Host ?

[ChadS]

It was actually quite helpful. The early Church is not a place we really want to go to, it was such a terrible mess. We have to make sense of this things now, in the light of sound logic and the Holy Scriptures. The rest we will leave for others who the Lord would empower with wisdom by His Spirit.

Thanks,
Pophead.

If the early church was such a mess then why go to the Scriptures for answers, seeing that it was just as much a product of the early church that you so casually dismiss?

Yes I realize that scriptures are the Word of God, but they are just as much a human product too.

ChadS

 

[FCEGM]

Have you read **St. Augustine’s **point of view ?

. . .

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. **If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. **. . . .

The problem with your interpretation of Augustine’s quote above is two-fold: First, you are misunderstanding what he is referring to. He is not saying that the Eucharist itself is merely figurative. What he is saying is that the “criminal dimension” of the Eucharist is figurative. He is saying exactly what the Catholic Church believes when we profess that the Eucharist is Christ’s Blood Sacrifice made literally present in our midst in an unbloody way. In other words, we Catholics do not believe that we are crucifying Jesus all over again when we celebrate the Eucharist. Rather, the real presentation of His Sacrifice (which is a metaphysical reality) is done in a figurative way, using the physical signs of bread and wine. This is what Augustine is referring to.

Second, we know for certain that Augustine believed in the Catholic position on the Eucharist -that is, the Real Presence and the Eucharist as Sacrifice - because he directly says so in his other writings. Your misinterpreation of his quote above makes Augustine contradict himself. For example, he writes:

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.” (Augustine, Sermon 227, 21).

and. . .

“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the Blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”. (Augustine, Second Discourse on Psalm 32". Ch.

and. . .

"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf. (St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2)

and. . .

"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible Sacrifice, therefore, is the Sacrament (i.e., the Eucharist), that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible Sacrifice. . . . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the Sacramental sign of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His Body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him. (Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426.)

So, your misinterpretation of Augustine’s statement simply cannot be reconciled with his comprehensive testimony. Your interpretation is simply wrong and rooted in ignorance of historical context and comprehensive Catholic theology, theology promoted by Augustine himself.

 

[FCEGM]

Dear Mat.,

Woven within the context of what St. Augustine said, you mght want to consider this sober teaching. . . . .

Then you cite Exodus 23:18, Leviticus 3:17, 7:26-27 and 17:10-1 and quote some deluded person named Fruchtenbaum.

His is a foolish argument against the Holy Eucharist on several counts. As if it even needs to be said, Christians are no longer bound by the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law (Romans 3:28). We are no longer obligated to observe a Saturday sabbath, or eat kosher, or offer animals sacrifices, or any of the other legal prescriptions mandated (along with abstaining from eating blood) in the Torah. We are no longer under a Covenant of Law, but under a Covenant of Grace in and through Jesus Christ, Who frees us from the Law and calls us to a righteousness that supercedes the Law (see Matt. 5).

So, in arguing that we are bound by the prescriptions in Exodus and Leviticus, etc., you are violating the freedom that we have in the New Covenant and trying to Judaize Christians, just as the Christ-believing Pharisees tried to do, that is, impose the Mosaic Law on Gentile Christians (Acts 15:1-2). See, for example, Romans 14:1-23 and 1 Cor. 10:23-33, where Paul makes it very clear that Gentile Christians are not bound by the Torah, but should only avoid eating un-kosher (which included abstaining from meat with animal blood in it) if and when it offended their Jewish-Christian brethren. This was the reason that the discipline of Acts 15:28-29 was imposed on the 1st Century Gentile Christians - so that they would not alienate or break communion with the Jewish Christians who were still observing the Law, and who could not eat with them (and so celebrate the Eucharist with them) if they ate meat with blood in it; but, there is nothing un-Christian or sinful about eating bloody meat in and of itself. Paul makes this very clear in Romans 14. Go read it. Indeed, if a modern American Christian likes to eat his steak or hamburger rare (and so with some blood in it), is this a “sin” against God??? No rational Christian thinks so. Fruchtenbaum doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Also, as I touched on above, your citations of Exodus and Leviticus are misplaced, since we Catholics are not ingesting physical Blood when we celebrate the Eucharist. Rather, Christ and His Blood are metaphysically present in the Eucharist, for the Eucharist is His Sacrifice made present in our midst in an unbloody way. We are not spilling His physical Blood again and again. Rather, His Body and His Blood are made present to us in metaphysical reality under the physical forms of common bread and wine. This is why the early Jewish Christians were able to receive the Eucharist without breaking kosher.

