It's not about what you get out of it

[dronald]

Yes and that is how Peter “ate” theLord , by faith with his confession according to St. Augustine…The others left not because of the ‘‘eating’’ primarily but because they did not believe from the beginning.john 6:64 “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.” …They were offended at the veiled Calvary -that this possible messiah would have to die (can’t eat what is alive) for he continues with , “*What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” * No, these people didn’t believe in the “program”. No way would they accept Isaiah 53’s Lamb, nor His Ascension. He was supposed to kick out the Romans and set up Davidic throne…They were not believers who then walked away at the eating…Anyways, this is what you won’t find in scripture or early fathers "remembering’’, "Pray that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Almighty father…May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands’’ …This changing our commanded remembrance into a sacrifice, a re presenting, has nothing to do with real presence though related (it is a separate matter).

I think it’s fascinating that Catholics quote John 6 when even Augustine didn’t take it literally. I was surprised while reading “On Christian Doctrine” to find the following:

Book 3: 24. 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. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

While reading his books I’m finding that some things are in line with Catholic beliefs, and some are completely out.

 

[benhur]

The word transubstantiation may not bu used until St. Thomas Aquinas but that does not mean it wasn’t taught. In my previous post, I showed early teachings on the Real Presence. Granted, St. Thomas Aquinas went through many details to define the specifics. Still, it was based upon much earlier teachings. You say that our common understanding has a history as does yours? I have yet to see a single writing predating Calvin from a mainstream Christian.

We disagree on scripture, we will disagree on father writings,yes thank you for your quotes .My evidence is my evidence and you will not accept it as I do not accept all of yours .Certanly at some point I do accept RP intent of the writer such as Aquinas and someone around 8-900 ad who also defined things (because other Catholics were saying different things)…But here is clement, who sounds a bit Augustinian with the “you are not to see it this way”. "But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh *figuratively *represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” I think it is from Pedagogus ch 6 and "as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?.. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, " So there is stuff out there and is all very debateable. Please don’t say it is an invention of 16 th century. Thru the ages there has been some debate and some (Catholics) saying things a bit differently than final CC stand .

 

[benhur]

I think it’s fascinating that Catholics quote John 6 when even Augustine didn’t take it literally. I was surprised while reading “On Christian Doctrine” to find the following:

Book 3: 24. 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. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

While reading his books I’m finding that some things are in line with Catholic beliefs, and some are completely out.

Thank you. Actually another Catholic pointed out the Greek work for eat or was it chew, not sure, did mean to come upon violently and that Christ could surely have not meant that (even cannibalism) and hence must have been talking about the future communion -transubstantaited- meal…What I find interesting is that Christ said the son of man must be lifted up (crucified) to draw all men to Him . The john 6 discourse talks at the end of God drawing men to himself. I think He was predicting Calvary, though in veiled terms, as in a parable reasoning or not giving pearls before swine , for the disciples that left “did not believe from the beginning” and could not handle thoughts of a a crucified Messiah, much less one that ascended, as a He says in the discourse. Yes, Augustine to me proves the “evolving” of some doctrine. For sure Catholics quote Augustine elswhere to show real presence… Like Luther, he is not perfect. He is right on with some very universal truths and experiences but unfortunately also lays groundwork for what is to become the CC as we know it today. For instance, he say scripture is the “supreme” authority and quotes “all have sinned” but then makes an exception for Mary…fascinating…

 

[dronald]

Thank you. Actually another Catholic pointed out the Greek work for eat or was it chew, not sure, did mean to come upon violently and that Christ could surely have not meant that (even cannibalism) and hence must have been talking about the future communion -transubstantaited- meal…What I find interesting is that Christ said the son of man must be lifted up (crucified) to draw all men to Him . The john 6 discourse talks at the end of God drawing men to himself. I think He was predicting Calvary, though in veiled terms, as in a parable reasoning or not giving pearls before swine , for the disciples that left “did not believe from the beginning” and could not handle thoughts of a a crucified Messiah, much less one that ascended, as a He says in the discourse. Yes, Augustine to me proves the “evolving” of some doctrine. For sure Catholics quote Augustine elswhere to show real presence… Like Luther, he is not perfect. He is right on with some very universal truths and experiences but unfortunately also lays groundwork for what is to become the CC as we know it today. For instance, he say scripture is the “supreme” authority and quotes “all have sinned” but then makes an exception for Mary…fascinating…

