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 said: How about showing me in scripture where God says that anyone other than he himself DOES hear prayer?
It does not work that way. You are the sola scriptura believer. Where does it say only God can hear us?
I reject sola scriptura as the heretical recent man-made tradition that it is.
Sacred Tradition, that has been around for over 2000 years, vs. the recent protestant invention of sola scriptura, teaches the ability of the saints to hear us and pray for us the same way I might pray for you.
He was making a comment about me to another poster and did not add me to the ping. The other poster was pinged, not me.
Who claimed they were identical or interchangeable?
“Fit together perfectly” does not mean they are redundant, but rather more like complementary.
You said: And, to me, praying to anyone or anything other than God is practicing idolatry.
Another self-anointed magisterial interpretation of Holy Scripture which makes individuals the final arbitrator of Truth instead of God through His Church. If you put that kind of exegesis in place you end up with chaos, division and ever-expanding numbers of competing interpretations of scripture....hmmm..sounds like protestantism.
Wow, even before Jesus did His teaching.
You are conflating prayer with worship.
I tried to explain to the poster in #253 that commanding and “dids” are not different things, that the act of commanding is something someone does and that the other things Jesus “did” that were too numerous to be included in scripture includes things He commanded that were to be passed on.
Sacred Tradition IS HIS teaching.
Oops..I see what you mean..sorta like Christians writing the old testament...you knew what I meant.
To reach the conclusion that was reached, the subject had to be interchangeable and they weren't. Therefore the logic of the argument failed. You can not say that all things Jesus commanded to be taught are so much that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written, as the argument went unless the subjects were interchangeable.
Prayer IS worship.
Some interesting definitions, if one wishes to appeal to a dictionary:
Prayer (noun)
a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship : I’ll say a prayer for him | the peace of God is ours through prayer.
Worship (noun)
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity : the worship of God | ancestor worship.
So, actually, when we pray, we DO reverence and adore God...so we DO worship him when we pray. So, to pray to anyone other than God is to worship that person or entity. And, again, to do that is to practice idolatry.
So, yes, I do conflate prayer with worship. I do so because prayer IS a form of worship.
Hoss
I am not the one limiting. You are the one. God's abilities are infinite as John stated, God's commandments to teach us were finite as Matthew discussed.
Note the "or's". Not all prayer is worship. A request for help is not worship. The Mass is a prayer of worship. A prayer like "Heavenly Father I adore Thee..." is worship. A prayer like "Heavenly Father I ask that the Indians beat the Yankees" is not worship it is intercessory prayer.
Nope. Some prayer is worship. Some is not.
Pray means ask. Look at the ENTIRE entry of one popular internet dictionary:
PRAY
v.intr.1. To utter or address a prayer or prayers to God, a god, or another object of worship.
2. To make a fervent request or entreaty.v.tr.
1. To utter or say a prayer or prayers to; address by prayer.
2. To ask (someone) imploringly; beseech. Now often used elliptically for I pray you to introduce a request or entreaty: Pray be careful.
3. To make a devout or earnest request for: I pray your permission to speak.
4. To move or bring by prayer or entreaty.
False.
God is infinite, not the limited God created by protestantism.
If you are referring to John’s last verse as indicating that God’s abilities are infinite then I can just say...wow... I have no idea how one would arrive at that, even with a self-created personal magisterial interpretation authority. That verse has NOTHING to do with what God can do. It has to do with a statement that Jesus did many more things that were not written by John.
You said: God’s commandments to teach us were finite as Matthew discussed.
Where in Matthew does it say Jesus made no other commandments?
Thanks, that brings up a most excellent point:
MATTHEW 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The word 'commanded' is past tense. Therefore, Jesus had already taught the disciples 'all things' which Jesus commanded to be taught. QED.
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.
______________________________________________________________________
I agree with you. My church does not believe it is meant to be the body of Christ, but all you have to do is look at what the people in the region believed after the crucifixion and it’s pretty hard to argue against the Cathollic/orthodox/Copic/syrian/ etc. position. Eventually you get to Europe and the Protestant Reformation and things are considered differently.
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.