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 wrote:
“Where does it say that Christ allows others to share in the intercession for our sins?”
There are many things the Bible doesn’t say simply because the Bible was never intended to contain all doctrine on all things.
“We will judge with Him in the Second Coming, true. But to equate this “sharing” when it’s plainly stated in the New Heavens and New Earth to Mary, et. al., “sharing” with Christ in the intercession for our sins is a non-sequitur.”
No, it is not a “non-sequitur”. The two are similar authorities: both are IN Christ, both are about the communion of saints, both are related to the final destiny of the saved man.
“I was accused of stretching, but this really is. Two separate issues.”
They are indeed two separated, but RELATED, issues. I never claimed they were exactly the same.
“One plainly spelled out (end times judging) and intercession for sins, other prayers.”
The Bible was never inspired nor written with the intention of containing in explicit form every doctrine on every subject. Also, it was written before there were even many saints to write about!
If you’re interested: http://www.catholic.com/library/praying_to_the_saints.asp
and here is some early evidence: http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp
You said: That was kind of a low blow.
As opposed to #118 which you went by and had no problem with.
What about St. Augustine going to England to suppress the Celtic Church in favor of the Roman Church starting in 597? Both were christian but seperate from each other.
Where in Rev. 5 does it say that the Elders presented those prayers of the Saints to The Lord? All I read is what they represent.
As for Tobit, I’ll have to leave the apocrypha to you as I don’t see it as canon. But, that’s the way I see it and I understand you may not.
I don’t see that as a satisfactory reference. But, we’ll have to agree to disagree. But I will provide one of several passages that I believe does speak to the issue:
1 Timothy 2:5 says “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”
Christ’s work saves us. One mediator. Nothing is shared with Mary, or the saints. While glorified in Heaven, I doubt Mary or the saints are omniscient; if she were, she would be on par with God. I KNOW that is not true. So, I doubt she can hear the prayers of thousands or millions. No one but the one true, living God — in three persons — omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent can do that.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion!
Hoss
I too think the division of Christianity is a sorrowful thing. But it is a reality and for that reason I support Non Catholic Christians with whom we share certain doctrines.
Was 118 the cracker comment? It was not even worthy of my contempt it was so ridiculous and blasphemous. Trust me that one got the response it deserved. A prayer for the person who posted it.
But am I right that the argument assumes what it's meant to demonstrate or am I missing it again?
Oh don’t I know it. But we must try to stay above the fray.
“There are many things the Bible doesn’t say simply because the Bible was never intended to contain all doctrine on all things.”
So true! And, I agree. But, to add to the Word of God those things that are not plainly spelled out is to trifle with God’s revealed word. And that, I would hope you would agree, is not something to be done at all. But, the Bible DOES say explicitly many things about God’s plan for our salvation. And to add to it or change it is wrong. Whether or not you agree, this is what I see as the issue here: where does it say in God’s word that you are to pray to Mary or the Saints? It DOES say that we are to pray to God — and that Christ is the one mediator, the payment for our sins, alone — and those things we can take to the bank. So, I pray to God and I worship him, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ALONE. To do otherwise is idolatry — spelled out as such in God’s Word.
So, whether or not the statements are “related” can always be argued. But the fact is that God’s word is exactly that and we admonished to not add to it. It’s holy, inspired, and inerrant. We, as humans however, are not inerrant. And I see too much being added by man that I cannot find proof for in God’s word.
So — again, I’ve enjoyed it, and I will pray that there will be “eyes to see” and “ears to hear.” And I’ll be asking God to do this since He alone is able.
Enjoyed it!
Hoss
You wrote:
“So true! And, I agree. But, to add to the Word of God those things that are not plainly spelled out is to trifle with God’s revealed word.”
Then you better not believe the Trinity is three persons since that is not clearly spelled out in scripture except for references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit which neither limits the persons to three nor even tells you that they are persons.
“So, I pray to God and I worship him, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ALONE. To do otherwise is idolatry — spelled out as such in God’s Word.”
I worship God alone. To do otherwise would be idolatry. Prayer, however, is not always worship.
“So, whether or not the statements are “related” can always be argued. But the fact is that God’s word is exactly that and we admonished to not add to it.”
I’m not adding to it. By your understanding of adding to it translations would be impossible! Also, how do you even know what books are scriptural when there is no inspired table of contents?
“It’s holy, inspired, and inerrant. We, as humans however, are not inerrant.”
The Apostles were in the faith when they were inspired - that’s how we got the Bible. Also, the Church is infallible - since it was sent by God to teach onto salvation.
“And I see too much being added by man that I cannot find proof for in God’s word.”
So you are your own Church? A Lone Ranger Christian reinventing the Christian wheel every generation? How sad!
“So — again, I’ve enjoyed it, and I will pray that there will be “eyes to see” and “ears to hear.” And I’ll be asking God to do this since He alone is able.”
And yet His saints will be praying for us in heaven and God will act through His saints on earth. Only God can act, but He acts through His saints all the time.
Yeah but it was nice of her...She acknowledged that there is at least one Protestant who isn't a complete derelict...
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."
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible. To the revealed Word that "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" the Church labeled the belief "Transubstantiation."
Is the wafer ever not his body (before the prayer of the priest)?
Yes - as you just said. It is not His Body until an ordained priest says the words of Consecration.
