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.
Let’s try re-parsing those “or’s”
Prayer is a request for help OR expression of thanks to God (or an object of worship that is not God).
Therefore, prayer is addressed to an object of worship — requesting help, or thanking God is still worshipping God. Or, it is worshipping someone/something else other than God.
A request for help is not necessarily a prayer — i.e., “Mom! Please help me!” But, if you pray to your Mother and ask for prayer, what are you doing? Just asking for help? NO! You are worshipping her; you have elevated her from a simple individual who can be asked to one who must be approached by prayer. Doesn’t that imply a certain elevation from the natural to the supernatural? If you “ask” God for help, whether it’s under your breath, or a silent request, you are praying, are you not? Or, can you go up to him and say, “hey, I want the Indians to beat the Yankees.” The content is not the issue - it’s the mode. Praying is worshipping. Prayer is the entering into the presence of God — our object of worship. Unless Mary or the Saints are being prayed to, then THEY are the object... and idolatry ensues.
The Lord’s Prayer is a model prayer. When the disciples asked Christ to teach them to pray, Christ said, “pray then like this:” In this model, Christ teaches the disciples to (according to your example) WORSHIP God by asking his name to be hallowed, for his will to be done.... So, every prayer is to be worshipful, no?
And, finally, I will be praying to God (no one else!) for those who feel that anyone besides The Lord deserves worship.
Hoss
You said: The word ‘commanded’ is past tense. Therefore, Jesus had already taught the disciples ‘all things’ which Jesus commanded to be taught. QED.
Yup. And as John indicates in his gospel, not all of it was written down. Therefore since we are to observe them we have to get those not documented in scripture from another source.
You said: Prayer is a request for help OR expression of thanks to God (or an object of worship that is not God). Therefore, prayer is addressed to an object of worship — requesting help, or thanking God is still worshipping God.
Nice try. No matter how far you stretch it it is wrong.
...and since you believe in sola scriptura...where in scripture does it specifically say that prayer is always a form of worship.
Ah, but Haydock puts it better than I ever could:
1. by always dwelling in the hearts of the faithful; These last six lines of St. Matthew's gospel, says the bright luminary of France, Bossuet, most clearly demonstrate the infallibility and indefectibility of the one, holy, Catholic Church, which all are commanded to hear and obey. Jesus Christ will make good his promise:
2. by his sacramental presence in the holy Eucharist;
3. by his providential care, and constant protection to his holy Catholic Church.
And has been pointed out, John was referring to things Jesus had done. Matthew is referring to things Jesus commanded to be taught. Just because one is infinite (or at least so much all the books in the world could not contain them) does not mean the same apples to the other. They are TWO different things. And clearly Matthew states that Jesus had already taught them all things that they are to teach, which most definitely must be more finite (sorry for bad math analogy) or the disciples would have an impossible task.
Been 10 years and I still haven't seen any "reliable" sources from you.
You said: And has been pointed out, John was referring to things Jesus had done. Matthew is referring to things Jesus commanded to be taught.
And as I informed you in #253 (and you never refuted):
“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”.”
If I were presenting so preposterous a premise, I too would claim "clearly."
Doesn't make it so, but what the hey?
Rev 5:7 He came and received the scroll from the right hand of the one who sat on the throne.
5:8 When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.
The elders in heaven having "heard" the petitions present them to God
Tobit 12:12 12 I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.
The Angel Rapheal recorded then gave the Petitions to God.
Yes, as a Catholic you would have to read it that way, but that is not how it is translated. Assuming the English interpretations are correct (KJV, NIV, etc), it seems conclusive that Jesus has already provided the apostles all things to be taught, and BTW He would always be with them.
You said: And clearly Matthew states that Jesus had already taught them all things that they are to teach, which most definitely must be more finite (sorry for bad math analogy) or the disciples would have an impossible task.
Yes, as I have stated previously He taught them all things (and by the way promised to be with them to the end of time guiding them) but as John indicates not all those things were written down in the Gospels. See #288 for the rest of the answer so I don’t have to repeat that commanding is something someone does.
Yes, as a protestant you would have to read it that way, but that is not how it is translated. Assuming the English interpretations are correct (KJV, NIV, etc), it seems conclusive that Jesus has taught many things and would be with them to teach many more, through the church He founded, the Catholic Church.
You said: it seems conclusive that Jesus has already provided the apostles all things to be taught,
Again, providing all things to be taught does not equal documented in scripture.
That is because the argument seemed nonsensical to me. His commands are a SUBSET of His acts. Just because his acts are too numerous to write down, does not imply the same as His commands. Whereas, it is possible that His commands (a subset) could be as numerous as His acts, but a read Matthew indicates otherwise. Theoretically, the subset could be as small as one or two.
You have done well.
Only if you believe the apostles intentional omitted things in their writings. Jesus stated he already taught them all things to be taught. Did the apostle fail in their job? I think not.
Transubstantiation requires nothing more than faith. Jesus said it; hence it must be so.
You said: but a read Matthew indicates otherwise.
Wrong. That is a WAG and not sound biblical scholarship. The verses in Matthew make no statement at all as to whether scripture documents all of Christ’s commands. Nowhere in any part of scripture does it make that claim. The only sense of it is found in John where he indicates that not all that Jesus did is found in scripture. Even if none of the (evidently voluminous) “dids” were commands (which I highly doubt) everything that Jesus did was instructive to His followers and were part of His teaching, were known to His followers and surely handed down to those who followed.
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.