Posted on 04/27/2008 3:36:18 AM PDT by markomalley
The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharist, the communion wafer and the altar wine are transformed and really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have you ever met anyone who has found this Catholic doctrine to be a bit hard to take?
If so, you shouldn't be surprised. When Jesus spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, his words met with less than an enthusiastic reception. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (V 52). "This is a hard saying who can listen to it?" (V60). In fact so many of his disciples abandoned him over this that Jesus had to ask the twelve if they also planned to quit. It is interesting that Jesus did not run after his disciples saying, "Don't go — I was just speaking metaphorically!" How did the early Church interpret these challenging words of Jesus? Interesting fact. One charge the pagan Romans lodged against the Christians was cannibalism. Why? You guessed it. They heard that this sect regularly met to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Did the early Christians say: "wait a minute, it's only a symbol!"? Not at all. When trying to explain the Eucharist to the Roman Emperor around 155AD, St. Justin did not mince his words: "For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him . . . is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
Not many Christians questioned the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist till the Middle Ages. In trying to explain how bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, several theologians went astray and needed to be corrected by Church authority. Then St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic. In all change that we observe in this life, he teaches, appearances change, but deep down, the essence of a thing stays the same. Example: if, in a fit of mid-life crisis, I traded my mini-van for a Ferrari, abandoned my wife and 5 kids to be beach bum, got tanned, bleached my hair blonde, spiked it, buffed up at the gym, and took a trip to the plastic surgeon, I'd look a lot different on the surface. But for all my trouble, deep down I'd still substantially be the same ole guy as when I started.
St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one instance of change we encounter in this world that is exactly the opposite. The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence or substance of these realities, which can't be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What was once bread and wine are now Christ's body and blood. A handy word was coined to describe this unique change. Transformation of the "sub-stance", what "stands-under" the surface, came to be called "transubstantiation."
What makes this happen? The power of God's Spirit and Word. After praying for the Spirit to come (epiklesis), the priest, who stands in the place of Christ, repeats the words of the God-man: "This is my Body, This is my Blood." Sounds to me like Genesis 1: the mighty wind (read "Spirit") whips over the surface of the water and God's Word resounds. "Let there be light" and there was light. It is no harder to believe in the Eucharist than to believe in Creation. But why did Jesus arrange for this transformation of bread and wine? Because he intended another kind of transformation. The bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ which are, in turn, meant to transform us. Ever hear the phrase: "you are what you eat?" The Lord desires us to be transformed from a motley crew of imperfect individuals into the Body of Christ, come to full stature.
Our evangelical brethren speak often of an intimate, personal relationship with Jesus. But I ask you, how much more personal and intimate can you get? We receive the Lord's body into our physical body that we may become Him whom we receive! Such an awesome gift deserves its own feast. And that's why, back in the days of Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi, the Pope decided to institute the Feast of Corpus Christi.
Amen. Let all blessing and honor and glory and power be unto the Lamb of God. He alone is worthy to open the scrolls and to read the books of works and the Book of Life. He alone has redeemed us from hell and self, for His good pleasure, according to His good will. Power and praise are His forever and ever.
For certain, no Bible contains contains the line “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.” I maintain that it’s far far better and more Biblical to fervently proclaim that line in prayer or praise than it is to deadly recite what is (IMO) wrongly called “The Lord’s Prayer” - or the rosary, or any rote string of words.
Meaning, the writer of scripture is 1st revelation, a reader of it is 2nd revelation, the 2nd revelator teaching it produces 3rd revelation.. But when the Holy Spirit reveals scripture it is 1st revelation again.. Like that..
Anyway we have batted this around for a few days..
An interesting concept.. Even so, I know of scripture that I have had many "revelations" on.. Like progessively deeper observations of "some point".. over the years.. Evidently "I" was not ready to absorb(per se) the whole revelation when I was younger.. The Holy Spirit had to give to me as I could absorb it.. So even when we "think" we "see" something in scripture what we see just could be inhibited by our propensitiys or dullness to absorb it.. You know the hardness of our hearts or something like that..
Further:
“For Thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory”
The early Church did use the doxology in the Liturgy just as we do today. The doxology has been included in and taken out of the Mass throughout history. This prayer had been omitted from the Liturgy of recent centuries until Vatican II when it was reauthorized for use at Mass only. It is recited and acknowledged as an ancient prayer of praise. This is why it is not said immediately following the words “deliver us from evil”. So why do Protestants use these words?
ONLY IN THE DIDACHE?
Read Hebrews 10. There is no more need for sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient and finished on the cross.
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." -- 1 Corinthians 15:42-50"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
AMEN!
OR I could urinate up a rope.. both are messy persuits..
LOL.
I’m so glad you didn’t post that this morning while I was drinking coffee. ROFLMAO!
I’m so glad you didn’t post that this morning while I was drinking coffee. ROFLMAO!
It is in the King James Version and many others.
There is no more need for sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient and finished on the cross.That's the Catholic Church's teaching.
Likewise the divide between the science of textual criticism and doctrine of Biblical preservation.
The omission of the phrase from the Chester Beatty papyri is the reason the NIV and other modern translations omit it today. And yet, P46 is known to be riddled with transcription errors. The task of copying on papyrus was notoriously difficult and, in my view, the weight given to papyrus fragments in translations should take that into account as well. IOW, when it comes to papyri, the more the better.
Bottom line, the majority text (consensus) and Textus Receptus are very close indeed. So even when the critical text (as with Matthew 6:13) does not agree - the words of God are preserved. Not by man, by God.
To God be the glory!
Truly, faith and reason are complimentary - but reason cannot substitute for faith.
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - I Corinthians 1:18-25
To God be the glory!
No since I am a heretic I need to be found out..
Else my preachings could ruin the peace of some good roman catholics.. or others given to orthodoxy.. As it has already to many.. I am a BAD MAN.. a sinner really.. I have already shown many orthodox that their baptism while babies didn't take.. AND they too are BAD BAD people.. sinners..
The Popes WeinerDog needs to expose ME..
AMEN!
The Spiritual man is a child before God - a toddler really, growing up little by little.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.