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.
I think that Iscool’s post that you refer to was meant to be sarcasm.
No, it was meant to characterize — somewhat bitterly — how Catholics think.
Sarcasm is usually funny. That post was just ugly.
***Yes, ALL people professing Christianity that the Romans dealt with. The Eucharist - and the Roman misunderstanding of It - were accomplished facts in early Christianity.***
Is it possible that the Phibionites of Alexandria, who claimed to be Christian, yet had the most perveted rituals, may have caused the Romans to accuse the true Christians of canabalism?
If I told of their rituals I might be banned from FR.
Actually it says that God appeared to Moses in the midst of the burning bush.
And it is far less of a leap of faith to believe that those things He commanded were written down by the apostles and were not the creation of some Holy Traditions. That statement does not demonstrate your claim of any legitimacy of Catholic traditions.
To carry on with that same thought, Jesus instructs the Apostles to “..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.”
Note He said “ALL THINGS”
In John’s Gospel he ends by stating: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”
Jesus commanded the Apostles to teach them to observe “ALL THINGS” He has taught. John states that there are many other things about Jesus that he did not write. Since we are commanded to observe “ALL THINGS”, where is one to find what John left out? If you only have sola scriptura (Christianity lite) you can’t because it isn’t written down, it is the teachings of the Church passed on within Sacred Tradition.
Says Catholics...
You said: And it is far less of a leap of faith to believe that those things He commanded were written down by the apostles...
Not according to John. I guess you reject his gospel.
Paul, James, Peter....
bof>No..it was God under the appearance of a burning bush.
Actually it says that God appeared to Moses in the midst of the burning bush.
205 posted on May 26, 2008 10:46:30 AM MDT by Uncle Chip
Wow actually quoting the Holy Word of Elohim when someone quotes the fables of man.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
NAsbU Exodus 3:2 The angel of the LORD appeared to him
in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked,
and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush
was not consumed.
no, but He was the bread of life.
You wrote:
“Is it possible that the Phibionites of Alexandria, who claimed to be Christian, yet had the most perveted rituals, may have caused the Romans to accuse the true Christians of canabalism?”
I doubt it. 1) The Phibionites were Gnostics in the Eastern Levant and probably would not have been confused with Christians even by the Romans. 2) It was Christians who accused the Phibionites of performing the worst of their rituals not the Romans. 3) Catholics everywhere taught that the Eucharist was Christ’s flesh, hence the Romans would have gotten their view of the Eucharist from them and not from a puny sect in the East.
“If I told of their rituals I might be banned from FR.”
Uh, maybe. They did go in for the most bizarre and disgusting of rituals.
You said: Paul, James, Peter
John: “...if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”
I never realized that the epistles contained so much additional information that was missing from the Gospels that the whole world was needed to contain them. I mean I have them sitting in the Bible right next to me and it fits right in my hands...
I won’t bother asking you to list everything that is taught by the Apostles that the Gospels are missing. I am sure you could come up with a some things...but certainly not the volume that John speaks of.
It appeared to be a burning bush, but it was not a burning bush.
You mean that it wasn’t what it appeared to be? Is God able to do that? *snicker* That would almost be like the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ appearing to be bread and wine. Again, is God able to do that? But I want to put restrictions on God to fit my anti-Catholic world view!!
“I do too, but I also recognize that Christ shares the office of intercessor with His saints.”
Wha...? Where in the Bible does it say that Christ and someone/others intercede with the Father?
Once again, and I’m quoting scripture — “...no one comes to the Father but by me.”
Seems pretty cut and dried. Christ ONLY.
-Hoss
I never realized that the epistles contained so much additional information that was missing from the Gospels that the whole world was needed to contain them.
nice excerpt, but it is out of context and is not saying what you claim it says. Second off, it was true, then Catholic traditions would be just as inadequate.
There is nothing taught in Catholicism about salvation without Christ.
Read 1 Corinthians. Paul wrote that participaing in the Eucharist was participation in the Body and Blood of Christ.
Also, the Coptic Church, which split from the Great Church over The Council of Chalcedon, believes in the Real Presence.
The Orthodox Church, the Eastern, Greek half of the Great Church which went out of Communion with the Western Half, The Latin Catholic Church in 1054 AD also believes in Real Presence amongst the Eucharist.
The idea that Christ is fully present amongst the Eucharist was fully accepted in the Church long before the word “transubstantiation” was ever used to describe it in Aristotle’s language.
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.