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.
Welcome home!
God has blessed you both with wisdom, humility, and grace.
May He always be at your sides.
Welcome home to you, too!
God has blessed us with His Church. :D
May He always be with you, too, FRiend.
par-TAY!
Thank you...
Now who's being gullible?
Not sure what you mean by your comment. Here we have a case where a young person is showing initiative and trying to find out things for himself rather than merely accepting what he has been told. That seems laudable to me.
Some objects? The "objects" in question were a validly consecrated host and a chalice filled with wine.
"The Flesh and Blood of the miracle can still be seen today. The Host-Flesh, which is the same size as the large Host used today in the Latin Church, is fibrous and light brown in colour, and becomes rose-coloured when lighted from the back. The Blood consists of five coagulated globules and has an earthly colour resembling the yellow of ochre." - link
You quit the thread before seeing this post.
I already read much of that information in post #3. The fact that an accurate scientific test has been conducted on the items possessed by the church in Lanciano and that they have been proved to be flesh and blood does not cause me to be impressed that a miracle has occurred. After 1300 years there is a BIG problem with proving chain-of-custody. Furthermore it is of course possible that a surreptitious substitution occurred at the time of the original "miracle". Of course both of these points are obvious to anyone with an open mind.
I am slightly impressed at the preservation of these items, but not enough to believe in a miracle.
Gullible? You have no problem believing that Jesus Christ is God ...
This will probably cause you to think ill of me, but unfortunately I do have a problem believing that.
To the tile of this thread,Transubstantiation—Hard to Believe? I say, uh HUH!
But I believe it.
These Catholics say there is no apparent change. I looked and beheld no apparent change, so they much be wrong about everything.
That makes no sense.
Laudable?
We can't see reason or intelligence but we know it exists. They tell me that when I flip a switch, electricity turns on the light. We only see the effects of the electric current - light. So it is with the Eucharist. We can't see His presence but know He is there - because He said so.
Jesus turned water into wine. He multiplied 2 fish and a few barley loaves to feed a multitude of 10,000 men plus their wives and children; the leftovers filled up 12 baskets. I wonder how Gamow would have explained that.
Many kids are adventuresome and inquisitive. They plan a thing, and they show fortitude and persistence in carrying it out. At the end of it, they may be stuck at or near the top of a 40+' tree not knowing how to get down and not a little scared(happened to my big brother).
But rather than generally fuss and punish, one should, I think, spend a little time spent commending the fortitude and persistence. THEN you can talk about prudence and forethought and look at how the failure to exercise it scared him and was a nuisance to everyone else. As a rule kids are not criminals and their punishment should be clearly related (and they should be helped to see the relationship) to the bad aspect of what they did, and not necessarily to the whole thing.
One of my Father's maxim's in doing business was, "Let the other guy make some money too." It's a variant on not killing the goose, but it's also, I think,l fundamental justice and proportionality. The aim of a deal should not usually be to destroy the other guy, but to come up with a workable solution.
With kiddies, the goal is a free responsible adult who practices the virtues. So to leave a child with no dignity, to admit no possibility of reparation and growth and whatnot, is to overpunish.
I LIKE that Gamow cared enough to enquire. I LIKE that he followed through on his desire to know. I do NOT like his sloppy thinking and his sacrilege.
So part of his action and motivation was indeed laudable. Another part was vicious. And the vice seems to have triumphed, since he drew at least a couple of false and IMHO disastrous conclusions. If he were "caught" by a parent it would be one of those times where the parent should pray for guidance before sitting down on the judgment seat.
Just came across this, but to that i would like to add my reasons as to why the trustworthy Biblical evidence shows that the RC doctrine in which consecrated communion wafer actually literally becomes the body and blood of Christ, is erroneous.
