Posted on 05/26/2008 4:50:16 AM 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?” (v.60). 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 155 AD, 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 Sav-ior 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 made 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.
It is Christ’s instruction to eat it. Just carrying it around would be just as disobediently sinful as not believing His instruction at all, or worse, mocking it.
You said: Funny, I doubt Paul considered himself ‘Catholic’ and certainly did not sign up to all of the Catholic doctrine.
Well, let’s see, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, on his way to martyrdom in Rome writes: “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.” — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8
This letter shows that during the apostolic age the Church is called the Catholic Church.
You may not know this and it would be hard to tell with what is left to the OT but once upon a time the OT was written by those who believed in Jesus Christ.
You said: The Bible is the writings of Christian...
I bet the Jews would surprised to learn that the OT writings were penned by Christians.
***
The fragments of the ordinance and of the coming and Lord Jesus Christ can be found in the OT if one studies the OT carefully with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Isaiah talks about it a lot and so does other scriptures.
By reading the Book of Mormon one is able to discover those things when they read certain passage of the OT.
It is truly a Joy to witness those nuggets that have been lying dorment for centuries!
And yet they never bother to write all these Catholic teachings down to inform all the churches of these essential doctrine. Instead Popes after reading the tea leaves over the centuries decided these doctrine always existed. Those poor early members of Thessalonica and Corinth never had sufficient understanding to be saved.
You said: What if you don’t eat it??? Can you carry it around like you wold a rabbit’s foot???
Mocking God. Very brave....then again maybe not so.
It's called the New Testament.
Out of respect... no comment.
Perhaps you should consider that they have no interest in getting into their beliefs with you.
Why should they, when the hierarchy does the thinking for them?
Utterly laughable. The Catholic intellectual tradition is the strongest in all of Christianity. You might want to ask Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts if the hierarchy does their thinking for them.
I wonder how many Catholics have actually even read their own Catechism? I have.
Good for you. Want a medal?
There is reading, and there is understanding. Sometimes they do not intersect.
Do you guys pray to Mary???
You wrote:
“And yet they never bother to write all these Catholic teachings down to inform all the churches of these essential doctrine.”
And all Protestant sects write out everything they believe on all things? Pray tell why did no Protestant believe in the ‘rapture’ until the 19th century?
“Instead Popes after reading the tea leaves over the centuries decided these doctrine always existed.”
What tea leaves?
“Those poor early members of Thessalonica and Corinth never had sufficient understanding to be saved.”
So say you. We don’t believe that for a second.
Do you guys pray to Mary???
Define “pray.”
As a Protestant with a fairly Lutheran understanding of the Lord’s Supper, my issue with Transubstantiation is NOT that it acknowledges the Real Presence of Jesus Churst, body and blood.
Rather in the distinction between substance and accidents, Transubstantiation requires an assumption of Aristotle’s philosophy of the nature of the world. Aristotelian philosophy was all the rage in the high Middle Ages when transubstantiation developed.
Aristotle is also alien to a scriptural world view.
You said: Do you guys pray to Mary???
Sure sign of losing the argument. Change to subject to try to set up another straw man argument.
Perhaps the 19th century was the first time the snakes told their handlers of it.
Not so. The Bible tells us that Jesus rose on the third day, but can you tell us one miracle God did in the scriptures that fits the Aristotelian model???
Did Jesus just give the appearance of things when the substance was something else??? When did He ever do that???
Where is the word "accident" or any semblance thereof in the scriptures ??? It's all mystical mumbo jumbo.
Which set of Ignatius' writings are you referring to??? The ones where he doesn't mention anything Catholic, or the other one where Catholic is in everything???
You said: Did Jesus just give the appearance of things when the substance was something else??? When did He ever do that???
Maybe I am wrong, but isn’t Jesus one person of the Blessed Trinity. Didn’t God take the form of a burning bush at one time...or was that just a dream that I had? < /sarcasm>
You wrote:
“Do you guys pray to Mary???”
I pray the Rosary (not as often as I should!), and the Angelus almost every day. I also always keep in mind that I am honoring God by praising His greatest saint who is His creation. I ask Mary to intercede for me and others before the throne of God.
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.