I sat in Barnes & Nobles yesterday and read Brant Pitre’s new Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. Dude, it rocked. There are one or two questions and doubts I have, but for the most part this guy slam dunked it. I couldn’t believe it. Very biblical. No, “We’re right because tradition and the Pope say so.” His arguments are 100% biblical/exegetical. I’m still trying to figure out what to do with it!

His site: http://www.brantpitre.com/

A site devoted just to his book on the Eucharist: http://www.theholyeucharist.com/

Dang.

I Corinthians 10:15-22 seems to explain it as detailed as I can fathom. Paul seems, there, to say that insomuch as the Lord's "table" is a divinely sanctioned memorial, we fellowship with the blood and body of Christ by drinking and eating the wine and bread DURING that memorial.

Likewise, those who "eat of the sacrifices" of Israel were fellowshipping with the "altar." Likewise, though that which was sacrificed to idols was "nothing," to eat it during the very ceremonies which were set aside to function as the "table of demons" was to "fellowship" with demons. Thus, I think we can say the bread and wine, per se, are "nothing." It's the nature of the ceremony itself that imbues them with that significance which has implications for us. 

Similarly, David could eat the shewbread because his divinely-authorized mission imbued that eating with holiness such that the shewbread was not actually profaned after all.

Similarly, while the Sabbath was holy for Israelites, and yet man was not made FOR the Sabbath, but the Sabbath FOR man, we can see thereby that the holiness or significance of a "thing" can have to do with something external TO the thing itself.

We don't have to totally understand everything about an event's context to see that the treatment of certain elements of that context (things sacrificed, cup, bread, etc) ought to be treated different IN those contexts. The contexts are what they are because of a prior intent for them. It matters not whether those coming thereafter regard that intent. The intent of the originator (God or demons?) determines the MEANING of the event, and therefore what it implies one is fellowshipping with.

It may be that a participant in the event must at least know the purpose of the event to be held accountable, thus. But that would be all, I would think. E.g., if a person ate at a "demon's table" without even knowing what the ceremony was for, there may be no corresponding "fellowhip" with demons. But I would think that so long as the particpant is at least cognizant of the purpose of the event, the rest of the implications follow independently of the behavior or the attitude of the participant.

IOW, one can not claim, as an excuse, "Sure, I knew the eating event was set aside to worship/honor demons, but that wasn't my motive for being there. I was just hungry." If I'm understanding Paul's point in the passage and the passage in chapter 11, that excuse wouldn't fly.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/19/2011 11:32:05 AM (GMT-5)

Ah...

In his video, Dr. Pitre talks about how he believes that Jesus' risen, glorified body is "not bound by time or space."  Basically, he notes that Christ, Scripturally speaking, can do things like materialize, dematerialize, and render himself intangible to pass through walls.  From this, he takes that Jesus' HUMANITY is now such that it can (and does) actively transcend, but not lose, it's locality. His perspective has Jesus, localized in a body somewhere with God, transcending his locality via "pouring out" his glorified body in various places all over the world at the same time.

I'm not exactly sure how they differ. And I'm not saying either is right or wrong. I'm just saying that the passage I refer to in 1 Cor. 10 makes it difficult for me to see how transubstantiation explains anything scripturally even if it IS true. It doesn't make the analogy of the 3 fellowships mentioned in 1 Cor. 10 understandable to me. If anything, it complicates that understanding for me.

So, as usual, since I can't see the scriptural basis for it, I won't be dogmatic about it to others even if it's true. But I'm not sure it is true. The Spirit is what empowers us to be sinless. So whatever grace is affected by particular acts doesn't seem to be kinds of grace that ENABLES us to be sinless in the way the Spirit does.

In that sense, to me what is important is knowing what, if anything, other than "announcing" the Lord's death til he come, does that memorial of the Lord's death affect. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other scriptural statement that says what else it affects.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/20/2011 7:25:49 AM (GMT-5)

******************************************************

Holy Communion is a sacrament and so must be administered by a priest. There is no "do it yourself" communion. Usually Communion is given in the context of the Divine Liturgy - a service which by its very design brings us out of our worldly lives and step by step into the very presence of God where He gives to us Himself. Even the Liturgy cannot be done by a priest alone, but there must always be at least one other there since it is a *public* work - not a private one.

It is possible to receive Holy Communion from the reserved sacrament (bread and wine that has been previously sanctified and which is kept in the tabernacle on the altar) when one is too ill to come to the Church or in some other dire circumstance. For this, the priest will come and there is a brief set of prayers to be said and then he will give the Most Holy Body and Most Precious Blood to the sick person. But again, this is only in cases of extreme need.

You seem to be asking some very basic questions that should have been covered in your catechesis before your baptism.

Fr David Moser

-------------------------------------------

Question:

Fr. Moser:
Or anyone that can help.
I had a discussion with a Nazareen man today and he ask why we needed a Priest to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? I told him that the Holy Spirit does it and the Priest says the prayers. He ask why any "Christian" couldn't do it? I said I'll get back to you on that.
What is the official answer?
Thanks.
w.
t.s.

Response:

Well the easy answer is: Because this is what God told us to do - it is, as St Paul says, "the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2Thess 2:15)

As I mentioned earlier, the liturgy and the receiving of Holy Communion is not an individual act - it is an act of the community and there are those who are appointed to various tasks within the community (Again St Paul Eph 4:11ff). It is the task of the priest to administer the sacraments - he has been given this duty by God through the Church.

There is also the issue of good order in the Church which has been given to us by the Holy Spirit and maintained throughout the life of the Church and which is preserved for us in the Tradition of the Church. This is not an act of an individual's selfwill, but an act in which the whole community joins. God expects us to act within the order that He has given to us (1Cor 14:40)

Now all this I have said is nice, but it won't necessarily make much sense to a Nazarene, since they tend to reject the whole idea of sacraments and especially of a designated clergy. They come from a pentecostalist type tradition which sees all kind of order and tradition as "from man" and so not consistent with the Holy Spirit. But we can still give them the truth - its up to them whether or not to accept it.

Fr David Moser

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/20/2011 9:18:37 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/21/2011 9:29:26 AM (GMT-5)