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.
You mean the Catholic Aristotelian version thereof.
No..it was God under the appearance of a burning bush.
Gotta love those who try to make finite by putting restrictions on what He can or can’t do.
On Open threads, the thin-skinned are the disruptors.
Or do you need professional help?
Please do not make this personal.
You wrote:
“Isn’t that a prayer to Mary? Or is that something different?”
Asking is praying in that that’s what the word literally means.
Only if you add references to snake-handling to it.
I did not.
You wrote:
“Funny... I pray that Christ will intercede for me since he said, “no one comes to the Father but by me.””
I do too, but I also recognize that Christ shares the office of intercessor with His saints.
“Odd — nothing in there about Mary. The “Saints” — the rosary.”
That wasn’t the point so it need not have been said.
The thread was already lost when the Catholics were asked if Christ was made of crackers.
See #146. I think you did, whether intentional or not.
I know you’re referring to 146, nonetheless, I did not say all Catholic teachings are found in the Bible.
LOL, well I was gonna list that reference too, but I thought I would let a Catholic bring that one up.
You wrote:
“The thread was already lost when the Catholics were asked if Christ was made of crackers.”
Yeah, I have to admit that such a blatant attack on Christ and Christian beliefs took me by surprise - and I thought I had seen everything.
Yes, but I was talking about all and essential Cathlolic doctrine, so your answer did implied such.
Would someone with my tagline claim that all Catholic doctrine is in the Bible?
You said: You are the one who just said all Catholic Teachings are in the Bible.
First of all I reject the protestant man-made tradition of sola scriptura. As John stated at the end of his gospel there was much much more than was written down. Without Sacred Tradition you have chaos (or ever doctrinally meandering protestantism) because you lack the completeness of Divine Revelation. Without Sacred Tradition you end up with all sorts of wild interpretations of Holy Scripture....some are quite silly and entertaining actually.
The Puritans in England and New England most certainly did hold Catholics as second class citizens; ever hear of the “Catholic Emancipation Act” of the 19th century? Boston banning Christmas as ‘popish’ And consider the similarities, of an unyielding God (pre-destination), no separation of church and state (be it Geneva, or Boston), iconclasism, violent imposition of their religion. Unitarianism is common to both Islam and a branch of Congregationalism.
It’s not my idea that Islam is a heretical off-shoot of Christianity, it’s belloc’s.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT
And Protestants would say the same about some Catholic beliefs.
You're making quite a jump there. There are plenty of diligent, fair-minded Protestants in every field. In fact, the textbook we used when I took Introduction to Rabbinic Literature was written by a Protestant scholar -- the rabbi who taught the course said it was the best introductory book in the field.
You said: And Protestants would say the same about some Catholic beliefs.
Yes they would...and do. But they are wrong and we are right, but not because of our own merits, but those of Jesus Christ who stated to the Apostles: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
(PS..note He did not say to teach them to observe all things the Holy Spirit will cause to be written down in Holy Scripture...but what I have commanded you...just before He guarantees His protection to His fledgling Church. Just more proof that to follow sola scriptura is evidence of being on the wrong track.)
I think your reply about sola scriptura sums up all of the argument on this thread. Sola scriptura is a non-scriptural error. Catholic tradition is non-scriptural truth.
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.