Posted on 06/10/2007 4:48:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.
Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.
The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.
The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.
Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.
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 first 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.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.
The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
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.
For everybody's amusement and consideration, I would suggest that the word "presence" is overflowingly rich, not only to philosophers but especially in connection with the God about whom we are comfortable saying "He is everywhere," but strangely nervous when someone says,"He is here."
And while we call the bread His Body and the wine His Blood -- and we RC's believe that so they are -- do we, does anyone really know and understand what the now risen, ascended, and glorified Body and Blood of the Lord are?
He comes, riding on the cherubim, burning ones at his feet, deserving our homage, scattering graces and blessings like rain and dew, and making the barren land fertile and husbanding the wild places.
Somehow I don't feel like tangling.
LOL! I sure know I couldn't have!
I look at Jesus' response to St. Peter in Mt 16. And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Clearly, God in His Wisdom did not open the eyes and hearts of those that left after the incident in Jn 6...
Catholic dogmas do not morph across time.
Shakespeare had a way with words. ;=).
John Calvin is a “type” of anti Christ.
I,m not afraid to say this because John Calvin elevated himself above ALL the Saints and ALL the Early Church Fathers in his rejection of Transubstantiation.
The devil comes as an angel of light and John Calvin,s teaching on the Eucharist is from satan.
ALL of the Early Church Father,s and Saints believed Christ is Truly present in Eucharist -Body Blood Soul And Divinity there is NOT a single exception. NOT ONE!
Either the Saints were mislead by the devil or John Calvin was.
This is your choice.
Who do you believe?
If you choose Calvin,Christianity is a sham!
Compare the life of Calvin to Saint Polycarp,Ignatius,Justyn Martyr and all the Saints who wrote pages and pages on Eucharist .
1500 plus years of solid Eucharistic teaching and along comes Calvin guided by the devil.
Luther himself was horrified when protestant reformers would tell him that “why would Christ give us His Body and Blood to such depraved people” It was Calvin who is a “type” of anti Christ that started all of this heretical teaching!
John Calvin is not worthy to be the dirt beneath the Saint,s feet!
I agree!
I am differentiating from our redemption which of course was immediately effected at Calvary. Jesus’ death meant the door to heaven was no longer barred to us. But though the door to heaven is opened I still must follow the correct path to arrive there. I can not even get on that path without the grace of God. His grace also makes it possible to stay on the path by giving me the faith to trust wholly that He alone is the way. Salvation is God's greatest gift and promise to us. He desired us enough to suffer death upon the Cross. But just as my personal sin nailed that cross I am personally saved by His atonement. Which means I must personally encounter Him. You encounter Him through the Bible, prayer and worship. I encounter Him through the Bible, Church, prayer, worship and the sacraments. Especially the Eucharist. Christ wants us to have a relationship with Him. He knows and loves each of us. Anything that keeps you from the love of Christ must be rejected. No matter how good that thing may seem. I am Catholic belief in the real presence and the sacrifice of the Mass cements my belief and love of Christ. For you such beliefs cause scandal and separate you from that love. Since you are not Catholic you are not bound to Catholic dogma so I say go in peace and serve Him where it gives you the best nourishment for your soul.
How am I to believe that you are interested in rescuing us from our errors if you don't seem to understand what we think and seem content to cause us pain? It seems you are working against what you are praying for.
Seriously, I'm really trying to get this. A lot of "separated brethren" keep telling us how much they wish we were set free and then seem to try to accomplish this by being as offensive as they know how and by misrepresenting what we believe -- or stating it in such a way that it is unrecognizable to us. I just don't get it. It's like when a Jew said I was a polytheist (BEFORE I was Catholic - he was referring to the Trinity, not Mary.) Why try to start a conversation with me by driving me away?
Or are you all preaching to the angels rather than to us deluded RCs? It is as if the main thing is to proclaim the truth no matter how ineffectively, offensively, or incredibly.
More and more, the Dominicans seem the way for me to go: Preach the good news the best you can.
Know when Eastern Orthodox stopped teaching Transubstantiation? If that is what was believed & taught by all of the Early Church Fathers as you claim, Easthern Orthodox churches would also be teaching it, but they don’t.
