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:
“Only “many”? Not all? Wow, that’s worse than I thought. Not only should Unitarianism have no place with Calvinism, it DEFINITELY has no place with Christianity.
Many?”
I could make sweeping generalizations if you prefer. However, I thought I’d err on the side of truth and not tell everyone else what their beliefs are, mainly because I cannot speak for every other Calvinist out there. I can tell you every Calvinist I know thinks Universal Unitarianism has no business existing, and Unitarianism is a heresy, but I’m guessing this isn’t really what you want to hear...
Michael Servetus; His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm
No, but if it is in conflict with the Bible, it certainly is.
You said: Believing in the Bible is hardly extra-Biblical.
Well, I prefer to “believe in” Jesus Christ. The Bible is the inspired Word of God not an idol to be “believed in”. That is bibliolatry.
Misinterpretation of the Bible or creating man-made traditions like sola scriptura is not extra-Biblical it is counter-Biblical.
Oddly enough, I'm not discussing the "trail of blood", which is a characteristic belief of what is known as "Landmarkism", and which is not accepted by most Baptist historians anywise, and which is the belief that McGoldrick is arguing against. Most Baptist historians, including the series which I'll be posting up over the next several days, and which I posted the introduction to on Friday, do not believe there is any need for the ridiculous, 2nd century doctrine of "apostolic succession". As such, you're presenting a straw man (though, to be charitable, I imagine you're doing it ignorantly, rather than maliciously)
I'm addressing the various groups which existed outside the Catholic religion all throughout history and which held to generally understood baptistic doctrines (local church, denial of transubstantiation, adult baptism by immersion, primacy of Scripture over tradition, etc.
Granted, there are a number of Catholic authors who have invented wild fantasies over the years, while posing as "impartial historians" - an example would be the "quietly overlooked sodomy and ritual murder" among the Albigenses, which is, a fabrication. Fine, you want to discount histories by Baptists? I'll discount histories by Catholics. And typically, the drivel about "Manichaean heresies" and "ritual murder and sodomy" are pumped out by trained monkeys at some Catholic university or another, and as such, don't have any real independent credibility.
You wrote:
“What? So, because you can bring up papal bulls that make YOU feel uncomfortable you think we should stop telling the truth about “Reformed believers”?
Oh, please!”
Don’t you realize that many Protestant groups and Roman Catholic groups have the same secular goals? That as a Reformed believer, my entire denominations was based pretty much on anti-Roman Catholicism, but yet I am still more than willing to work with my fellow Christian brothers to spread God’s word? What truth are you talking about, that Reformed believers were subject to the Spanish Inquisition?
I had ancestors in the Netherlands under Spain in the north. They were subject to the Inquisition even though they were faithful Roman Catholics at the time, because the pope said it was good for that to happen.
Just be careful. There’s a lot of mud on both sides everyone can bring up, and there’s a bigger problem out there: Islam and other religions. We might not be sure of one another’s salvation, but we can be much more sure of the status of other religions’ final destination. Would you rather convert someone that already believes in Christ to Roman Catholicism, or convert someone we both agree is in danger of eternal damnation?
you wrote:
“Funny, orthodox is not even a word in the bible. Jesus never created this so-called category of ‘orthodox’, which has evolved over the years into a Pharisee-type state.”
Trinity is a word that doesn’t appear in the Bible either. I think all Christians would agree that the concept is still very much present in Christianity, however.
Actually, is was the canton itself that wanted Michael Servetus executed. John Calvin argued for an easier death than burning at the stake, but the canton would have none of it. So what about the Huguenots?
There are bigger issues than these.
“Transubstanci-what, now?”—”Sister” Peggy Hill
I’ve found that most Catholics I’ve met (including on FR) don’t have much of an idea what they even believe? Why should they, when the hierarchy does the thinking for them? I wonder how many Catholics have actually even read their own Catechism? I have.
Trinity is just a word that embodies clearly stated concepts in the Bible. Orthodox religions created doctrine out of thin air.
This subject brings backs memories of listening to the teaching of Dr Gene Scott.
From some of their postings, I would say the first.
Actually, is was the canton itself that wanted Michael Servetus executed. John Calvin argued for an easier death than burning at the stake, but the canton would have none of it. So what about the Huguenots?
There are bigger issues than these.
****
It seems they have Calvin’s own testimony of words about this! scroll down http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm
During Servetus’ trial, Calvin wrote:
I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty.”(5)
All this reveals a side of John Calvin that is not well-known or very appealing, to say the least! Obviously, he had a prolonged, murderous hate in his heart and was willing to violate Scripture to put another to death and in a most cruel way. Although Calvin consented to Servetus’ request to be beheaded, he acquiesced to the mode of execution employed. But why did Calvin have a death wish for Servetus?
