"Bless you."
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.
John 10:17
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
10:18 man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Not His mother. Yet everything in Catholicism points to Mary and away from Christ. It appears that Christ is just a victim and quite powerless. Catholicism focuses on the broken Jesus, not the resurrected Lord seated on the right hand of the Father. Then it's all about Mary, all Mary all the time. That's not the Christian religion, it's something else.
Amen. (Mk.7:7-9)
This has been evolving for a long time but your reference was certainly an eye popper. I did a google on it and sure enough, there are a number of Catholic websites that ties Mary directly to the Eucharist. Even the Orthodox are very uneasy with all this Mary stuff. You're right, it has become all about Mary.
"Bless you."
Divine Victim? ::shivers::
To support this proposition you offer:
"the Mother of the Mystical Body, of which the Eucharist is the symbol and vital center."
I don't see how this supports your proposition. I know that in answering even the most ridiculous charge levied by anti-Catholics, "parsing" is considered somehow wrong, but this cries out for parsing. The relative clause "of which the Eucharist is the symbol and vital center" modifies "Body".
Further "body" is the object of the preposition "of" in a prepositional phrase which modifies "Mother".
It is not the mother of which the Eucharist is the symbol but the Body. The quote indicates that the Eucharist body of Christ, which is not a new thing for us to assert, and the Church is the mystical body of Christ, a notion you may have read before, and that the Eucharist therefore symbolizes the Church, a notion advocated in an argument against something I said -- by a Protestant!
I know that you don't think that the Eucharistic species are truly the Body and Blood of Christ, but I didn't think the notion that the Church is the mystical body of Christ was controversial, or that it was controversial that Mary was the mother of the sho' 'nuff body of Christ, though I suppose I can understand some balking at concluding from that that she is somehow the Mother of the Church.
But the fragment you cite neither says, implies, nor suggests that Mary IS the Eucharist...
...EXCEPT in the sense that the "elements" we offer are symbols of many things including our selves, since it is not only God's bounty through nature, but human work that makes bread and wine and that yields the profits which can be spent on supplying them for the altar. So, if you are baptized with water in the name of the Trinity, we would say that you also are offered in the Eucharist.
Now to the second citation:
"We trust that they will imitate in her the most perfect model of union with Jesus our Head; we trust that they will join Mary in the offering of the Divine Victim."
I just don't see how this adds anything to your contention.
I know that reason and logic really need not apply in conversations with people who gleefully accuse us of worshipping a "wafer god", but in my better moments at least, I try to use the odd spot of reason and logic. Here my efforts lead to no connection between your proposition and the words you quote. Our union with Christ as members of his body is imperfect, and the promise made is that it will become more perfect. That's controversial?
So in your mass then, is “the chuch” as Mary, or united to Mary as one, now “immolating Christ”. Is that what you all are up to in the “mystical rite?” just asking, cause it sure looks like it
You wanna rephrase, please? I don’t get the question.
You said:
Apparently now Mary is the eucharist, not even Christ.
And I tried to respond to that.
Did we settle that? Are you raising a new question?
we trust that they will join Mary in the offering of the Divine Victim."
Is that what you are up to in your mystical rite?
By making Christ a victim & saying that Mary (and we) are offering Him, it's putting everything totally upside down. I'm not saying that we are victims of anything other than ourselves, but instead it's giving us a whole lot more power in all of it IMHO. Christ offered Himself & Mary is joining us in recieving Him makes a lot more sense.
Are you still contending that we say Mary is the Eucharist? You made the charge on the basis of what looked like a mistaken reading of a setence or two. I attempted to answer it. Did I?
The tag is; “Christ the victim, Christ the priest.” BOTH offerER and offerED. Is that less intolerable?
I don't see it as making it into a literal manifestation, but instead it's using new or different symbolism, while trying to include additional understanding of Mary's role in it all. It's not like mothers carry babes in their stomachs.
Not really. If you're saying it in the sense that our sinful ways made Him our victim, I don't see it as something to celebrate, so asking us to join in it again along with Mary makes NO sense. That He suffered at our hands, no doubt, but seeing Him as our victim because of it, like I said, it's giving us too much power.
Sorry to take so long. Been gone for a few days.
Sky King was an old TV show hero (western with an airplane instead of a horse) back in the early 60’s.
I guess, in the context of coming from a grunt, that makes sense ;)
Hope your couple of days away was your choice and that it was good (vice the alternative). Peace be with you!
We had our annual, regional denominational conference to attend. Pleasant, but extremely frustrating. Many are a blithering band of bozos.
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.