Host ?

[Pious_Mat]

If the priest, the human medium through which the Holy Eucharist passes, is able to “taint” it through his own sin, then what about scripture?

All the people who contributed to scripture were sinners, and they were the medium through which God “breathed” the scriptures.

Hence, it follows that if the “disease” of sin is passed on through its human mediums from God, then scripture, like the Eucharist, is made invalid through the sins of its authors.

Donatism, or anything remotely near it, leads down a terribly slippery slope.

 

[rlg94086]

To believe this requires more than logic or faith.

Really? What faculties do you think the Church uses for this belief? Your comment only makes sense if it is coming from a materialist or naturalist. For a Christian to think that it is impossible for God to turn bread and wine into His Son’s Body and Blood is a little strange.

Pophead:

So why it is neccessary to perform such a ritual, in the first place, is a great puzzle to me: for this takes no cognisance of the new covenant, the blood offered once for all by the eternal Spirit and equally takes no congnisance of the promise of the Father, given to every true child of God.

Yet upon this matter, it might be that faith has not yet been fully formed in the heart and therefore one would approach such with one’s own understanding and not by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I have studied these matters most closely and cannot find any reason to pursue either arguement from reason, or further wrtings which promote a decidedly ancient ritual, that has no more value than the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats did under the old priesthood…

Pophead.

Well, you haven’t studied enough obviously.

I would recommend you read the following from the Catechism explaining the Church’s teachings regarding the Eucharist. There is pleny of faith and logic here and reference to the Holy Scripture. Be sure to read the whole link and all of the footnotes and references, so you may fully understand. I realize you may have full confidence in your personal knowledge and understanding of Christ’s revelation, but there have been a few people who have been considering these things for a few years before you were born.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm

God bless,
Robert

 

[FCEGM]

If the priest, the human medium through which the Holy Eucharist passes, is able to “taint” it through his own sin, then what about scripture?

All the people who contributed to scripture were sinners, and they were the medium through which God “breathed” the scriptures.

Hence, it follows that if the “disease” of sin is passed on through its human mediums from God, then scripture, like the Eucharist, is made invalid through the sins of its authors.

Donatism, or anything remotely near it, leads down a terribly slippery slope.

Excellent points, Mat.

 

[NotWorthy]

… 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.

This is an odd statement. Why do you say that? The Early Church gives us a great view into the development of Doctrine, as well as who or what influenced that development.

 

[metal1633]

and who knows what foul incantations might have been procured upon the host, thereby rendering it defiled and unusable.

Pophead. The Host is not an “IT”. The Host is Jesus Christ. What sort of “foul incantations” are more powerful that He?

 

[jmcrae]

Pophead. The Host is not an “IT”. The Host is Jesus Christ. What sort of “foul incantations” are more powerful that He?

And how likely is it that someone given to making “foul incantations” would make it through 12-14 years of Seminary formation, without being detected and thrown out before ever confecting a single Eucharist?

 

[NotWorthy]

The legend goes that St. Francis, while traveling through the countryside entered a village. The villagers, upon seeing him, brought St. Francis to the priest’s cottage, catching the priest unawares with his mistress. The villagers were outraged by the priest’s infidelity, and wanted St. Francis to admonish him in front of everyone.

Upon arriving at the priest’s house, St. Francis got off his donkey (he was rather old at this time), hobbled over to the priest, gathered the man’s hands in his, got down on his knees, and said, "All I know is these are the hands that give me the Body and the Blood of Christ’!!!

The priest, upon realizing the sin on his soul, as well as the magnitude of his duties, got rid of the mistress, repented his ways, and became a wonderful priest for the village and the surrounding area.

 

[Pophead]

And how likely is it that someone given to making “foul incantations” would make it through 12-14 years of Seminary formation, without being detected and thrown out before ever confecting a single Eucharist?

jmcrae,

Well, it seems the last post about the legend of St. Francis…and the prirest who was committing grievious sexual sins, all that one needs to do is take his hand remind him of his oaths and bingo, all is well.

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.

I am still waiting for a comprehensive reply to my last comment, until such I will withold any further comments.

Pophead.