To add to your Augustine and “highest authority” within Scripture, I suppose I ought to post something else I stumbled upon…

It’s so hard to get through all these books but it really, really surprises me:

(On Christian Doctrine. Book 2:42)
For whatever man may have learned from other sources, if it is hurtful, it is there condemned; if it is useful, it is therein contained. And while every man may find there all that he has learned of useful elsewhere, he will find there in much greater abundance things that are to be found nowhere else, but can be learned only in the wonderful sublimity and wonderful simplicity of the Scriptures

 

[Telstar]

Yes and that is how Peter “ate” theLord , by faith with his confession according to St. Augustine…

I’d appreciate it immensely, if you could provide a direct quote from St. Augustine where he says anything like that. I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that I believe you may possibly be misunderstanding what he actually said. I can’t even imagine how anyone could even come to that kind of response to those passages.

The others left not because of the ‘‘eating’’ primarily but because they did not believe from the beginning.john 6:64 “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.”

Let’s just post the rest of it:“John 6:[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"
They were clearly scandalized by His referring to the eating of His flesh and drinking His blood. That’s exactly what they objected to, here. But, what does He respond to their objection?”[63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" He asks them if they were to also see Him ascend back up into heaven, if they would still not believe Him about eating His real flesh. "[64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life."He explains that He is speaking of a spiritual (and absolutely real) mystery whereby they really would eat His Flesh and drink His blood, under the appearance of simple bread, and not by actually eating His physical body that they saw standing in front of them. He tells them that He is the real “bread of life come down from Heaven”.
"[65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him."Many of them certainly had their doubts, before. But, this was the last straw for many of them, including Judas. Jesus was well aware of that, but it doesn’t change the fact that He was stating the truth. He was not speaking figuratively, and the Apostles understood that He was stating fact, even though they didn’t fully understand how this would be done. They wouldn’t fully understand until after the last supper, where He actually gave them the formula for breaking bread and blessing it for that purpose.

…They were offended at the veiled Calvary -that this possible messiah would have to die (can’t eat what is alive) for he continues with , “*What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” * No, these people didn’t believe in the “program”. No way would they accept Isaiah 53’s Lamb, nor His Ascension. He was supposed to kick out the Romans and set up Davidic throne…They were not believers who then walked away at the eating…

No doubt, all of those things were also factors, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was was about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. They were completely repulsed by the thought of it. The Jews had a lot of fear of eating anything that was considered to be ‘unclean’. Eating human flesh was probably the most repulsive of all. And, they were never allowed to eat anything that had any kind of blood in it. So, that made it even more repulsive to them. But, Jesus was speaking of the bread and wine that would be transformed into His real Body and Blood, through the mystical power of the Holy Spirit, just as He became man through that same mystical power. To doubt that the Eucharist is really Jesus, is like doubting that God could ever become man. It’s an insult to the Holy Spirit to ever doubt His true power.

Anyways, this is what you won’t find in scripture or early fathers "remembering’’, "Pray that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Almighty father…May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands’’ …This changing our commanded remembrance into a sacrifice, a re presenting, has nothing to do with real presence though related (it is a separate matter).

Though the words of the modern Mass might be slightly changed, there is proof from the ECF who followed this formula from St. Mark, for performing the early Mass: Divine Liturgy of St. Mark.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Right on. Very good and early writings attest to this “thanksgiving” even, love feast. These are our acceptable sacrifices - thanksgiving prayers…what later developed however is a prayer that God would hopefully accept from the priest the sacrifice of our Lord re-presented…Do you see the subtle but huge difference ? That as you properly state, He has given us everything so why do we pray that it is acceptable when we offer it back to Him ? it is like I give you a gift and in remembrance you keep giving it back to me hoping I will like it ? The early church just rightly took the gift of grace and just said, “thank you, thank you ( Eucharist, Eucharist)”.