Is Jesus not the same forever. How then can he become what he previously was not? Or how can something that is not God become something that is God?
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood. From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
How does this happen? It is a mystery that we believe based on faith. Jesus said it is so; hence it is as He said.
If the wafer is God in Jesus Christ, and if God never changes, does the wafer again become not God at some point?
No.
Does digestion somehow dissolve the Godness of the wafer?
Goodness? Do you mean the effect? The Eucharist unites us with Jesus. It is estimated that 15 minutes after consumption, the host is completely dissolved but the graces received remain.
Since, as Catholics say, the Body, Soul, and Divinity is contained whole in the wafer, and that His humanity (body) can not be separated from his Godhood, does the wafer just pass through our systems as God? Does God then become fecal matter in the toilet, to be worshiped and adored? (Better not flush!)
See previous comment.
What happens to the leftovers from the Eucharist? Do those pieces not eaten rot and are eventually thrown away? How could God be treated thus?
Hosts, once consecrated, are reserved in a Tabernacle. This is usually within close proximity to the altar. Next to the Tabernacle is a lamp that burns night and day to remind us of His presence. If you enter a Catholic Church in any part of the world, you will always see the Tabernacle with the lamp burning nearby. Many people often seek solace and comfort inside Catholic Churches where they may quietly sit in the presence of Christ.
After a certain amount of time, the unconsumed hosts will deteriorate. At that point, the priest will dissolve them in water. In every Catholic Church, there is a special sink called a sacrarium that is in the Sacristy. The sacrarium is outfitted with a pipe that bypasses the sewer and leads straight into the earth. This sink is kept covered at all times to prevent the possibility of other substances being poured down it as well.
Is saying "I am the bread which comes down from Heaven" the same as saying, "bread is me?" Does the first statement in some way explain the latter?
No. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
BTW - Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a word that means "House of Bread". Coincidence? ;-)
Interesting. Catholics believe in a corporeal, substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is not just a spiritual presence. The whole Christ is present—body, blood, soul, and divinity. Furthermore, Catholics believe in an objective presence, not one that is available only to those who receive in faith. What does your pastor teach on this matter?
Because that was the dominant language of commerce and education all around the Mediterranean at the time, and had been since the days of Alexander the Great (who was "just slightly" BC). A great many Jews outside the bounds of Judea spoke, wrote, and read Greek and spoke no Hebrew. But the point isn't the language, it is the books comprising the Testament.
"But then claiming a BC Greek OT, you can only go back to 400 for your NT ?? That is because the Catholic NT came from Alexandria after 325 AD. It had been sitting being mutilated and corrupted by Origin and his ilk in N. Africa until Constantine ordered 50 copies of it, which ended up in Rome. Original? Not by a long shot. Byzantine/Antiochan NT copies were all over Asia Minor, along with a Latin OT (160 AD) long before that.
Oh, good grief. Are you REALLY that obtuse??? Of course there were earlier versions of the NT, but no general agreement as to exactly WHICH books should be included, and which left out. General agreement on that topic finalized around 400AD.
In the New Testament, we see in Matt. 17:1-3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31, the deceased Moses and Elijah appear at the Transfiguration to converse with Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John (these may be the two “witnesses” John refers to in Rev. 11:3). Nothing in Scripture ever suggests that God abhors or cuts off communication between the living in heaven and the living on earth. To the contrary, God encourages communication within the communion of saints. Moses and Elijah’s appearance on earth also teach us that the saints in heaven have capabilities that far surpass our limitations on earth.
In the Old Testament, we read in 2 Macc. 15:12-16, that the high priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah were deceased for centuries, and yet interact with the living Judas Maccabeas and pray for the holy people on earth. Perhaps that is why Luther removed this book from his Bible.
Nor I from you.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
You are wrong of course...Jesus healed thousands more people...Jesus no doubt expounded more on the OT...Jesus likely fed more people with nothing, walked on more water, and on and on and on...There would be no reason to write about these things...Do you have any idea why??? Because Jesus said so...
Becasue what WAS written is all we need...It's complete... All you have to do is BELIEVE what He had the Apostles write...
1Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Were more signs required for us to learn what we need to be Christians??? Did we need to learn more for Salvation??? Did we have to rely on anyone's tradition to learn of God and receive Salvation???Of course not...
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Everything is there in the Scriptures...The Spoatle John says so...Bow down and pray to Mary??? Is it written??? Absolutely Not... Do you need anything other than what is written in Scripture for Salvation??? Sola Scripture??? Absolutely Not...
Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
If you will believe what God had these people write down for us, with nothing added, You can KNOW that you have eternal life...Right now...
Come out from among them and learn what God has to say to you...
So who left you the Bible?
Are you saying there were no ministers?
Like in blind faith...Take one of those little crackers home to your parakeet...If he eats it, it ain't Jesus...Unless you got a Holy Bird...
Elijah and Moses appeared and conversed with Christ. He didn’t pray to them. And, that passage does not indicate in any way that Moses or Elijah hear prayer. And, nothing in scripture says that anyone but God hears prayer.
I would agree with Luther if he removed it. ;)
I would think God encourages the communion of the saints — the coming together of Christians for worship and fellowship. But, that may be a different description of saints than to which you refer. But, we all pray to God alone — no one else.
Hoss
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.