“To rescue Servetus from his heresies, Calvin replied with the latest edition of his ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion,’ which Servetus promptly returned with insulting marginal comments. Despite Servetus’s [sic] pleas, Calvin, who developed an intense dislike of Servetus during their correspondence, refused to return any of the incriminating material.”(6)
“Convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities, Servetus escaped the death penalty by a prison break. Heading for Italy, Servetus unaccountably stopped at Geneva, where he had been denounced by Calvin and the Reformers. He was seized the day after his arrival, condemned as a heretic when he refused to recant, and burned in 1553 with the apparent tacit approval of Calvin.”(7)
In the course of his flight from Vienne, Servetus stopped in Geneva and made the mistake of attending a sermon by Calvin. He was recognized and arrested after the service.(8)
“Calvin had him [Servetus] arrested as a heretic. Convicted and burned to death.”(9)
From the time that Calvin had him arrested on August 14th until his condemnation, Servetus spent his remaining days:
” ... in an atrocious dungeon with no light or heat, little food, and no sanitary facilities.”(10)
Let it be noted that the Calvinists of Geneva put half-green wood around the feet of Servetus and a wreath strewn with sulfur on his head. It took over thirty minutes to render him lifeless in such a fire, while the people of Geneva stood around to watch him suffer and slowly die! Just before this happened, the record shows:
“Farel walked beside the condemned man, and kept up a constant barrage of words, in complete insensitivity to what Servetus might be feeling. All he had in mind was to extort from the prisoner an acknowledgement [sic] of his theological error — a shocking example of the soulless cure of souls. After some minutes of this, Servetus ceased making any reply and prayed quietly to himself. When they arrived at the place of execution, Farel announced to the watching crowd: ‘Here you see what power Satan possesses when he has a man in his power. This man is a scholar of distinction, and he perhaps believed he was acting rightly. But now Satan possesses him completely, as he might possess you, should you fall into his traps.’
When the executioner began his work, Servetus whispered with trembling voice: ‘Oh God, Oh God!’ The thwarted Farel snapped at him: ‘Have you nothing else to say?’ This time Servetus replied to him: ‘What else might I do, but speak of God!’ Thereupon he was lifted onto the pyre and chained to the stake. A wreath strewn with sulfur was placed on his head. When the faggots were ignited, a piercing cry of horror broke from him. ‘Mercy, mercy!’ he cried. For more than half an hour the horrible agony continued, for the pyre had been made of half-green wood, which burned slowly. ‘Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me,’ the tormented man cried from the midst of the flames ....”(11)
Although we essentially have the same in the conversion of the repentant thief (Lk. 23:42,43 cf. Lk. 18:13) and the Scripture, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13), Farel still reckoned Servetus an unsaved man at the end of his life:
“Farel noted that Servetus might have been saved by shifting the position of the adjective and confessing Christ as the Eternal Son rather than as the Son of the Eternal God.”(12)
“Calvin had thus murdered his enemy, and there is nothing to suggest that he ever repented his crime [sic]. The next year he published a defence [sic] in which further insults were heaped upon his former adversary in most vindictive and intemperate language.”(13)
5. Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962), p. 328. (return)
6. Steven Ozment, The Age Of Reformation 1250-1550 (New Haven and London Yale University Press, 1980), p. 370. (return)
7. Who’s Who In Church History (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1969), p. 252. (return)
8. The Heretics, p. 326. (return)
9. The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary Of The Church, p. 366. (return)
10. John F. Fulton, Michael Servetus Humanist and Martyr (Herbert Reichner, 1953), p. 35. (return)
11. The Heretics, p. 327. (return)
12. Hunted Heretic, p. 214. [Comment: Nowhere in the Bible do we see this sort of emphasis for one’s salvation. The dying thief, the Philippian jailer and Cornelius were all saved by a most basic trusting-submitting faith in Jesus.] (return)
13. Michael Servetus Humanist and Martyr, p. 36. (return)
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)
Logically, if agreement with God's words is what arbitrates rightness or wrongness in belief and proclamation, then this would seem to suggest that those words only are authoritative, not man-made "church doctrine".
Miracles such as this have helped me as well in my long, (incomplete), conversion process. It sometimes seems that I’m to share in “Doubting Thomas’” mild rebuke.
While I may still have several minor problems to work out with the Church, this is no longer among them.
God Bless.
~ Baptolic Dude
For others reading this, study and learn that the world was never divided into only two, namely, Catholic and Protestant. The very idea that nothing but “Catholic” existed between 29 AD and 400 AD is a big perversion and re-writing of history.
There are millions and millions of Bible-believing Christians who have never been “Protestant” (at least not in the Geneva sense of the word), and the same number who have a history (or better, heritage) never connected with Catholicism (by the Vatican definition, especially).
I hope and pray you’re wrong.
It’s not that I’m not willing to argue my position, it’s that when a discussion decays into straw men and bringing up subjects outside of the scope of conversation (Which I did in my own small part, I will admit), nothing useful can be accomplished. Except if bad feeling and anger count as ‘useful’.
Certainly true that Geneva Protestants were guilty of murder. Not on the scale, perhaps, as Rome’s henchmen, but guilty.
Wait a minute... why are you arguing for a Unitarian anyway?
John Calvin thought Servetus should be executed for heresy. Compared with the evidence necessary to begin a Spanish Inquisition, it’s amazing they waited this long. Any Roman Catholic at the time would have agreed: Servetus belonged to no major sect at the time because of his anti-Trinitarian beliefs.
But John Calvin did plead with the canton for an easier death than burning at the stake. Considering, that’s a pretty big gift in and of itself.
I’m not trying to defend the entire affair. I think execution’s much too harsh for Servetus. Just as I think the Spanish Inquisition was a bad idea. But I don’t want to argue scale or any of that nonsense. I’m curious as to how Servetus applies to the discussion of the Roman Catholic Mass.
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.