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.
The flesh and the blood could simply be something the priest bought, dug up, whatever and used preservatives of some kind on. I don't know the technical aspects of it, but I'd bet that even in the 7th century they knew ways to do this.
I would like to believe it was real, but I don't. This just looks phony, to me. It would be nice if the church would open it up to new rounds of tests and let a group of non-Catholic, non-Italian scientists come in and do the testing.
There are many reading these who will now begin to get the picture that all the story isn't told by Catholic historians. Many of the pieces of the church history puzzle are help by historians outside of the Vatican's approved list of historians. And the truth about manuscript evidence is not all in the hands of Catholic scholars either.
Whenever an organization that is trying to protect and defend its own position as THE Church, and as definitive Christianity, and has a history of having murdered people by the hundreds of thousands over just that (their own authority), then all history written and taught by that organization must be challenged and questioned.
Churches and Christians who are NOT trying to tell the world that their own visible church and system is infallible or supra-authorative are more likely to be honest and open and spread their research out further to seek truth about history.
“I have noticed that Protestants are much more likely to fall prey to heresy because they often lack the historical context to refute them.”
______________________________________
I’m not a Protestant, so I’m just asking for them.
Does this mean that, in the view of Catholics, Protestant Christians do not have the Holy Spirit in them, Whose job it is to guide them into all truth? (John 16:13)
Does this mean that Catholics are more proficient readers than Protestants, and Catholics are always better historical researchers than non-Catholics?
Your statements just seem to indicate that non-Catholics are all totally without God and fairly daft, too. What about non-Catholics who are regenerated, have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and know it?
Appendix No. 159, Companion Bible
159. “THIS IS MY BODY” (Matt. 26:26).
A figure of speech consists of a word of words used out of the ordinary sense, or order; just as we call a person dressed out of the ordinary manner or fashion a “figure”: both attract our attention; and, in the case of words, the one and only object is in order to call a reader’s attention to what is thus emphasized. For examples see the notes on Matt. 16:6; where, had the Lord said “the doctrine of the Pharisees is like leaven”, that would have been the Fig. Simile (Ap. 6). Had He said “the doctrine of the Pharisees is leaven”, the Fig. in this case would have been Metaphor (Ap. 6); by which, instead of saying one thing is like another, it is carried over (as the word Metaphor means), and states that the one thing is the other.
But in Matt. 16:6, the Lord used another Figure altogether, viz. Hypocatastasis (from hupo = under (Ap. 104. xviii), kata = down (Ap. 104. x), and stasis = a stationing), which means putting one of the two words (which are necessary in the case of Simile and Metaphor) down underneath, i.e. out of sight, and thus implying it. He said, “beware of the leaven”, thus implying the word “doctrine”, which He really meant; and, by thus attracting the disciples’ attention to His words, thereby emphasized them.
In these three Figures we have a Positive, Comparative, and Superlative emphasis. The essence of Simile is resemblance; the essence of Metaphor is representation (as in the case of a portrait, which is representation of some person); the essence of Hypocatastasis is implication, where only one word is mentioned and another is implied. Through non-acquaintance with Figures of Speech every Figure is to-day called a “Metaphor”. But this is not the case. A Metaphor is a special Figure different and distinct from all others.
“This is My body” is the Figure Metaphor; and the Figure lies in the Verb “IS”, which, as in this case always means “represents”, and must always be so expressed. It can never mean “is changed into”. Hence in the Figure Metaphor, the Verb “represents” can always be substituted for “is”. For example:
“The field is (or represents) the world” (Matt. 13:38).
“The good seed are (represent) the sons of the kingdom” (Matt. 13:38).
“The reapers are (represent) angels” (Matt. 13:39).
“The odors are (represent) the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8).
“The seven heads are (represent) seven mountains” (Rev. 17:9).
“This cup is (represents) the new covenant” (1Cor. 11:25).
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not (does it not represent) the blood of Christ?” (1Cor. 10:16).
