Posted on 07/14/2004 6:12:39 AM PDT by NYer
I know that is true for the Catholic church. It is not true for mine. I did not mean to imply that your belief was such. I was only correcting the Orthodox part of the statement.
Does it not maintain the physical appearance of Bread?
I have read that after consumed it is again bread.
I believe according to the bible that Christ lives in me and I in Him. That is not a short lived event, once a week but one that has existed since I believed , I will one day meet the Father in Christ and His righteousness.
I consider myself a little "c" catholic. How's that? ;^)
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
I'm not Roman Catholic- see my post below for my disagreements with transubstantiation- but to answer your question: no, there is nothing wrong with didatic purposes in any rite. The Anglican Carolina Divines made it a point that the Liturgy- including the Eucharist- should very much work towards the ediffication of faith. However, it is wrong to reduce the Eucharist to nothing more than an aid to faith in the sense that a picture is an aid to faith, or even a sermon. There is more to the Eucharist going on than a sermon in bread and wine. When Paul said that we partake of Christ's body and blood in the bread and cup, he did not mean that we are led to think about Him in it- though we are led to think about Him, and, hopefully, to exercise faith in Him (without which the sacrament will not aid you). Paul, I believe, meant this by what he said: that the bread and cup are truly our partaking of Christ's Body and Blood, through the Spirit (and hence spiritual in the true sense!).
Disagreements are to be expected. Attacks, well, that’s a different matter.
Why are you more focused on Paul, rather than on the Gospel, which proclaims the Truth?
The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).
Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.
Which was that "demonic" comment: disagreement or attack?
And yet Christ was both God and man.
With God all things are possible, so the possibility is there, however, why would He say "this is" when he meant; "this is also"?
I'm actually just poking Mar for old times sake, we've gone round on the whole Catholic vs. Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist not to long ago. I'm comfortable with the accidents and substance understanding of the Eucharistic mystery and She's comfortable with her understanding.
That is true (again, LOL). Like one of those movies where the people keep doing and saying the same things repeatedly.
Ah. So you did remember! I wondered. :-)
Thank you. There are no leavening agents at all. Very True.
I just love pondering the mysteries of faith!
Howling’s post said “ All attacks on the Blessed Sacrament and the Church are demonic.”
Please note the words “All attacks”. He did not say all disagreements are demonic.
Howling’s post said “ All attacks on the Blessed Sacrament and the Church are demonic.”
Please note the words “All attacks”. He did not say all disagreements are demonic.
I think a similar mystery is present in the Eucharist- the true hypostasis of the elements is body and blood. Thus when Jesus said "This is my body" He was speaking the absolute truth. Yet it is not improper for us to recognize that two realities are present, though now in one miraculous hypostasis of Body and Blood.
Do you realize that by your statement, you are implying that Paul is lying and deceiving and presenting a false gospel? It isn't a matter of one is Truth and the other isn't. They both are.
Your headline is misleading. They weren't Baptists. The story says, "former Baptists".
The headline at the source: PRIEST AND DOZENS OF OTHERS WITNESSED UNUSUAL IMAGES IN BLESSED SACRAMENT
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.