The Bread and Wine of Melchizedek

[papaspicy]

I was wondering if it would be possible that when Melchizedek met with Abram in Genesis 14:18 if he presided over a mass. Today, in 2006, we can participate in the representation of Christ’s sacrifice as a living sacrifice that goes throughout time. Couldn’t Christ’s sacrifice also have been applied backwards through time, and celebrated by Melchizedek? I know this is pure speculation, but I can’t help always picking things apart. Just wanted to see what y’all had to say.

 

[quasimodo]

I was wondering if it would be possible that when Melchizedek met with Abram in Genesis 14:18 if he presided over a mass. Today, in 2006, we can participate in the representation of Christ’s sacrifice as a living sacrifice that goes throughout time. Couldn’t Christ’s sacrifice also have been applied backwards through time, and celebrated by Melchizedek? I know this is pure speculation, but I can’t help always picking things apart. Just wanted to see what y’all had to say.

can you re-present something that has not been presented in the first place?

 

[tee_eff_em]

can you re-present something that has not been presented in the first place?

The Last Supper.

That said, I don’t believe we can say Melchizidek presided over the Eucharist. He did however pre-figure it. I don’t think you can re-present something without knowing it – Surely Melchizidek did not have the intention to do what the Church intends in his sacrifice of bread and wine. :twocents:

And: Christ’s sacrifice does apply backwards in time – Notably, by it the Righteous were freed from the Limbo of the Fathers. Also, it was by Christ’s sacrifice that Mary was preserved free from original sin from the first moment of her conception.

tee

 

[Della]

And: Christ’s sacrifice does apply backwards in time – Notably, by it the Righteous were freed from the Limbo of the Fathers. Also, it was by Christ’s sacrifice that Mary was preserved free from original sin from the first moment of her conception.

tee

Thinking of the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice going back in time, I’ll risk taking us a bit off topic by observing that it may very well be that Christ’s sacrifice would also free the souls of unbaptized infants and children from whatever state they may be in because they, in their innocence, would have chosen to be baptized if they had had the opportunity. God’s mercy and grace cannot be insufficient for them any more than it was for the OT saints or Our Lady at her conception. Am I on to something with this or am I way off the beam?

 

[IHS]

I believe it was communion service.

 

[Crumpy]

It’s quite a pre-figurement, as a previous post said.

Without researching this, I’d say off the top of my head that it was notable for being a bloodless offering.

If you side with those of the historical criticism persuasion who discount the existence of Melchizedek, then you end up with a backward projection of something that was taking place already in the religious practice of the Israelites.

So too, in what sense was Melchizedek a high priest? It doesn’t seem that the organized priesthood had developed yet. It shouldn’t have been there, but there it was.

And, why would Abraham give him a tenth of all he had? First of all, how do you calculate a tenth? Then, why do you give it?

Personally, I’m not skeptical, but I haven’t heard all the details unraveled in a way that makes total sense to me, even as a story.

Christ is the true High Priest and Victim, and He sacrificed Himself. He is foreshadowed by Melchizedek in that He was outside the organized Jewish priesthood, as well.

This is an interesting subject. His name must mean something important, too.