Furthermore, it is a fundamental law in Greek grammar, without exception, that the Article, Pronoun, and Adjective must agree in gender with the Noun to which they refer. For example, in Matt. 16:18, the Pronoun “this” is Feminine, and thus agrees with petra, which is also Feminine, and not with petros (Peter) which is Masculine. See note, and Ap. 147.
So here : the Pronoun “this” is Neuter, and cannot agree with artos ( = bread) because artos is Masculine. It must refer to what is Neuter; and this could only be the whole act of breaking the bread, which would be Neuter also; or to klasma, the broken piece (which is also Neuter). In like manner, when He said (in v. 28) “this is my blood of the New Covenant”; “this”, being Neuter, refers to poterion ( = cup) (*1) and not to oinos ( = wine), which is Masculine, and means :— “This [cup] represents My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many, for remission of sins”.
For, what was the Lord doing? He was making the New Covenant foretold in Jer. 31:31-34. If it were not made then, it can never be made at all (see Ap. 95), for no more has He blood to shed (Luke 24:39). Now, “blood” was shed, and sacrificially used, only in connection with two things, making of a covenant, and the making of atonement. In the former, the victim which made or ratified the covenant was slain and the body divided in two, the parties to the covenant passing between (see notes on Gen. 15:9-18. Jer. 34:18. Gal. 3:20. and Ap. 95). As long as the victim (the covenant maker) was alive the covenant could have no force. See notes on Heb. 9:16-22.
At the last supper this New Covenant was made; and Peter’s proclamation in Acts 2:38; 3:19-26; 5:31; and Paul’s in 13:38; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; were based upon it.
Messiah had to be “cut off”, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (Acts 3:18). But that having been accomplished, and the sufferings having been endured, nothing stood in the way of the glory which should follow. “Repent ye THEREFORE and turn [to the Lord] that your sins may be blotted out”, &c. The New Covenant which had been made had provided for that, as the Lord had said in Matt. 26:28, “for the remission of sins”.
In that last supper the Lord was not instituting anything with a view to the Secret (the “Mystery” to be yet revealed in the Prison Epistles); but was substituting bread and wine for the Paschal Lamb (the type being exhausted in the Antitype), because of the new meaning which the Passover should henceforth convey. It was to be the Memorial, not of the Exodus from Egypt, but of the Exodus which the Lord afterward accomplished in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31), according to the New Covenant made by His death.
(*1) Poterion being put by Metonymy (of Adjunct), Ap. 6, for the contents, for the “cup” itself could not be swallowed.
Appendix List
Home | About LW | Site Map | LW Publications | Search
Developed by © Levend Water All rights reserved
Teams of scientists from the University of Sienna and UNESCO did independent tests,1300 years after the miracle, which to this day is on public display.
Those scientists do not work for the Catholic Church.
I have seen the Eucharistic Miracle at Lanciano.
It is housed in a beautiful, see-through glass monstrance and chalice for all the world to see.
The evidence is there, and the scientists have verified it.
The only ingredient left is faith and a desire to accept what God has chosen to reveal.
Yes, my point was in agreement with yours. There is no consensus re:global warming.
It has become part of various political and financial agendas to promote it.
Scientists are not infallible, and their conclusions can be skewed, based on their world views, lack of evidence, selective evidence, etc.
But, back to the Miracle: It was tested, by independent scientific teams, and the conclusions are harmonious with Catholic teaching on the Most Blessed Sacrament.
This seems bogus to me.
Τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου. (Lk 22 19b)
Soma is neuter (as the "to" indicates). The touto agrees with to soma.
It seems to be the analyst starts out with an assumption that IHS could not possibly mean what we say he means, and then choses the figures of speech to suit. I don't think any of us would have thought "is changed into" was what was being said. It's more IMHO "Hinneh, ecce, idou: my body".
As they say, rejoicing in the eternal verity (if sterility) of the tautology, "It is what it is."
(My favorite instance of this was a 270 lb, at least, deputy holding his belly and commenting on the sheriff's attempted institution of a policy of weight loss and maintenance ... One could only respond, "It obviously is.")
or whomever.
