Posted on 05/30/2005 12:57:09 PM PDT by NYer
The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharist, the wafer and the wine really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have you ever met anyone who finds this 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, the response was less than enthusiastic. “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 that Jesus asked the twelve if they also planned to quit. Note that Jesus did not run after the deserters saying, “Come back! - I was just speaking metaphorically!”
It’s intriguing that one charge the pagan Romans lodged against Christians was that of cannibalism. Why? They heard that this sect met weekly to eat flesh and drink human blood. Did the early Christians say: “wait a minute, it’s only a symbol!”? Not at all. When explaining the Eucharist to the 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 till the Middle Ages did theologians really try to explain how Christ’s body and blood became present in the Eucharist. After a few theologians got it wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic. In all change that we normally observe, 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 kids to be a tanned beach bum, bleached and spiked my hair, buffed up at the gym, and took a trip to the plastic surgeon, I’d look a lot different. But for all my trouble, deep down I’d still substantially be the same confused, middle-aged dude as when I started.
St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one change we encounter that is exactly the opposite. The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence of these realities, which can’t be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What starts as bread and wine becomes 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 Spirit and the Word. After praying for the Holy 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 like Genesis 1 to me: 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 than the Eucharist 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.
Re: " Small meal though."
Incorrect. It is the largest meal you can have and yet you hunger for more.
Again, if the temporal realm were the only one being delt with here, that would be a compelling argument.
Because the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, the cross has eternal significance outside of our time domain.
I'm glad you bring this up. It highlights the very point I'm trying to make. The sacrifice in question is not so much a temporal event that happened on a hill two thousand years ago as it is an eternal event that spans all time. Because of the eternal nature of it, Christ can sit at a table *prior* to the temporal event, hold up a piece of bread and make the connection to His eternally sacrificed body. Upon making that connection, the bread becomes His body. Literally.
Cognitively, it's not a huge leap from where you are already at.
"I no longer take pleasure in perishable food or in the delights of this world. I want only God's bread, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, formed of the seed of David, and for drink I crave His Blood which is love that cannot perish."
- St. Ignatius of Antioch, ca. 110 AD
Saint Ignatius!
This guy was orthodox before orthodox was cool!
Then why present "transubstantiation" as the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ if it is only a spiritually significant thing we can't fully understand.
The idea is clearly presented as if it were the same literal body and blood that sat at the Last Supper. Jesus Himself discounted that reality by using His body and blood to present the elements.
I do agree that the sacrament has supernatural ramifications, and that it reaches throughout our time. We will see it more clearly when we get to heaven.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Mar 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Luk 6:3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
The religious leaders of Christ's time got it wrong because of their failure to consult the scriptures, just as 5 of the 7 earliest Christian churches in chapters 2 & 3 of the Book of Revelation did. As with the temptations by Satan, Jesus used the words of the Bible to counter error. Because we can't substantiate the supernatural aspects of the elements, we must be cautious in overstepping the revealed Word of God.
Fortunately for all of us sola scriptura types, belief in transubstantiation is not listed in the Bible as a show-stopper to salvation.
Thank you for your civil discussion on this topic.
You know it!
Here he is, connected to both Polycarp and to John and Ignatius is writing about 110 about the real presence and how the Eucharist is the body and blood...and about the role of the bishop - great witness! This is how a man trained by and known by the apostles believed. How can I believe elsewise?
That question would be better answered by someone who is Catholic. I am Orthodox. We don't expend any energy trying to detail just how the change comes about. We simply affirm that the change occurs. As did the Church Fathers.
While it's true that not every tradition in the Church has some scriptural counterpart, it does not logically follow that tradition is automatically wrong. Jesus, as a member of the laity, stood in the synagogue and read scripture. That was Jewish tradition. And now it's Christian tradition in the Orthodox Church. But I don't know of any [OT] scripture that supports that tradition. At any rate, the whole scripture vs. tradition angle is beside the point. There is scripture to support the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The argument then falls to interpretation of that scripture. We adhere to the same interpretation as the Church Fathers. Quite frankly, it was the only interpretation on record for more than 1500 years.
Thank you for your civil discussion on this topic.