What ? You google for your stuff ? Why, why that is what I do also.and thank you for being so humble. I had to go to page 3 to find my quote from a very reputable historian and will try to find it again…yes you have explained CC eucharist quite well, as others have…the un bloody sacrifice is strange because a sacrifice is what we are commanded to " remember" but not re present as re offer or as " sacrifice" as to be pleasing to God. we offer up sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, which of course are bloodless. It was not till 4 or 5 centuries into church history that it took on a more sacrificial tone, that is we now offer thanksgiving and The Lord, the crucified Lord( though un bloody) to the Father…strange cause he offered it to us and now we offer it back ?..it is like giving a gift back and hoping , praying that it be acceptable…very funny about looking at church sign to see who had what kind of communion…but humor will only go so far leaving the question unanswered…in other postings I think I asked if you can tell Monday morning or. Just mixing everybody up, like shuffling a deck of cards after church lets out and then pick out the tran and the con and the symbolic folk…bis balt

I don’t think this is correct. The Eucharist (bread and wine that become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ) has been seen as a sacrifice from the earliest days of the Church, to wit:

Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be pure. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid profaning your sacrifice [Mt. 5:23-24]. For **this is the offering **of which the Lord said, “Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations” [Mal. 1:11, 14]

–Didiche 14 (c. A.D. 50)

Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release.

–Pope St. Clement I (a.k.a. Clement of Rome) Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5 (A.D. 70)

Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering: for my name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it” [Mal. 1:10-12]. [So] he then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist.

–St. Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 41 (c. A.D. 155)

He took from among creation bread, and gave thanks, saying “This is my body.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: “You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offerred to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty” [Mal 1:10-11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for is name is glorified among the Gentiles.

–St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies 4:17:5 (c. A.D. 189)

(Continued below)

 

[SoMissCatholic]

(Continued from above)

For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates what Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ himself to have offered.

–St. Cyprian of Carthage Letters 62:14 (A.D. 253)

For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon the earth? Are you not, on the contrary, immediately translated to heaven?

–St. John Chrysostom The Priesthood 3:4 (c. A.D. 388)

What then? Do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of his death, and this [remembrance] is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because that [sacrifice] was once for all offered, [and] carried into the holy of holies. This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and a remembrance. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? But Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one body. Even while offered in many places, he is one body and not many bodies; so also [he is] one sacrifice.

–St. John Chrysostom Homilies on Hebrews 17:6 (c. A.D. 403)

Was not Christ once for all offered up in his own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is he not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that he is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true?

–St. Augustine of Hippo Letters 98:9 (A.D. 408)

 

[Telstar]

I think it’s fascinating that Catholics quote John 6 when even Augustine didn’t take it literally. I was surprised while reading “On Christian Doctrine” to find the following:

Book 3: 24. 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. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

While reading his books I’m finding that some things are in line with Catholic beliefs, and some are completely out.

Taking what Augustine says out of context is much the same as taking any single sentence of Scripture out of context. It’s very easy to confuse the real point of it. In that whole book, Augustine is speaking about how Scripture can be misinterpreted simply by not understanding how punctuation actually works, or by poor translations that can seriously change it’s true meaning. If we ignore grammatical rules, willfully or accidentally, then we can easily give it a meaning that’s not actually intended.

In this particular passage, he is interpreting those words in that particular way, but that doesn’t mean that he’s implying that it’s the only way it can be interpreted. His main concern is in showing a possible way that it might be done. In fact, there are probably many other ECFs that have also given their own interpretations. Some of them might be very different, but I would think they should probably all be consistent with the rest of Scripture. Through the years since then, the Church has consistently taught that it refers mainly to the institution of the Holy Eucharist.

As we all know, many passages have multiple meanings, but they are only correct if they do not contradict what is found elsewhere in Scripture. Augustine’s main point is that Jesus was speaking ‘figuratively’, and not in the literal sense that they would actually have to eat His physical body, and drink His actual blood. He was also speaking about the spiritual mystery concerning the Bread of Life, as I said in my previous post. I said that He wasn’t speaking figuratively, but only in the sense that He was the literal Bread of Life come down from Heaven. Of course, He wasn’t literally telling them that they had to eat His real body. Sorry, if I wasn’t clear about that.