1.The Jews were strictly enjoined NEVER to eat blood, the penalty being to be cut off from God’s people, “And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people” (Lv. 17:0). And that the apostles, far from being learned theologians, who might have understood what Rome proposes, were unlearned Jews, who (especially Peter) would voice concerns when troubled about things, even as they did at the last supper, (it is I?). It is revealed that Peter was still following Kosher Law as far after the Lord’s supper as Acts 10 (9-16), in which he protested “Not so, Lord” (an oxymoron). How much more he, or one of the other apostles would have been aghast at the thought of actually ingesting the Lord’s corporeal flesh and drinking His blood! Peter did not even (initially) want the Lord to wash his feet (Jn. 13:6), never mind eat His flesh! Peter instead exhorts believers to “desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet 2:2).
2.The Jews were well acquainted with the use of symbolic language, with the O.T. often speaking of eating in a figurative manner. When the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a land that EATETH UP the inhabitants thereof;” or when Joshua exhorted the Israelites, “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are BREAD for us” Num. 13:32; 14:9), it is not to be supposed that the land or the Israelites would become cannibals. And when Jeremiah proclaims, Your WORDS were found. and I ATE them. and your WORD was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (15:16), or Ezekiel and Joghn are told, “EAT this SCROLL, and go, speak to the house of Israel” ( 3:1), “Take the SCROLL ... Take it and EAT it” (Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9), it is not speaking of literal eating. In Jn. 6, it is likewise speaking of receiving the words of Christ in order to live (Mt. 4:4).
As relates to equating men with blood, the most analogous example is found in 2Sam. 23:15-17, wherein we read, “And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.” Here, David equates the thing gotten at the peril of the men’s life (blood representing life: Lv. 17:11), with that of their lives themselves. So it is in the Lord’s supper accounts. The Lord is holding up bread and wine as a “picture”” of Himself, illustrating that just as such life giving substances could be broken and poured out, respectively, so would His body be “broken,” and His precious sinless blood “pour out “ as the propitiation for our sins (1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10).
3. If John 6 is what Rome says it means, then according to v. 53, in order to have “life in you”, which comes by receiving the holy Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Eph. 2:1, 5), and to receive the gift of eternal life, then we would see the apostles preaching to take part in the Lord supper in order to be born again, and be saved. Instead, they preached that we are believe on the Lord Jesus, which is what Jn. 6: 63 confirms is the meaning of v. 53. The apostles taught how one becomes born again, and so have “life in you” (Eph. 2:1, 5), is by believing the word of the gospel, that of Christ crucified and risen again (Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:43-47). For Jesus said, “It is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4). This is how Jesus “lived by” the Father” (John 6:57), not by physically consuming Him, but by doing His will in believing and obeying Him, which was Jesus’ “meat and drink” (Jn. 4:34).
The context of John 6 is that of men seeking physical food. Jesus had just fed them and they thought they had a good thing going, and wanted a (modern) Jesus who place the priority on constant physical satisfaction. Jesus instead tells them “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” (John 6:27). Because they are “carnally minded,” who “mind the things of the flesh” (Rm. 8:5), and looking for the physical, then contrary to the women at the well in Jn. 4, when Jesus leads them to the higher spiritual using metaphorical language (living water: 4:10, 14 = Jesus, as living bread” in 6:51), their focus on a literal physical meaning restrains them perceiving it’s spiritual counterpart, and thus rather than telling others about the Messiah (4:28, 29), they will walk away with darkened minds (v. 66).
But as He did in Jn. 4, Jesus reveals the spiritual meaning of His metaphor, that as “I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (v. 6:57), which is by every word of God (Mt. 4:4), “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63). Peter rightly discern this, as he states, “thou hast the words of eternal life” which is entirely consistent with the testimony of Scripture elsewhere.
Jesus use of metaphors is consistent with the gospel of John in general in which there is constant contrast between that which is below vs. that which is above, between the temporal and the eternal, between the physical and the spiritual. In Jn. 6 Jesus points them to “food” that will give them eternal life, which is every place in John and elsewhere is by believing, not believing in a doctrine of transubstantiation, but in Christ, the Son of the living God, for which John gives many physical types.
In John 1:29, He is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
In John 3, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15).
In John 4, Jesus is the living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14).
In John 5, Jesus is the Divine Son of God “making himself equal with God”, and the prophesied Messiah (vs. 18, 39).
In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.
In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11).