 

[Pious_Mat]

The inner reservior of the human soul can well accomodate a legioin of demons, but a tiny host does neither have the retention nor the required reservior or accomodation and what’s more the idea defies the new covenant, which makes all true believers priests and kings unto GOD. (read all the stanzas, please)

Aprops the “priesthood of all believers thing,” our very own Tim Staples solves it very nicely:
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplesreformedthinking.html

And as for whether or not the bread is really His flesh:
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplesmyfleshrealfood.html

In the beginning, that is before the High Priest came down from heaven, (The Lord Jesus Christ) the Spirit of God would come upon, and at times be within priests, prophets and certain chosen vessels for certain reasons (however it was not permanent), BUT when Jesus spoke to the disciples, he explained that the Godhead would come to take up residence in the sons and daughters of the living God.

So why it is neccessary to perform such a ritual, in the first place, is a great puzzle to me: for this takes no cognisance of the new covenant, the blood offered once for all by the eternal Spirit and equally takes no congnisance of the promise of the Father, given to every true child of God.

The sacrifice is indeed once and for all, which is why we will celebrate mass until the end of time. Also, Christ commanded us to celebrate the eucharist. Let’s read some more about why we receive it:
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603uan.asp

Regards the once and for all thing:

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9006chap.asp

Yet upon this matter, it might be that faith has not yet been fully formed in the heart and therefore one would approach such with one’s own understanding and not by the revelation of Jesus Christ…

Are you suggesting that the church made this stuff up? The RCC began with Christ, and our core beliefs haven’t changed since:

catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

I have studied these matters most closely and cannot find any reason to pursue either arguement from reason, or further wrtings which promote a decidedly ancient ritual, that has no more value than the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats did under the old priesthood…

Have you read about the Catholic point of view? I don’t think you have.

And finally, let’s see another argument that re-affirms the priesthood not as something established by men, but by Christ:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

Your friend,

Mat.

 

[metal1633]

Clearly from your most recent posts you do not believe in the Eucharist nor do you believe any of the previous superstitious drivel you posted about “Foul Incantation” defiling the Eucharist.

So WHY should we continue taking to such an obviously dishonest person?

 

[rlg94086]

jmcrae,

Well, it seems the last post about the legend of St. Francis…and the prirest who was committing grievious sexual sins, all that one needs to do is take his hand remind him of his oaths and bingo, all is well.

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.

I am still waiting for a comprehensive reply to my last comment, until** such I will withold any further comments.**

Pophead.

Okay.

 

[NotWorthy]

jmcrae,

Well, it seems the last post about the legend of St. Francis…and the prirest who was committing grievious sexual sins, all that one needs to do is take his hand remind him of his oaths and bingo, all is well.

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.

I am still waiting for a comprehensive reply to my last comment, until such I will withold any further comments.

Pophead.

Pophead, I’m terribly sorry. You see, I was the one that posted the St. Francis Legend.

In posting it, I thought you were being sincere in your OP. But seeing the intent behind your subsequent postings, it seems that I was mistaken. I’ll withdraw from this thread so that you can continue in your endeavor.

Good day.

 

[japhy]

It is not about completely amending your life, it is about having an advocate with the Father. Jesus either died for all your sins, past, present or future and has thereby reconciled you to God, or you are still lost in them.

Really? It’s not about “go and sin no more”? What good is it to have an advocate with the Father when we are immoral, or idolaters, or adulterers, or sexual perverts, or thieves, or greedy, or drunkards, or revilers, or robbers (cf. 1 Cor 6:8-10)? What good will an advocate with the Father be if we work fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like (cf. Gal 5:19-21)? “Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” (Eph 5:5)

We are called to holiness, not sinfulness. We are to be perfect as the Father is perfect.

 

[jmcrae]

Pophead, I’m terribly sorry. You see, I was the one that posted the St. Francis Legend.

In posting it, I thought you were being sincere in your OP. But seeing the intent behind your subsequent postings, it seems that I was mistaken. I’ll withdraw from this thread so that you can continue in your endeavor.

Good day.

Yes - good heavens, we wouldn’t want to distract him with any facts now, would we?

 

[Pophead]

To believe this requires more than logic or faith.

The inner reservior of the human soul can well accomodate a legioin of demons, but a tiny host does neither have the retention nor the required reservior or accomodation and what’s more the idea defies the new covenant, which makes all true believers priests and kings unto GOD. (read all the stanzas, please)

In the beginning, that is before the High Priest came down from heaven, (The Lord Jesus Christ) the Spirit of God would come upon, and at times be within priests, prophets and certain chosen vessels for certain reasons (however it was not permanent), BUT when Jesus spoke to the disciples, he explained that the Godhead would come to take up residence in the sons and daughters of the living God.