What you apparently fail to grasp is what the terms “Body” and “Blood” ultimately refer to in an ancient, Jewish mentality. For an ancient Jew (like Jesus and the Apostles), one’s Body referred to one’s very Self; and, following Deuteronomy, one’s Blood referred to one’s very Life. The reason that Jews were forbidden to eat animal blood was because, in the ancient Semitic understanding, “the blood is the life” and life belongs to God alone. But, in the NEW Covenant, Christ gives His Life FOR US; and shares His Life WITH US in the context of a one-Flesh/one-Blood Covenant between God and man, calling us to “share in the Divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). Thus, what was prohibited by the Law is overturned and expanded in the New Covenant. Christ does this without violating the original form of the Law since, in the Eucharist, He gives His very Self (His Body) and His very Life (His Blood) to us in an unbloody way.

However, you fail to see all of this because you profoundly misunderstand what Catholics actually believe about the Eucharist; so you are chasing shadows and not addressing the substance of our true doctrine.

 

[ChadS]

The bloody history of the Church tesifies that things are done, smoothed over and then altered to keep the illusion that all is well, legends included.

Pophead:

Until a substantial reply to this post is given, I will conclude that the so called process whereby a lowly substance is transformed into the living, breathing Christ is no more than a legend, promulgated by heretical legends of a bygone era, where matters were not agreed upon in accordance with sound logic and sound doctrine, but constituted by the whims and wishes of fanciful dreamers and no more.

We see the real point of your posts now. Your original post was answered time and time again and you still claim a “substantial” reply has yet to be given. You were never here to learn or seriously inquire. You waited for the right moment to trot out all the old canards about the “bloody history” of the church and how the doctrine of the eucharist is a “heretical legend.”

We all get your point and intent now.

ChadS

 

[juliamajor]

Dear Mat.,

Woven within the context of what St. Augustine said, you mght want to consider this sober teaching.

The Prohibition of injesting of blood or human flesh, according to Sacred Scripture

i) Leviticus 17:10-12:

v. 10 "Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood - I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

v. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

v. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, ‘None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.’ "

ii) Exodus 23:18:

“Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to Me along with anything containing yeast. The fat of my festival offerings must not be kept until morning.”

iii) Leviticus 3:17:

“This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.”

iv) Leviticus 7:26-27:

v. 26 "And wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal.

v. 27 If anyone eats blood, that person must be cut off from his people."

*"Something that was forbidden in its lesser form would certainly be forbidden in its greater form. It was strictly forbidden to partake of blood of any kind in passages such as Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10-16; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23. The primary emphasis of these passages is on animal blood, though the phrase “all manner” would include just that, all manner of blood which would include human blood. At any rate, even if the focus is only on animal blood, if animal blood was forbidden, then clearly human blood would be forbidden as well. " *
-*Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum *

I hope that this make matters clearer.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

Oh please -I’ve been listening to this sort of garbage my whole life- please come up with something unique, clever , insightful instead of warmed over refuse- you’re so transparent and trite that i 'm only slightly irritated Whaddya guys given a handbook? -it’s ALWAYS the same line-Please get something original or pack up your hood and cross burning materials and slink softly into the night-

 

[Pophead]

Dear CAF friends,

I am not going to continue arguing the point of St. Augustine’s Retractions in Christian Doctrine. It is obvoius. Secondly, I am not going to force the issue: that Messiah Yeshua came to fulfil the law and the prophets.

That being said, I completely reject the idea of the host, and defer to what Jesus said,

"I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

May His truth prevail,

Pophead.
John 3:27

 

[juliamajor]

John :6. Your logic and theology are underwhelming

 

[FCEGM]

Dear CAF friends,

I am not going to continue arguing the point of St. Augustine’s Retractions in Christian Doctrine. It is obvoius.

To whom?? Was Augustine in communion with Ambrose (the one who Baptized him) and Jerome? Well, this is what they have to say:

“You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that
are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.” --Ambrose, “The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.

“Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed. . . . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures. . . . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.’ [1 Cor 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body.” -"On the Mysteries"9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.

