish.

 

[sandusky]

Pax

I read the link that you provided above. Thank you, I agree with what the author is saying in regard to anamnesis. It has given me a much better understanding of your interpretation of the passage in question on this thread. In fact, there is nothing that I would greatly dispute, with repect to the article, not with respect to your understand of the 1 Cor 11 passage.

There is to be a vivid, emotional intensity connected to the rembrance of the Lord’s Supper. There should be no dispute between one who believe’s as I do, and one who believes as you do concerning that.

But the article does not address the major point of disagreement between the Catholic, and the non-Catholic: Are the words “this is my body” figurative, or literal?

You know my position.

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

I see this as progress in an ecumenical dialogue. We at least are coming to some common ground on anamnesis. Consider how the Lutheran, a non-Catholic, views anamnesis and the Eucharist. The Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist is consubstantiation as opposed to transubstantiation. Episcopalians also believe they have the true presence in the Eucharist and see anamnesis in the same way. The true presence is the historical and constant teaching of Christianity. The digression from this has only been since the reformation.

 

[Pax]

sandusky:

Yes, though we are on completely different sides of the fence, I enjoy the discussions.

Circumcision was not an option, yes. But circumcision, as baptism, cannot save. That is Paul’s point about Abram and his justification in Rom 4:9-10. So if you bring circumcision to baptism, you must admit that baptism does not save. It is the same as Abram, he was justified (saved by God), and then he was circumcised. That is the N.T. example in Acts: repent/believe, be baptised. Further, what about the women?

Yes this is not a thread about baptism, but you are not reading Peter carefully. He says that baptism now saves you not by the removal of dirt from the flesh, but by what?

God says: You shall not… and You shall… There is no statement that the moral law is still binding, but God never retracts the two introductory statements I’ve given. Again, you must understand this: The Passover was given to Israel, the Passover is not for the Church. Christ is for the church. Yes, Paul says Christ is our Passover Lamb, but the Passover is distinctly Jewish.

First of all, it is important to remember that OT prefigurations are not completely congruent to NT realities. They are afterall, only shadows of what will come later. This holds true for the relationship of circumcision to baptism as well as the Passover to the Eucharist. Jesus instituted baptism and it is declared in scripture that baptism “now saves you.” The subsequent verses to this statement in no way change that reality. So also, it is of no consequence to say that the Passover was given to the OT Jews and not to Christians. Christ’s institution of the Eucharist which is based on the Passover is given to the Church. The connections are unmistakable. As Catholics we do not celebrate the Passover. Instead we celebrate that which Jesus instituted and we take him at his word.

At the very least, I would think that you would begin to see that the Catholic position is a viable one based on scripture. We see our exegesis as valid and you consider yours to be valid. As Catholics we believe our position to be scripturally stronger while you probably feel the same way about your position. This kind of scriptural stalemate occurs frequently among all denominations.

When this kind of thing happens we feel that the best way to determine the truth is to examine history to see what the earliest and constant teaching has been within Christianity. In the case of the Eucharist, baptism, and many other doctrines the historical data supports the Catholic position. So far, you have not seen the data as sufficient to sway your belief.

IMHO, the obstacles to accepting the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, and even baptism, are not scriptural reasons. It would seem that at least part of it is a result of the “faith tradition” in which a person is immersed. The Catholic looks through a Catholic lens and the non-Catholic looks through a different lens. Dialogue can give us a lens with a bi-focal equivalent to where each side can begin to view what the other party sees.

I can appreciate why non-Catholics consider the Eucharist to be a symbolic event within their worship. It is an incredible gift of faith to be able to believe that the Holy Spirit performs this miracle at every mass celebrated in Catholic Churches. Even if scripture repeatedly pounded the statement home concerning the true presence in language that “no one” questioned, it would not be enough to bring more people to belief. It is, as scripture says, a hard saying, and who can bear it?

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

I see this as progress in an ecumenical dialogue. We at least are coming to some common ground on anamnesis.

Pax, I don’t want you to have the wrong impression. I am not ecumenical; I am, as God is, committed to the exclusive claims of Christ.

As far as common ground on anamnesis, perhaps you should re-read the link that you provided me. The writer quite clearly calls the Lord’s Supper a remembrance, and not a sacrifice, which is your contention, and the contention of Michaelgazin, and the contention of the RCC.

Pax:

At the very least, I would think that you would begin to see that the Catholic position is a viable one based on scripture.

No I don’t. I find the Catholic position to be contrary to Scripture at every point. The work of Christ is finished, the sacrifice completed, and He sits (continuously) at the right hand of the Father, until He returns.

Pax:

IMHO, the obstacles to accepting the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, and even baptism, are not scriptural reasons.

Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree with you more.

Pax:

Even if scripture repeatedly pounded the statement home concerning the true presence in language that “no one” questioned, it would not be enough to bring more people to belief.

That is true, but as it speaks, it speaks not at all to your understanding of real presence.

Peace

 

[Pax]

sandusky:

Pax, I don’t want you to have the wrong impression. I am not ecumenical; I am, as God is, committed to the exclusive claims of Christ.

Ecumenical does not mean compromising the truth.

sandusky:

As far as common ground on anamnesis, perhaps you should re-read the link that you provided me. The writer quite clearly calls the Lord’s Supper a remembrance, and not a sacrifice, which is your contention, and the contention of Michaelgazin, and the contention of the RCC.

Anamnesis means more than a simple “remembrance.” I thought you got that out of the article. That was the common ground I spoke of.

sandusky:

No I don’t. I find the Catholic position to be contrary to Scripture at every point. The work of Christ is finished, the sacrifice completed, and He sits (continuously) at the right hand of the Father, until He returns.

The most you can legitimately claim is that you prefer your interpretation over ours. Our understanding, IMHO, has considerably more weight to it than yours and we have demonstated that in prior posts. Not only that, we have history and the constant teaching of Christianity prior to the reformation on our side of the issue.

sandusky:

Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree with you more.

That is true, but as it speaks, it speaks not at all to your understanding of real presence.

Peace

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Anamnesis means more than a simple “remembrance.” I thought you got that out of the article. That was the common ground I spoke of.

That is why I wrote the last post, I do not want you to misunderstand my position. It is a remembrance/memorial; it is not a sacrifice as Michaelgazin and yourself have tried to make it out. It is a remembrance, that’s why the word is used. Though it is intense and emotional, it is a remembrance

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

Read these articles:
catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp

bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm

Hopefully this will clear things up a bit more for you.