“The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.” John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743).
Good Night,Dear Friend,I,m tired
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (1727)
In an article concerning the Eucharist in an exposition of faith by a council held at Constantinople in 1727 we find a re-affirmation that the word “TRANSUBSTANTIATION” is “the most fitting statement of this mystery” and the “most accurately significant declaration of this change” in the elements. This Council reads —
“It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and BLOODLESS SACRIFICE, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord.
“Not that the consecration is effected by the words ‘Take, eat,’ etc., or by the words ‘Drink ye all of it,’ etc., as the Latins think; for we have been taught that the consecration takes place at the prayer of the priest and at the words which he utters, namely, ‘Make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Ghost,’ as the most glorious Apostles and Fathers filled with the Spirit who compiled the holy liturgies explained and handed down, and as this tradition of their divine teaching has come to us and to the Holy Church of Christ, and as also is clearly shown by the example of the Lord Himself, who first prayed and then commanded His Apostles, ‘Do this for My memorial.’
“Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is BLOODLESSLY SACRIFICED. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in ONE KIND ONLY, the WHOLE AND COMPLETE CHRIST is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.
“As an explanatory and MOST ACCURATELY SIGNIFICANT DECLARATION OF THIS CHANGE of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the MOST FITTING STATEMENT OF THIS MYSTERY. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ.” (Stone, page 182-184)
What this Council shows us is the Eastern Orthodox had differences with the Latins (Catholics) during this period in practice (Communion under both kinds, leavened bread) and the exact moment of consecration, but had no difficulty in affirming the reality of the change by using the term TRANSUBSTANTIATION as the “MOST FITTING STATEMENT OF THIS MYSTERY” and “MOST ACCURATELY SIGNIFICANT DECLARATION OF THIS CHANGE.”
Me neither. So I'll have some company. I disagree with him profoundly but he is VERY funny, so maybe we can keep each other laughing.
Q. 55. Which is the sixth article of faith?
R. “Who ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of God the Father.” (44)
Q. 56. How many things does this article of faith teach?
R. This article teaches four things. First (sic), that he ascended into heaven in the same body, in which he suffered and resurrected from the dead, and sits at the right hand of the Father, in glory and praise. (45) Secondly, it teaches that he ascended into heaven only as man, since as God he always was in heaven and everywhere. Thirdly, it teaches that he never abandoned that humanity, which he once took from the Virgin Mary, and in which he will come again in judgment, just as the Angels announced to the Apostles: “This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven.”[140] Fourthly, it teaches that Christ is in heaven according to his humanity, but not on earth (46), the singular exception being the most holy Eucharist, wherein Christ himself is really present through transubstantiation of the substance of bread into the substance of his holy body and through the transubstantiation of the substance of wine into the substance of his most precious blood Wherefore should we revere the most holy Eucharist and adore it by the worship of latria, because such is due the Savior himself.
From the Orthodox Confession of Faith, Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-47)
http://www.esoptron.umd.edu/UGC/ocf1c.html
Notice how you do not deal with the problem I pointed out, but instead point your finger at the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not claim to teach sola scriptura or perspicuity, so it is no contradiction for the Catholic Church to have a long and detailed catechism. But for Calvinists, on the other hand, who claim to believe in sola scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture, the constant appeals to Calvin and the Calvinist catechisms and confessions is a serious problem.
-A8
The two individuals whom I pinged are far more qualified to speak to Orthodox theology than I am. Rather than either of us speculating on Orthodox attitudes on the Real Presence and/ or Transubstantiation, I think we should ask two individuals who would be in a position to know.
When someone posts in disagreement with an RCC doctrinal matter, he is often met with the visceral reaction of the RCC faithful tearing into the him. It stands to reason that rational debate will be minimal beyond that.
I have found that RCC apologists view anything that disagrees with their positions as personal attacks, and often respond in kind. Having been raised in an RCC household and schooled in their system for twelve years, I don’t ever recall behaving in that manner. Perhaps my memory is selective, perhaps not.
Flawed memory or not, I thank God for continuing to place enlightenment at the edge of my darkness. I urge you to reject conventional wisdom... walk toward the light! Life lies there.
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.