“His poverty enriches, the fringe of His garment heals, His hunger satisfies, His death gives life, His burial gives resurrection. Therefore, He is a rich treasure, for His bread is rich. And ‘rich’ is apt for one who has eaten this bread will be unable to feel hunger. He gave it to the Apostles to distribute to a believing people, and today He gives it to us, for He, as a priest, daily consecrates it with His own words. Therefore, this bread has become the food of the saints.” -Ambrose, “The Patriarchs” Ch. 9:38

“Thus, every soul which receives the bread which comes down from heaven is a house of bread, the bread of Christ, being nourished and having its heart strengthened by the support of the heavenly bread which dwells within it.” -Ambrose, “Letter to Horontianus” circa 387 A.D.

“After the type had been fulfilled by the passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.” -Jerome, “Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew”[4,26,26] 398 A.D.

So, there is nothing “obvious” about your false interpretation of St. Augustine. You are copping-out and you know it.

Secondly, I am not going to force the issue: that Messiah Yeshua came to fulfil the law and the prophets. That being said, I completely reject the idea of the host, and defer to what Jesus said,
“I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

Uh huh. And when did Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist)?? It was during the Jewish Passover, was it not??? And what type of bread did Jews use during that time of year??? It was unleavened bread, was it not??? And what is the Catholic host??? It’s a flat piece of unleaven bread - the very type of bread that Jesus Himself used. Therefore, you “completely reject the idea of the host” on what grounds???

 

[Pophead]

Therefore, you “completely reject the idea of the host” on what grounds???

Frances,

This is the simplist way of expression what I believe.

'I think that I am more inclined to believe in the figurative interpretation, therefore allowing me the joy of celebrating a commemorative meal of bread and wine, as I remember the Lord’s death ‘till He comes.’

More often than not we use unleavened bread, and we have a bottle of wine in the cupboard, but I prefer the non-alcoholic grape. We also recite 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and have done so since 1976.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[NotWorthy]

Frances,

This is the simplist way of expression what I believe.

More often than not we use unleavened bread, and we have a bottle of wine in the cupboard, but I prefer the non-alcoholic grape. We also recite 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and have done so since 1976.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

Wow, this sounds vaguely familiar. I remember reading about something similar to this in Northern Israel (the 10 tribes) when the King, wanting to stop the faithful from worshipping in Jersusalem (Judah), built two places of worship at Dan and Bethel saying, “Hey, it’s the same thing”. Of course, Yahweh, through the prophets tended to disagree…

But hey, Pophead, at least you know God.

 

[runandsew]

Frances,

This is the simplest way of expression what I believe.

'I think that I am more inclined to believe in the figurative interpretation, therefore allowing me the joy of celebrating a commemorative meal of bread and wine, as I remember the Lord’s death ‘till He comes.’

More often than not we use unleavened bread, and we have a bottle of wine in the cupboard, but I prefer the non-alcoholic grape. We also recite 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and have done so since 1976.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

You might want to keep in mind that at the last supper when Jesus says do this in remembrance of me, the Greek word used is anamnesis. (a remembering, recollection)
It has a special meaning here beyond just a commemorative meal.

If you do a word search for this unique word “anamnesis”, you will find it always being used in reference to a sacrifice in the New Testament, and in the Septuagint (Greek version) Old Testament.
It is only used in Luke 22:19 ,1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and in Hebrews 10:3 in the New Testament and in Numbers 5:15; 1 Kings 17:18 in the Septuagint Old Testament.
Again all these passages point to a remembrance in a sacrificial setting.

**Numbers 5:15 **
Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth [part] of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it [is] an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to **remembrance **

**1Kings 17:18 **
And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?

**Luke 22:19 **
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in **remembrance **of me.

1 Corinthians 11:24-25
And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in **remembrance **of me. After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in **remembrance **of me.

** Hebrews 10:3**
But in those [sacrifices there is] a **remembrance **again [made] of sins every year.

“Offer this as my memorial sacrifice”

In Greek, these words are Touto poiete eis tan emain anamnesin. They are usually translated into English as “Do this in remembrance of me,” but this does not do full justice to the words.

First of all, the word poiein or “do” has sacrificial overtones. This can be seen by examining the way it is used in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. As Protestant theologian D. M. Baillie says in his book The Theology of the Sacraments: “There is no doubt that this verb is used frequently in the LXX in a cult or sacrificial sense. Gore says there are from 60 to 80 instances.”

