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.
Consubstantiation recognizes four elements instead of two. From Mat 26:26-27, the visible elements remain bread & wine.
There are too many wolves around here!
I wish you a Blessed Day
I don't really have much time this morning to respond in depth, but I would like to make one comment about caucusing threads.
While I agree that there are some who seem to gain tremendous pleasure and satisfaction from deriding our beliefs, there are several others who do not agree with the Catholic or Orthodox issues on the Eucharist who have engaged in good conversation. In fact, I believe that it is very possible to gain some quite useful insight from their posts. HarleyD has recently brought up some valuable issues, from his persepctive, Ears_to_hear brought forward something about the Passover meal that I hadn't heard before (and I'm still looking forward to reading), and likewise GoLightly has been very constructive. We wouldn't have had that good conversation had the thread been caucused, as they wouldn't have posted.
Yes, there are wolves out there. But we must be steeled against them. Shoot, this is only an Internet forum (the premier Internet forum on the 'Net, but still, it's only a forum). Not like one of these wolves is actually in your face. Not like one of these wolves is standing up in the middle of a Mass and shouting condemnation. Not like one of these wolves is calling the police to close down the place and arrest the priest. Not like one of these wolves is trying to have the Church labeled a hate organization in an effort to shut it down. What about when that happens in real life? Not if, but when. Having some detractors on this Internet forum is not all that big a deal when you compare it to the coming r/w persecution.
I think the useful conversation we are having with our separated brethren is well worth dealing with the disruption. At least IMHO.
**************
I believe you are right. There are times when it makes sense to step away from a thread, but one hopes that there will be another to pick up the slack. It does seem as though that is what usually happens, thanks to all of you good Catholic warriors out there. :)
No thread jumping please
You've got a very good point. I'm going to have to do some more research into the theory. Anybody have a good site that lists all the aliens of Star Trek?
I agree with you,but we must be careful of avoiding the sin of scandal as well.
There does come a point when when the same people over and over reject Eucharistic teaching and on many occasions they go way "over the top"- so to speak.
We have to keep in mind that many people view these threads and some can be mislead if we don,t completely rebuke heretical teaching.
***************
I agree that there is a responsibility for us here, but we must be careful not to be overwhelmed. Emotion can get in the way of effective teaching.
Thank You. I need to paste that on my forehead sometimes -;)
I wish you a Blessed Day
The same to you, friend. :)
“I believe Trent included something having to do with the mechanism, which is the part that the Orthodox didn’t embrace.”
The Western Church, GL, has tended to define theological points more precisely and legalistically than the Eastern Church. The reasons for this are many and include a different mindset when it comes to theology, history and frankly the challenges faced in the West, like the Protestant Reformation, which the East has never had to face.
We in Orthodoxy are content to leave certain things a mystery. Indeed, we formally call the the sacraments “Mysteria”, the Mysteries, because we honestly don’t know how they work but we have faith, even “knowledge” of a spiritual sort, that they do.
In any event, you put it just right. We don’t reject the Trentian mechanics so much as we don’t embrace them.
<<”I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to, but I will assert again the non-Scriptural basis of the RCC Eucharist. It has more in common with sorcery than with the Bible.
Think about it, a select group of hand-picked priests control a key religious symbol by performing an incantation complete with a magic spell. The object of this incantation magically, but not apparently or even measurably, changes into another substance that holds sway over the eternal souls of all people.
This is not an ordinance of God, but a control method of men.”>>
With the foregoing statement you have just about thrown/taken out the “Acts of the Apostles” from scripture. Is not the “Acts” basically discussing the Church? Isn’t St Paul travelling around establishing and correcting Churches. Sort of what a Bishop would do in his diocese. Are you saying that Paul and Barnabas and Luke were liars and that the scripture is written by magicians? You have questioned the Holy Spirit by unwarranted and untrue statements!