Whatever ;-)
Every Greek scholar that does not agree with the Vatican must be lacking in their abilities. /s
The guy makes an argument. It may have escaped your attention but there are a few Greek Scholars who would not consider that argument conclusive. Yet I do not say that your side is saying, "Every Greek scholar who agrees with the Vatican is lacking in his abilities."
I addressed his argument. I have read a book, in fact, two or three books. I have managed to pick up a few things about syntax and figures and the task of communication in general along the way. In my opinion, since there is a perfectly reasonable grammatical justification for the neuter demonstrative pronoun, and the guy doesn't even mention the handy neuter noun right there a couple of words away in the predicate but says it MUST refer to some word not there, I think he may have an agenda.
That opinion is strengthened by the lame "is changed into" argument. Since no one is suggesting that he was offering "is changed into" as a meaning.
Then in his list he includes I Cor 11:25 as an example of esti meaning "represents". This once again begs the question. Esti is perfectly capable of serving as a copular verb. It's only is you have other reasons to suspect "Represents" that that would be a legitimate translation.
And I say again, our Lord was perfectly capable of saying "is like." Its NOT like the language of His translators doomed Him to an ambiguity in the use of the copular.
Further, your excerpt does not address the hypothetical underlying Aramaic (or whatever), but parses (for me, 'parsing' is a good thing) the Greek as though it gave the ipsissima verba - which could be but is by no means certain.
I think his gazing down into the depths (which cannot be all that great, the body of surviving first century Semitic Koine literature not being huge -- certainly not large enough to provide apodictic certainty for either view) led to the result one usually gets when one gazes into a well: He found his own face looking back at him -- and fell in love.
Alternative replies, in the spirit of your response:
— Nope. just this one.
— What we are dissed for maintaining the infallibility of Popes and Councils and dissed again for doubting the infallibility of THIS man?
Anyway, thanks for getting my dander up. I have to go do a security job and I think I'm a better guard dawg when I'm irritated.
You wrote:
“I’m not a Protestant, so I’m just asking for them.”
You’re Catholic? A Jew? Eastern Orthodox?
“Does this mean that, in the view of Catholics, Protestant Christians do not have the Holy Spirit in them, Whose job it is to guide them into all truth? (John 16:13)”
They have the Holy Spirit, but overrule the Holy Spirit with their own prejudices. This is why Protestants can’t even agree among themselves. Want to see something funny and sad at the same time? Get ten Protestants from different denominations and ask them about infant baptism! Then stand back and watch them rip each other apart. They start accusing each other of not understanding the scriptures, not having the Holy Spirit, etc.
“Does this mean that Catholics are more proficient readers than Protestants,...”
Here at FR? Yes. I know that sounds arrogant, but I have seen it hundreds of times. We’re not smarter. We’re just more experienced it seems.
“... and Catholics are always better historical researchers than non-Catholics?”
Beyond any question. Stick around and you’ll see Protestants admit again and again (or show with their comments if they’re too embarrased to admit it) that they didn’t know something that knowledgeable Catholic generally know. Protestants here are often eyeball deep in caricatures about history and don’t even realize it: the “Dark Ages”, Inquisition, crusades, popes, annullments, papal elections, indulgences, etc. One of my favorite questions on these topics is to simply ask, “How many books have you read on this subject?” The answer is almost always ZERO. Seriously, ZERO. So when I bring up books and authors’ findings the usual response I get is “That’s revisionism!”, or “That’s what Catholics would say!” even when the authors are not revisionists and not Catholic. I have even had guys here at FR argue with me and admit that what I was saying went against what they learned in their high school history classes! Yeah, I hope so! And high school seems to have been the last time that they read anything even claiming to be a history book.
Ask yourself, “How many book on the Eucharist have you read?” Any at all? I’m willing to bet the answer is ZERO. It is ZERO is it not?
“Your statements just seem to indicate that non-Catholics are all totally without God and fairly daft, too.”
