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.
They fit together perfectly. Extend the bold to all of Matthew 28:20.
The word “cookies” in my post is an allusion to an anti-Catholic cartoon which cannot be mentioned on Free Republic.
If you would like, I would be happy to explain it in a single sentence via Freep Mail.
Naw, I apologize for my ill-fated attempt at humor. I mean’t no harm. I don’t really care what anyone else believes, so long as they afford me the same courtesy. Have a nice holiday and God Bless.
I should have said that Christ IS the Bread of Life.
God bless you too. Be well.
But why pray to Mary or other Saints when we can pray DIRECTLY to The Lord? I pray for family and friends (and Freepers) — I pray asking THE LORD to save them. Mary and the Saints can’t save them. Only through Christ. And we have access to him directly.
So - - why pray to Mary or the Saints? When Christ taught the apostles to pray, he said to...
Pray then like this:
“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Matthew 6:9-13
So... where does He teach to pray to Mary.. or the Saints? He says to pray to the Father. And he teaches that the only way to the Father is through Him.
Praying for the intercession of Mary or the Saints is to pray a meaningless prayer — only God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit hear and answer prayer.
Hoss
Did Jesus say "this has become my body", "this has become my blood?" How did the "trans" get injected into Scripture? He simply said "is."Well, even the Evangelists call it bread (and the cup) first, and then HE says... whatever He actually said. So I think most people would say there was some change, even if only a change in "signification".
As to the something that wasn't God becoming God, isn't that the miracle part?
The God changing part is excellent. I'd say it's tied up with the mind-boggling aspects of the Incarnation.
The next questions are pretty much examined in the Summa. I'm not sure "contained" is right. Is my "Dawgness" "contained" in my body? I don't know.
The humanity of Christ is not identified with his body. Anymore than MY humanity, such as it is, is to be identified with mine. I am more than my body, and Christ's humanity is more than is body. Wouldn't that hve to be right? I can see problems on the horizon, but let's move slowly.
The BIG problem is that moderns don't "get" "substance". WE think in terms of conservation of matter and such and we see a continuity, indeed there IS a continuity, between bread in my hand and subsequent bolus turcking on through the GI tract. But the "substantial" approach is that isn't bread any more. And the "transsubstantial" approach is That whatever it is doesn't have the accidents of bread any more so the local identification of it with Christ is no more. Something like that, anyway
Similarly with rotted bread or vinegared wine. And besides the bread and wine are consumed before they rot, and if a calamity happens great hootin' and hollerin' and stuff is carried out. One old lady bearing a chalice of the Precious Blood took a header off the altar steps. Clean towles, clean bucket, many many rinsings involving pouring the rinsed material not into drainpipes but onto clean grass, etc. Some things you just have to trust to God to make okay.
AS to the last question, give me ten years or so and I'll try plausible to say.
I love your questions. Thanks for taking the issue seriously.
You can always tell when someone is using that handy little anti-Catholic “bible notes” help aid because sometimes they just cut and paste the wrong or just part of the critique.
I know what you mean’t, I was just struck by the immediate need to be a smarty pants and well....my bad.
To piece those two phrases together as one done, one would have to believe that: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" is identical to "there are also many other things which Jesus did"....I can't see how you can maintain any intellectual honesty and say those two subjects are interchangeable.
You said: only God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit hear..
How do you know? Where in scripture does it say NOBODY else in Heaven can hear prayer? Again, protestants always try to limit what God can do, cause Him to be finite. If God wants to allow saints to hear us He can.
The Catholics have this one right in my humble (Protestant) opinion. They have Scripture on their side, and there’s no use denying it. The little non-denominational church I attend has held to a basically transubstantiationist position for over a century.
Really. Could you point me to these anti-Catholic Bible notes. Funny, I see most Catholic responses as the same old canned responses on every thread. In making my points, I borrow from no one but the Bible.
I hate to tell you, but when one commands someone to do something it is an act (as in He did something...He commanded). The act of commanding is something that “person” did. One of the things Jesus did was command the Apostles to “baptize in the name...etc.” John tells us He did many more things. By extension some of those “dids” would include other things He commanded.
Again, unless you wish to put limits on what God can do with His “dids”.
I think you’re forgetting the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Remember The Great Schism? Approximately from 800-1000 A.D.
YOUR interpretation of the Bible, which is inflenced by the Protestant denomination doctrine you belong to.
How about showing me in scripture where God says that anyone other than he himself DOES hear prayer? In fact, why not revisit Elijah’s contest with the prophets of Baal. Who did Elijah pray to? Adam? Eve? Seth?
Who did Christ pray to in the Garden of Gesthemene? Moses? Abraham? His mother? No. He prayed to God. God answers prayer, no one else. God hears prayer. He doesn’t say, “I and the certain saints hear prayer, “ or, “I and Mary and the saints hear prayer.”
Show me where God says anyone but himself hears prayer and then you can show me also that someone other than God answers prayer. My bet is you won’t find it.
Your comment on Protestants is rather a broad brush and very non-specific. God IS sovereign. God is sovereign according to HIS will. Not Protestant will or Catholic will. So, why assume that God allows saints to hear and answer prayer when He doesn’t say? But, He DOES say that we are to worship HIM alone; to do otherwise is idolatry. And, to me, praying to anyone or anything other than God is practicing idolatry.
Hoss
True, this is more of a literal vs. symbolic debate, unlike doctrine which seems pulled from thin air. I wouldn't fault either position since Jesus so often taught in parables and never expected non-believers to understand.
I was actually being tongue in cheek but as with all humor it has to have an element of truth in it... this is what I was referring to:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/056729241X/defendeofthecath
Constantly see verbatim cuts from that.
It is mostly influenced by what the Word says. Besides, making false acquisitions about where I get my arguments and not even pinging me to the post was a bit rude.
you automatically get pinged when someone replies to you, at least I do
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.