Pope John Paul states it perfectly:
“In the Acts of the Apostles, the Evangelist Luke points out essential criteria for a correct understanding of the nature of the Christian community and hence, also of every parish, where he describes the first community of Jerusalem whose members were devoted to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the ‘breaking of bread and the prayers’: a welcoming, supportive community ready to share everything (cf. 2: 42; 4: 32-35).
By all accounts, Kolo. The Eastern Orthodox objection to the Latin practice is the claim that the consecration tales place when the priest lifts the Host and the Cup. In fact, lifting of the Host and the Cup was not always part of the Roman liturgy.
The consecration of the pre-sanctififed Gifts is believed to take place at one point during Epiclesis, not at the words Amen, Amen, Amen. By that time, we are certain that it did take place, but it is not the priest who determines when, as it is in the Catholic Mass.
This was actually addressed as well in the 18th century Orthodox Church which, by the way, is still referred to as Catholic, and the Latin Catholic Church is distinguished as "Romish" (the term Calvinists use to this day, and may be the result of Calvinistic influence of Cyril Lucas).
That the Eastern Church fully accepted the concept of "transubstantiation" as legitimate terminology but not an explanation how itmhappens is evident from the Council (Synod) of Constantinople of 1762 and 1761, where bishop Logothet John was opposed by Pat. Callinicus for maintaining the lingering Calvinist view of Cyril Lucas. Caryophylus was condemned and the Church affirmed that it always taught Eucharistic change (metabolé) as change in substance (metaousiois)
I know the theory. I am talking about the use of language. No one has ever said that Luther was a metaphysician. But the Council of Naiaea basically redefined “substance” in applying it to the relationshio between Father and Son. That is wht Luther was trying to do, to go behind the medieval term “transubstantuation.” because they thought it proported to explain the inexplicable. In my view is is is essentially a term that significes a negative” NOT transformation, NOT transfiguration etc. A “miracle” that —like the Resurrection is not a miracle but more like Creation itself.
The phrase is In Persona Christi Capitis, and the Catholic belief is that the priest actually becomes Christ.
My understanding is that consubstantiation implies that the Gifts remain bread and wine but that Christ's Body and Blood subsist within them. It's a four-element "Eucharist," which the Church never taught.
We don't know the mechanism. The Eastern Church agrees that there is change in substance but that the mechanism remains a mystery. In other words, we agree with the meaning of the term transubstantiation but reject that it explains the mode by which the change is made.
In that regard, nothing has changed in either Catholic or Orthodox Church doctrine. Kolo correctly points to the fact that the Latin Church, faced with Protestant challenge, found it necessary to express the mystery in more legalistic and clearly defined terms in order not to confuse it with Lutheran "consubstantiation."
The Eastern Church to this day accepts, but not necessarily uses, the term metaousiois (change in substance, the equivalent of transubstantiation), because it expresses what the Church taught all along.
One thing to keep in mind with that statement is that the purpose of the Tridentine canons was not only the anathematization of the current heresies floating around Western Europe at the time, but they were also to correct many of the abuses that had been going on within the Church. That council was a true reformation.
You're saying that somebody can be gratuitously cruel and offensive over THERE and it has no consequence over HERE? Or that someone can say, group A is vicious and when vicious behavior on the part of Group B in another thread is mentioned that's thread jumping? Threads only exist in their own universe?
I have to file this under "another thing I don't get".
Jumping in where angels wisely fear to tread: Luther said -- PLEASE don't ask me to look it up, I think that paper back fell apart about a decade ago -- that Aquinas misunderstood Aristotle. As far as I'm concerned anybody who says that is claiming to be a metaphysician, whether I agree with him or not.
(Are metaphysicians in my insurance-approved health provider group?)
markomalley: I am confused, though, why you assume that John 6:64-65 would be problematic for a Catholic? Of course, God knew before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who would not be saved.
HD: According to Augustine, this is the definition of Pelagianism.
...Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,—not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe.
That is not what the Church taught. What the Holy Catholic Church (East and West) taught everywhere and always is
There is no "guesswork" when it comes to God's foreknowledge. But His foreknowledge does not take away our free will which was clearly given to us in the Garden of Eden.
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.