 

[benhur]

To add to your Augustine and “highest authority” within Scripture, I suppose I ought to post something else I stumbled upon…

It’s so hard to get through all these books but it really, really surprises me:

(On Christian Doctrine. Book 2:42)
For whatever man may have learned from other sources, if it is hurtful, it is there condemned; if it is useful, it is therein contained. And while every man may find there all that he has learned of useful elsewhere, he will find there in much greater abundance things that are to be found nowhere else, but can be learned only in the wonderful sublimity and wonderful simplicity of the Scriptures

cool. you got me goin here. “Therefore, since we were too weak to find the truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, I now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture, unless you wished that both through it you be believed in and through it you be sought…and easy for everyone to read…and accesible to all men”…lest we be accused of cherry picking, of course he is greatfull to the Church and its preacher (forget who helped him, Ambrose or Jerome) and to the Teacher he hears in all three writ,preacher, church- Jesus himself. Confessions book 6 Ch 5

 

[benhur]

I’d appreciate it immensely, if you could provide a direct quote from St. Augustine where he says anything like that. I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that I believe you may possibly be misunderstanding what he actually said. I can’t even imagine how anyone could even come to that kind of response to those passages.

Let’s just post the rest of it:“John 6:[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"
They were clearly scandalized by His referring to the eating of His flesh and drinking His blood. That’s exactly what they objected to, here. But, what does He respond to their objection?”[63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" He asks them if they were to also see Him ascend back up into heaven, if they would still not believe Him about eating His real flesh. "[64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life."He explains that He is speaking of a spiritual (and absolutely real) mystery whereby they really would eat His Flesh and drink His blood, under the appearance of simple bread, and not by actually eating His physical body that they saw standing in front of them. He tells them that He is the real “bread of life come down from Heaven”.
"[65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him."Many of them certainly had their doubts, before. But, this was the last straw for many of them, including Judas. Jesus was well aware of that, but it doesn’t change the fact that He was stating the truth. He was not speaking figuratively, and the Apostles understood that He was stating fact, even though they didn’t fully understand how this would be done. They wouldn’t fully understand until after the last supper, where He actually gave them the formula for breaking bread and blessing it for that purpose.

No doubt, all of those things were also factors, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was was about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. They were completely repulsed by the thought of it. The Jews had a lot of fear of eating anything that was considered to be ‘unclean’. Eating human flesh was probably the most repulsive of all. And, they were never allowed to eat anything that had any kind of blood in it. So, that made it even more repulsive to them. But, Jesus was speaking of the bread and wine that would be transformed into His real Body and Blood, through the mystical power of the Holy Spirit, just as He became man through that same mystical power. To doubt that the Eucharist is really Jesus, is like doubting that God could ever become man. It’s an insult to the Holy Spirit to ever doubt His true power.

Though the words of the modern Mass might be slightly changed, there is proof from the ECF who followed this formula from St. Mark, for performing the early Mass: Divine Liturgy of St. Mark.

Took a looksie . thank you . I know they have the writing dating to fourth century. Maybe it is legit but don’t know if it is exactly from St. Mark or when was the original written.

 

[Telstar]

Took a looksie . thank you . I know they have the writing dating to fourth century. Maybe it is legit but don’t know if it is exactly from St. Mark or when was the original written.

After doing a little digging, myself, it seems that it is based on the one originally used circa 400 AD, but has been somewhat changed and transformed over time. It’s from the Eastern Church, and is one of several forms of the Mass that they have used since Apostolic days. Unfortunately, it seems that it has gone through many changes, but the basic form is supposedly similar to the original. So, it’s not actually the same as the earlier one. I was extremely disappointed in learning that. I apologize for the confusion. I guess I should have done my homework before I posted it, instead of afterwards.

I think the closest thing that we have that is authentic, is the descriptions of what was the ‘norm’ of early worship from the beginning of the 2nd century (AD 110ish), in the Didache. It was mentioned by many of the earliest of the Church Fathers, in their own writings. It certainly wasn’t as elaborate as today’s Mass, but it still shows that there were certain methods for performing some of the Sacraments, that were to be consistently followed by all Christians. The Church was still in it’s ‘infancy’ at that point in time, for sure.