So why it is neccessary to perform such a ritual, in the first place, is a great puzzle to me: for this takes no cognisance of the new covenant, the blood offered once for all by the eternal Spirit and equally takes no congnisance of the promise of the Father, given to every true child of God.

Yet upon this matter, it might be that faith has not yet been fully formed in the heart and therefore one would approach such with one’s own understanding and not by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I have studied these matters most closely and cannot find any reason to pursue either arguement from reason, or further wrtings which promote a decidedly ancient ritual, that has no more value than the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats did under the old priesthood…

Pophead.

Bagging my comment (quote here) with bygone heresies, claims of legends, or claims to sinless perfection with pointless ad hominen is hardly the sort of reply that shows a willingness to think or learn; instead what is preferred is a flat out insistence that something is true or not based on what supposedly was communicated to the church by Christ himself, but amounts to nothing more that hot air and smoke.

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.

Pophead.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

It is very important for you to be convinced of the authority of the Scripture which the Son of God used to dispel his strongest opposition, and to send Satan to flight. Without this it would simply be indulging in fruitless sparring.

What are the criteria demanded for alternations to the Catechism, should it be discoverd that they are found stray from sound logic and contradict the Scriptures ?

If the Scriptures are not the final authority on matters of faith and doctrine (in your mind), then it would be far better to lightly observe this matter and not begin to shoulder artillery. Hmmm

Sincerely,
Pophead.

Sorry, Pophead, but I forgot about this thread.

In any case, the Scriptures are NOT the final authority. They are the foundation of doctrines, which are illuminated and developed by the Magisterium of the Church.

That is to say that Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand when it comes to the formation of doctrine.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Oh, Pophead – you’re not Catholic, are you?

If not, there’s little point in arguing about whether a priest can defile the Eucharist if you don’t believe the Eucharist is the real presence of our Lord.

How funny that this whole “defiling the Eucharist” thread was merely a ploy to set up your attack on the Eucharist itself. Nicely done!

Peace,
Dante

 

[rlg94086]

The reason you are receiving ad homini is because of your arrogance and deception of purpose. You started out asking about the defiling of the Eucharist, when you don’t even believe in the Real Presence.

Next you say something silly like “claims to sinless perfection.” Can you please provide a source, where the Catholic Church has made a “claim to sinless perfection?” We are a Church of sinners. It is a ridiculous statement to make.

Furthermore, you seem to think that you are going to teach something that no one else has thought up or attempted to teach us lowly, ignorant Catholics. Give it a rest.

1. If you want to debate the Real Presence, start a thread about that. Don’t disguise it.
2. Before starting that thread, do a little search. You will find it has been discussed many, many times. My guess is you aren’t telling us something we haven’t already heard.
3. What authority do you have? Are we supposed be impressed by the brilliance of a new poster named Pophead? Is your logic far superior to the logic of others?

There have been countless theologians over the years - Catholic and non-Catholic. We take the Catholic position. It is based on logic and faith, despite your claim to the contrary. You take the Pophead position. Congrats. I hope the Church of Pophead works for you.

Bagging my comment (quote here) with bygone heresies, claims of legends, or claims to sinless perfection with pointless ad hominen is hardly the sort of reply that shows a willingness to think or learn; instead what is preferred is a flat out insistence that something is true or not based on what supposedly was communicated to the church by Christ himself, but amounts to nothing more that hot air and smoke.

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.

Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

Have you read about the Catholic point of view? I don’t think you have.

Your friend,

Mat.

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

From Christian Doctrine (retractions) by St. Augustine.

CHAP. 16.–RULE FOR INTERPRETING COMMANDS AND PROHIBITIONS.

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. **Scripture says: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;” and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, “for in so doing thou shall heap coals of fire on his head,”(3) one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, “He who loveth his life shall lose it,”(4) we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, “Let him lose his life”–that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner.”(5) The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, “help not a sinner.” Understand, therefore, that “sinner” is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.

This pretty much did it for me, not that proper exegesis of the text did not surrender the same conclusion.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

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.