Likewise :)
There ya go. If it's good enough for a man school by an Apostle, it's good enough for me. :)
You must be one of those luke warm people.
I hunger for the bread of God, the flesh of Jesus Christ ...; I long to drink of his blood, the gift of unending love.
- St. Ignatius of Antioch ca. 110
I think you are following in very worthy footsteps, Mark....
Jumped in this kinda late. Been riding horses in MO over the weekend.
You were responding to Kolokotronis and his 100 AD 'saint'.
**I will be honest, it is very hard to imagine that somebody that early would have erred.**
Oh, but they could, and did. Even before 100 A.D.
Peter, John, Paul, and Jude all warned of false teachers present at that time. Peter mentioned of those that "..wrest, as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction". 2 Peter 3:16
There has always been plenty of wannabes when it comes to being the messenger. Take Ahimaaz the son of Zadok (2 Samuel 18:19-32); he felt that he was suited to take the message of Absalom's death to king David. But Joab chose Cushi. Cushi ran first, but Ahimaaz begged Joab to let him go also. Ahimaaz left later (100 AD, so to speak), was not the chosen messenger, yet arrived at where David was before Cushi (the ordained one, so to speak).
For centuries there have been countless 'Ahimaaz messengers', front and center, telling souls less than the whole truth. Thankfully, there are 'Cushi messengers' still passing along the original apostolic message (see tagline).
**But, it is really hard for me to accept that view.**
For me, it would be impossible, because it is unscriptural.
My wife and I attended a great worship service Sunday. Everbody had gone home, then at 1 AM!! Monday, 6 souls under conviction, called the pastor, asking to baptized.
They were baptized 'within the hour' (like the jail keeper in Acts) in the name of Jesus. That's the only way the apostles ever taught how to get remission of sins. It has never changed!
Thank you for the link and pic. Very nice to see. I was just talking with someone and we wondered where we could get info we needed for adult/teen faith formation beyond links we already have. This sight is the answer to that for us. Thanks again.
**Fortunately for all of us sola scriptura types, belief in transubstantiation is not listed in the Bible as a show-stopper to salvation.**
Besides Jesus saying "it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing", what about the passover? Jesus said to his disciples that he "desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer".
So did Jesus eat his own flesh and drink his own blood?
I don't think so.
If Jesus was literally giving his flesh and blood at the last supper, then why go to the cross? He could just go around passing it out like he did when he fed the multitudes with a little lad's lunch.
Thank God for the truth! It's to do in remembrance of him nothing more, nothing less.
Anyone looking for remission of sins? Look at what Jesus said in John 3:5-8 and Luke 24:47; and what Peter said in Acts 2:28,39.
I shall visit this tomorrow and see what else has transpired. Goodnight.
I agree.
I would also add that to eat at the table with a Jewish family was consider becoming in communion with them because the identical elements in the food become integrated into the persons being. This is why the Pharisees were so up in arms about Jesus having eaten with "sinners". By Jewish tradition He was having communion with them (clearly not an issue for Jesus because He has the authority to forgive sinners).
Also, the Word of God is considered the bread of life. Ingesting the Word daily can be considered becoming one with Christ via the instruction of the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is replete with these kinds of clarifying typologies.
Yeah, well it's a good thing that Justice Kennedy didn't interpret that...
It was my experience as well. What did Jesus promise? Blessed are you who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for you shall be filled?
He offers us a chance to be filled with his good self, the Bread of Heaven.
here's another good quote:
"He is The Bread sown in the virgin, leavened in the Flesh, molded in His Passion, baked in the furnace of the Sepulchre, placed in the Churches, and set upon the Altars, which daily supplies Heavenly Food to the faithful."
- St. Peter Chrysologus (400-450)
Mother Teresa has a good one too:
When you look at the Crucifix, you understand how much Jesus loved you then. When you look at the Sacred Host you understand how much Jesus loves you now.
I get it. I get the part where some alleged Christians attack other Christians. That's the part I get very well.
My my you bruise easily, just like a peach. I do not advise you chime in on the religious threads (I mean this will love). Folks will defend their faith, be they Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant. If you just lurk you will not get offended. Just a suggestion.
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.