 

[MartinJordan]

Taking what Augustine says out of context is much the same as taking any single sentence of Scripture out of context. It’s very easy to confuse the real point of it. In that whole book, Augustine is speaking about how Scripture can be misinterpreted simply by not understanding how punctuation actually works, or by poor translations that can seriously change it’s true meaning. If we ignore grammatical rules, willfully or accidentally, then we can easily give it a meaning that’s not actually intended.

In this particular passage, he is interpreting those words in that particular way, but that doesn’t mean that he’s implying that it’s the only way it can be interpreted. His main concern is in showing a possible way that it might be done. In fact, there are probably many other ECFs that have also given their own interpretations. Some of them might be very different, but I would think they should probably all be consistent with the rest of Scripture. Through the years since then, the Church has consistently taught that it refers mainly to the institution of the Holy Eucharist.

As we all know, many passages have multiple meanings, but they are only correct if they do not contradict what is found elsewhere in Scripture. Augustine’s main point is that Jesus was speaking ‘figuratively’, and not in the literal sense that they would actually have to eat His physical body, and drink His actual blood. He was also speaking about the spiritual mystery concerning the Bread of Life, as I said in my previous post. I said that He wasn’t speaking figuratively, but only in the sense that He was the literal Bread of Life come down from Heaven. Of course, He wasn’t literally telling them that they had to eat His real body. Sorry, if I wasn’t clear about that.

Yes.

In Sermon 130, St. Augustine wrote:

"He took earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and he took Flesh of the flesh of Mary. He walked on earth in that same Flesh, and gave that same Flesh us to be eaten for our salvation. Moreover no one eats that Flesh unless he has first adored it . . . . and we sin by not adoring. Who is the bread of heaven except Christ? But in order that man might eat the bread of angels, the Lord of the angels became a man. If this had not happpened, we would not have his Flesh: if we did not have his Flesh, we would not eat the Bread of the altar.

Can we have an Amen?

MJ

 

[Telstar]

Yes.

In Sermon 130, St. Augustine wrote:

"He took earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and he took Flesh of the flesh of Mary. He walked on earth in that same Flesh, and gave that same Flesh us to be eaten for our salvation. Moreover no one eats that Flesh unless he has first adored it . . . . and we sin by not adoring. Who is the bread of heaven except Christ? But in order that man might eat the bread of angels, the Lord of the angels became a man. If this had not happpened, we would not have his Flesh: if we did not have his Flesh, we would not eat the Bread of the altar.

Can we have an Amen?

MJ

Amen!

Thanks!

 

[benhur]

After doing a little digging, myself, it seems that it is based on the one originally used circa 400 AD, but has been somewhat changed and transformed over time. It’s from the Eastern Church, and is one of several forms of the Mass that they have used since Apostolic days. Unfortunately, it seems that it has gone through many changes, but the basic form is supposedly similar to the original. So, it’s not actually the same as the earlier one. I was extremely disappointed in learning that. I apologize for the confusion. I guess I should have done my homework before I posted it, instead of afterwards.

I think the closest thing that we have that is authentic, is the descriptions of what was the ‘norm’ of early worship from the beginning of the 2nd century (AD 110ish), in the Didache. It was mentioned by many of the earliest of the Church Fathers, in their own writings. It certainly wasn’t as elaborate as today’s Mass, but it still shows that there were certain methods for performing some of the Sacraments, that were to be consistently followed by all Christians. The Church was still in it’s ‘infancy’ at that point in time, for sure.

Thank you, appreciate your humility and zeal.

 

[benhur]

Yes.

In Sermon 130, St. Augustine wrote:

"He took earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and he took Flesh of the flesh of Mary. He walked on earth in that same Flesh, and gave that same Flesh us to be eaten for our salvation. Moreover no one eats that Flesh unless he has first adored it . . . . and we sin by not adoring. Who is the bread of heaven except Christ? But in order that man might eat the bread of angels, the Lord of the angels became a man. If this had not happpened, we would not have his Flesh: if we did not have his Flesh, we would not eat the Bread of the altar.

Can we have an Amen?