He then goes on to give examples. For instance, Exodus 29:38: "This is that which you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two lambs . . . " Here the verb poiein should clearly be translated as “offer,” as all the Protestant translations of this passage have it. I checked the King James, the Revised Standard, and the New International Version, and they all render it as “offer.”

Just to name a couple other verses where poiein has the same sacrificial meaning, look up Leviticus 9:7 and Psalms 66:15. The first literally says in the Septuagint: “Moses said to Aaron, ‘Come to the altar and do your sin offering and your burnt offering and make atonement for yourself and the people; sacrifice the offering that is for the people and make atonement for them, as the LORD has commanded.’”

The second says: “I will do fat animals to you and an offering of rams; I will offer bulls and goats. Selah”

Jesus’ word anamnesis, usually translated “remembrance,” also has sacrificial overtones. For example, in the NIV of Hebrews 10:3 we read, “But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins.” The word for “reminder” in this passage is anamnesis. The passage thus tells us that these sacrifices are an annual anamnesis, an annual memorial offering, on behalf of the sins of the people. In fact, all of the occurrences of this word in the Protestant Bible, both in New Testament and the Greek Old Testament, occur in a sacrificial context.

An anamnesis of a memorial offering which one brings before God to prompt his remembrance. The thought is the same as when the Psalmist urges God to remember him, or the congregation, or Mount Zion, or how the enemy scoffs, or how God’s servant has been mistreated.

The idea of a memorial offering is to present the gift to God and prompt him to take action. For example, in the NIV of Numbers 10:10 we read: “Also at your times of rejoicing . . . you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial (the Septuagint word here is anamnesis) for you before your God.”

Joachim Jeremias admits this in his book. While liberal Protestant scholarship tried to interpret the Lord’s Supper as a pagan memorial meal which merely commemorated a loved one, Jeremias saw through this and recognized the Palestinian background for the Lord’s Supper and its offering of the elements to God to prompt his remembrance of Jesus and what he did.

In his book, the Eucharistic Word of Jesus, Joachim Jeremias states: “The command for repetition of the Lord’s Supper may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me.’ How is this to be understood? Here an old Passover prayer is illuminating. On Passover evening a prayer is inserted into the third benediction of the grace after the meal, a prayer which asks God to remember the Messiah. . . . In this very common prayer, which is also used on other festival days, God is petitioned at every Passover concerning ‘the remembrance of the Messiah’” p. 252.

So Jesus’ command to the disciples to “do this in memory” of him was a command to present the elements to God as an anamnesis, as a memorial sacrifice to bring to God’s mind the work that Jesus did on the cross for us. The statement, Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin

 

[NotWorthy]

You might want to keep in mind that at the last supper when Jesus says do this in remembrance of me, the Greek word used is anamnesis. (a remembering, recollection)
It has a special meaning here beyond just a commemorative meal.

Runandsew, good point. While you’re studying anamnesis, take a look at poien.

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, “Do this in memory of me.” In Greek, this statement reads, “Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin.” There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase *touto poieite *can be translated as *do this *or as *offer this. *In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites “you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs” (Ex. 29:38). This use of *poiein *is translated as *offer this *or *sacrifice this *over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

 

[FCEGM]

Frances,

This is the simplist way of expression what I believe.

'I think that I am more inclined to believe in the figurative interpretation, therefore allowing me the joy of celebrating a commemorative meal of bread and wine, as I remember the Lord’s death ‘till He comes.’

And if Jesus had something more in mind, and if the entire ancient and medieval Church, consistently and without exception, believed that He had something more in mind, that’s just too bad? Pophead, I’m afraid yours is a “religion” of pure subjectivity. You’d make a very good Gnostic or Mormon. And, although you didn’t directly answer my question (i.e., On what grounds do you “completely reject” the Host?), let me articulate your answer for you based on what you said above: You completely reject the Host because it does not suit your fancy, and so presents an inconvenience that you are not willing to bear – see John 6:66.

More often than not we use unleavened bread, and we have a bottle of wine in the cupboard, but I prefer the non-alcoholic grape. We also recite 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and have done so since 1976.

Well, then we Catholics are a couple thousand years ahead of you, it seems. As for “the nonalcoholic grape,” Scripture says “wine” - the alcoholic beverage, not “grape juice”. By what authority do you modify the Word of God and the element chosen by Jesus Christ?? No one serves grape juice at a Wedding Feast. …Or a Passover. But, again, your own private fancy is the final authority for you no matter what the Divine intention is.