Posted on 04/27/2008 3:36:18 AM PDT by markomalley
The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharist, the communion wafer and the altar wine are transformed and really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have you ever met anyone who has found this Catholic doctrine to be 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, his words met with less than an enthusiastic reception. "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 over this that Jesus had to ask the twelve if they also planned to quit. It is interesting that Jesus did not run after his disciples saying, "Don't go — I was just speaking metaphorically!" How did the early Church interpret these challenging words of Jesus? Interesting fact. One charge the pagan Romans lodged against the Christians was cannibalism. Why? You guessed it. They heard that this sect regularly met to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Did the early Christians say: "wait a minute, it's only a symbol!"? Not at all. When trying to explain the Eucharist to the Roman 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 many Christians questioned the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist till the Middle Ages. In trying to explain how bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, several theologians went astray and needed to be corrected by Church authority. Then St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic. In all change that we observe in this life, 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 5 kids to be beach bum, got tanned, bleached my hair blonde, spiked it, buffed up at the gym, and took a trip to the plastic surgeon, I'd look a lot different on the surface. But for all my trouble, deep down I'd still substantially be the same ole guy as when I started.
St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one instance of change we encounter in this world that is exactly the opposite. The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence or substance of these realities, which can't be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What was once bread and wine are now 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 power of God's Spirit and Word. After praying for the 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 to me like Genesis 1: 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 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.
This is an attempt to see if, in practice, it is possible to actually have a respectful dialogue on a theological issue of some dispute. From my understanding, there is a diversity of opinion on the Eucharist within multiple communities. Of course, the Catholics and Orthodox believe that the bread and wine are transformed during the Divine Liturgy/Mass into the Body and Blood of Christ. (The Catholic belief is known as "transubstantiation" -- not sure what name, if any, the Orthodox use for this)
I understand within "Protestant" (to include, but not limited to, Protestant, Restorationist, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Charismatic) communities, there is a diversity of beliefs -- from a belief in "transubstantiation," to a belief that it's nothing more than eating a bit of processed flour and drinking a sip of Welch's.
I would appreciate the following rules of engagement:
I chose this topic rather than another one, as while it is controversial, there are a whole host of beliefs on the subject...so if there is some debate, it might get heated, but it should be multi-sided...
Good luck.
I Concur 100%... To pray before the Blessed Sacrament in Adoration you can feel his Prescence after receiving Communion you can feel him. For those that don’t believe... is there Gravity? Air? you Can’t see them but you know them well.. Just Like Christ is physically with us.. Pope benedict used that explanation when an eight year old Girl asked him the same Question... it is in the George Weigel article..
If you think it appropriate, please feel free to ping who you think might be able to make a useful contribution.
If by St. Thomas you mean Aquinas, then you should remove any reference to "microscopes" from your quote. he died long before they were invented. This is the crux of the disbelief in the literal transformation of the bread and wine into body and blood. Most people can accept it as a metaphore, but it does not look or taste like anything but bread and wine. Modern men and women rely on (scientific) evidence, consciously or unconsciously. Faith is required to accept the Eucharist as real. Pure faith is rare.
I always thought that believers were the Body of Christ, which the bread represents. There’s no need for me to consume the literal Body of Christ, since I am that already.
Sorry, didn’t give references.
Rom. 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
I Cor. 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 12:12
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:27
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Ephesians 3:6
That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph. 4:12-13 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
I teach students in Religious Education (8th graders) and still have some that have trouble with the Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ.
I'll keep working on them.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Thanks for the ping.
Tally Ho!
May God be with you and yours.
This topic is certainly . . . a . . . suitable gauntlet, as it were! LOL.
We shall see what we shall see!
I guess I could contribute this from another thread:
I think it’s at least AS plausible
that those who do the will of the Father are partaking of Christ’s Body; incorporating HIM; digesting HIM; operating from and in HIM; being infused with HIM; being empowerd by Him; . . .
Did He give the woman at the well a pre-Communion bread and wine?
No. He gave her Himself . . .
How?
By infusing her with the KNOWLEDGE, TRUTH that He was/is THE MESSIAH . . . by imparting into her and into her whole family WHO AND WHAT HE WAS AND IS—HIS BEING, HIS ESSENCE, HIS TRUTH.
He could have symbolically hinted at what was to come by offering her some bread and wine as a precursor—a hallmark pointing forward. There’s no hint that He did. Evidently, it wasn’t the point.
“My yoke is easy and my burden light.”
I used to teach 7th graders. I know what you mean. I mean I feet it, sometimes it’s so overwhelming, but how do you teach that?
LOL feet=feel. :)
Is the intent of the Eucharist here to have a relationship with God or to become God???
I’M quite willing for Jesus to transform bread and wine/juice into His Body and Blood within me IF THAT’S HIS DOING . . .
However, I have no indication that it is.
And, every benefit spoken of by the RC’s . . . including the intense feelings of HIS INCORPORATION WITHIN ME at the moment of Communion . . .
all such I’ve experienced from time to time.
At some point, it almost seems like the RC perspective is a crass sort of earthanizing of the spiritual significance of
HIS SPIRIT MAKING US ONE WITH HIM.
Thanks for the ping, Northern Yankee. I’ve always viewed Communion as a rememberance of Christ’s sacrifice. Christ gives his disciples the wine and bread as examples of his own body and blood that will be shed when he is crucified. By partaking in Communion, we are to remember the covenant that Christ had made with his followers....by believing he is the son of God, and was sacrificed for our sins, we can have eternal life.
Well, yes. I think it can be very eary for people who have lost faith in one to lose faith in the other. If the supernatural - including all the other miracles in Scripture - is eliminated, there's nothing to our religion except "ritual and social organization that make me feel better."
I have first graders this year, and I’ve been emphasizing this all year. It’s hard to tell how much they’re taking in.
Just curious. What did the people who were taught about Christianity by Paul, Mark etc. believe? I am curious about the Coptics in Egypt, who I think were taught by Mark, the Chrisitians in the Iraq, (I forget what they are called but I don’t think they are Catholic), Syria etc. Did they have the same belief or do they have a different theory?
I believe that he meant something like "St. Thomas said this, and now with microscopes we observe that; without implying that a microscope was available to him.
Faith is required to accept the Eucharist as real.
Most certainly.
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.