In John 12, He is the LORD who Isaiah saw high and lifted up in glory, when Isaiah uttered the prophecy which as given in it’s fulfilled sense in Jn. 6 (Is. 6:1-10; Jn. 12:34b-50). To God be the glory.
In John 15, Jesus is the true vine. Thus the use of metaphors in Jn. 6 to denote believing and living by the Word of God, and most essentially Christ, is consistent theologically, culturally and and grammatically, whereas eating something to gain eternal life is distinctively pagan. The Jewish passover did not impart life, and Jesus analogy in Jn. 6 was not to the passover, but the miraculous bread from Heaven, which gave physical life, which corresponds to spiritual life under the New Covenant.
4. If what Roman Catholicism asserts is what happened at the Lord’s Supper, that by means of transubstantiation the substance of bread and wine is actually changed, so that the bread and wine actually become the Lord’s body and blood though the sensory aspects of the earthly elements remain the same, then this would be a unique miracle. For in every miracle which the Lord and His followers did the water actually became wine, and it tasted like it; the sick were made well, and knew it. And if i am not mistaken, according to Roman Catholic doctrine the miracle of transubstantiation is not the same thing as in the incarnation of Christ.
5. “Not discerning the Lord’s body” in 1 Cor. 11 is not speaking about a failure to recognize that the elements of the Supper were actually the body and blood of Christ, but about a failure to effectually recognize others members of the body of Christ, The context is that some souls were commemorating the utterly selfless sacrifice of the Lord in an entirely selfish way, that of pigging out at the love feast of charity (Jude 1:12) while others members of the body of Christ were starving. This is what is meant by not discerning (or judging) the Lord’s body. And which body Paul elsewhere defines as the church (Eph_1:23,16; 4:4,12,16;_5:23,30; Col_1:18,22; 2:11,17,19; 3:15).
6. Unlike other major doctrines - and the RC doctrine of transubstantiation is a most major one - very little mention of the Lord’s supper is made, and no theology on the doctrine of transubstantiation and it’s salvific necessity. In contrast, the preaching of the gospel is presented as the means to gain eternal life, and effectually believing on the Lord Jesus Christ gives spiritual life (Acts 10”43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 1:13; 2:1), and the theology behind it abundantly addressed. To God be the glory.
In summation, “the Lord’s body” referred to in the gospel accounts and the term “eating and drink in Jn. 6 is consistent with Biblical Jewish as well as Greek allegorical usage, and “this is my body” is no more literal than the water David held in his hand was “the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? And the Lord’s body in 1 Cor. 11 contextually represented the church. Those who are deceived into believing the carnal interpretation of Rome (which the lost souls in Jn. 6:66 did) may be said to have “eaten the fruit of lies” (Hos. 6:13), and which is another example of the abundant use of metaphors regarding eating.
"Literally"? I'm tempted to stop reading right here.
****************
If that church is described in John 17, then it consists of all those in who Christ dwells. You have provided the verse.
Many don't have a favorable opinion of Christians who can say positively in great faith that they KNOW that they are saved and that Christ dwells within. Am I correct to state that Catholicism teaches that one can not really know until death?
The Church of which Christ was made Head when God raised Him from the dead and sat Him at His own right Hand far above all heavens (Ephesians 1), is not something dependent upon any earthly head, edifices, sacraments or ordinances performed with men's hands, earthly priesthoods, costumed clergy (or any clergy, for that matter). It cannot be entered through any earthly church or organization. Not one I might belong to, not one you might belong to, no earthly thing.
On the Contrary:
Here is what Saint Dominic de Guzman said as his death approached:
Similarly, Therese of Lisieux said:
Thanks for the correction.
A lot of your arguments are good a difficult. I feel that they've been addressed earlier, and I'm just a little tired. But I hope somebody picks them up instead of engaging in a zillion post hissy fit.
“I’m just a little tired..”
“of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” - Eccl. 12:12
You quoted two individuals who were neither Apostles nor writers of canonized Scripture. It would be unfruitful, of course, to argue against their personal sense of assurance. But does the Vatican accept these testimonies as doctrinally infallible and proof that any individual may have assurance in this life. Are these men's words infallible?
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.