No. I think there are many fine Protestants, but God’s guidance often comes in the form of moral guidance and not in the form of historical or even Biblical accuracy. God is there first for your soul! The problem is that Protestants ignore what they have a Protestant prejudice against. Secondly, yeah, I admit, and I am sure this is often just me, that Protestants seem rather “daft” about many Christian things - especially historical things in Christianity. Let me give you an example. A friend of mine went to a Protestant non-denominational church in Kansas City a number of years ago. He was shocked to see a mural in the basement that showed their view of Bible preaching throughout the ages since Christ. The mural showed the Apostles preaching out of a codex, then there was a gap, until a painting of John Wycliffe showed up preaching out of a Bible. That’s right. There were NO CHRISTIANS from the time of St. John until the late 14th century. Now, if that isn’t emblematic of poor Protestant understanding of history, then nothing is.
“What about non-Catholics who are regenerated, have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and know it?”
They claim they have it and say they know it. They also claim they understand the Bible correctly, but then again the Protestant next door also says he is regenerated and has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but he disagrees with you on a hundred issues. And the Protestant next door to him claims the same, and disagrees with you on a hundred issues. How can you all be regenerated, all have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and all not only disagree with one another, but also disagree with the Church?
You might want to think about that. This is something I have thought about often: How can Protestants claim sola scriptura and the Holy Spirit as their guide and yet not agree on things? Either that means they are untrustworthy as a group for guidance or the Holy Spirit is somehow falling down on the job. Clearly the Holy Spirit always is what He is, so the problem lies with Protestants and Protestantism. There’s simply no way around it.
Furthermore, it is a fundamental law in Greek grammar, without exception, that the Article, Pronoun, and Adjective must agree in gender with the Noun to which they refer.
At the Last Supper when our Lord spoke the words of Institution, he was speaking in Aramaic, not Greek. Amongst the 22 churches that make up the Catholic Church, several (including mine) retain those words in the language of Jesus.
“This is My body” is the Figure Metaphor; and the Figure lies in the Verb “IS”, which, as in this case always means “represents”, and must always be so expressed. It can never mean “is changed into”. Hence in the Figure Metaphor, the Verb “represents” can always be substituted for “is”.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times. The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.
The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.
Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.
The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).
Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically. cf
That’s a wonderful post.
I am accomplishing my purpose. I am getting the voices out, so that non-Catholics can read what is understood of them by Catholics.
It doesn’t shake me, because I know that there have always been Christians who intimate with the Lord Jesus Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit, and yes, know it, since the time of the Apsotles who were never Catholic (by the Vatican’s definition), nor Protestant (by the Geneva definition). The idea that one must be one or the other if one is a Christian is a falacy and a fantasy.
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.
Oh, I get it...Sola Scripture is false...No matter what, Sola Scripture is false...Therefore, the above verse means something completely different than what it says...
The Scriptures were written so that IF you believe in Jesus Christ, you would know that you have (present tense, right now) eternal life...
Must be like the Eucharist, eh??? You see what it is, but it's really something completely different...The verse actually means; if you get baptized (in water), and follow the traditions of a certain religion where such traditions can't be found in the Scripture, you may (or may not) have eternal life someday...
And all this time, I thought the verse meant what it actually said...Silly me...
HuH??? Oh, they must have taught that in the eighth grade...
Well you created a dilema for yourself...If Jesus didn't inspire every word of the Scriptures that were written, good chance he didn't inspire any of it...
However, there are no conflicts in the Scripture...If you find what you consider to be a conflict, the problem is not with the Scripture, the problem lies with you...
HaHa...The book of Ephesians for example says Salvation is without works...The book of James says Salvation is with works...That has the appearance of a conflict...
Different groups have different ways of explaining it away, but your group just ignores one of them so you can cling to the other...
Well, actually, you're kinda right. Of course sola scriptura is false. However, the verse means exactly what it says....just not what you think it means.
The Scriptures were written so that IF you believe in Jesus Christ, you would know that you have (present tense, right now) eternal life...
John isn't referring to "the Scriptures," he is referring to the Gospel and epistles he wrote, and more specifically, he is referring to the list of things in 1Jn 5:1-12...you know, the part you didn't post.
So often the misinterpretation lies in seeing the word "believe" and thinking that merely saying "I believe" is sufficient. Yet John refers in 1Jn 5:2-3 to keeping His commandments--ah, those pesky works again.
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.