MJ

Looked up sermon,found part of it but not all of your quote .The paragraph before it he says this, for the sermon is on the 5 loaves and two fish , "The two fishes are either the two precepts of the love of God and our neighbour, or the two people of the
circumcision and uncircumcision, or those two sacred personages of the king and the priest. As these things are explained, they are broken; when they are understood, they are eaten. ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PNI6-12.TXT This is not the first time he says understanding is eating , for he said that of Peter and "eating’’ per his confession of “we will not leave, you have the words of eternal life and we believe for sure you are the Christ” John 6:68 In the understanding ,the believing ,we eat …Lord willing, will try to find the quote.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

If you understand what Catholics believe about the Real Presence (regardless of if you agree with it or not) how on earth could you think that it would fail to make us better at spreading the Gospel? It puts us MILES ahead in terms of our ability to spread grace, avoid sin, protest occassions of sin, and generally help others along the path to grace. I brought my sister to the Catholic Church by introducing her to Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. If the Eucharist is Christ itself, then how could receiving Christ not help us help others towards the living Christ whose Sacred Body and Blood we have received? A bizarre misunderstanding of Catholic belief at best, and an insult to the Blessed Sacrament at worst. For charity’s sake, I shall assume the former.

Let me tell you a brief story. I got a phone call awhile back from a salesman for a miraculous wireless carrier. Because I listened to him, I was able to purchase the greatest and best phone in the world with the greatest and best wireless plan ever created. I can even call Heaven with this phone. Seriously, I call up an angel and he’s like “How did you get on angel radio?” And I explain how amazing this telephone plan is.

After getting this phone and using it for awhile, I’ve told some people about it, and I can even give you three or four examples of people who started using it because of me. You wouldn’t believe how good this phone is, but these people do- because I told them about it and now they have it.

Now.

Just because the phone is amazing, and the plan is amazing, and I occasionally convince people that it’s a good idea to use it, that does not mean I am a phone salesman. There is still a difference between me and the guy who initially called me up and asked if I would be interested in purchasing this miraculous phone. The difference is this- I have not received formal training in selling phones.

You have been given something, too, and you believe it’s the best thing a Christian could possibly get (whether it’s in the hand or on the tongue). And I’m not arguing with you about how great it is, just as I expect you won’t argue with the claims about my hypothetical phone which can allegedly call heaven- that’s not the point of this exercise. The point is, I have an amazing phone and I occasionally help other people discover it, but I haven’t had any formal training in selling the thing. Likewise, you receive the Eucharist with some regularity, and I’m sure that’s been quite good for you. But receiving the Eucharist is not the same thing as receiving formal training in how to evangelize. When you receive formal training in how to evangelize, that is when you’ve done what I was talking about.

I will make one further point as well- I’m aware of various comments that recent popes have made pertaining to the New Evangelization, and encouraging lay Catholics to evangelize more. However, there is also a difference between voicing general approval of such a thing and really doing something to make it happen- specifically, ensuring that a substantial portion of lay Catholics have received formal training in how to evangelize. This continues to be something that lay Catholics lack, and maybe it’s partly because some of you don’t feel like you need formal training- you just need to receive the Eucharist, and that already puts you miles ahead of someone who is formally trained. If that is your opinion, very well, but I don’t believe that’s the case. I say this- formal training allows you to be formally trained as an evangelist, and receiving the Eucharist on a regular basis is only related to that, at best, in a way that’s indirect.

 

[Telstar]

I say this- formal training allows you to be formally trained…

i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/smarty.gif

 

[Jerbear]

Depends what you’re looking for. If you devoutly went to mass and prayed and never felt any closer to God or that you didn’t have a relationship with Him, would you still go or would you do it less if not stopping all together? You pray but never see a sign that your prayers are being heard, you go to mass but you feel as though it is a hollow gesture? There are some who would continue to do it but I think a lot of people would at least reduce how often they do.

It is reasonable to expect to get something out of it, it’s just what are your expectations in the first place going into it? You can validly argue that if you don’t bring anything to praying or to mass that you won’t get anything out of it, but I think it’s totally logical and acceptable to expect to develop a deeper relationship to God and to believe your prayers and worship are received.