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.
So what about the Huguenots?
Yeah who are the Huguenots?
beside being French...
You wrote:
“...do not believe there is any need for the ridiculous, 2nd century doctrine of “apostolic succession”.”
The Book of Acts was written in the “2nd century”?
“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.”
You’re addressing heretical groups that broke away from the Church. We’re back to the ‘trail of blood’ nonsense which you just said you were NOT talking about.
“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.”
1) you’re now defending the Albigensians - which means you ARE pushing the ‘trail of blood’ nonsense while you deny doing so.
2) the Albigensians did what they did. What proof do you have that what they did was actually just a fantasy?
“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.”
James McGoldrick is not a monkey, unless you think all Protestants are tree dwellers. He is a Protestant. He may have briefly studied at a Catholic University or two, but that certainly wasn’t the focal point of his education nor would that make him a trained monkey. Your bigotry is showing to say the least. He now teaches at a Protestant seminary. Here’s his bio:
B.S., Temple University, 1961; M.A. Temple University, 1964; Ph.D. West Virginia University, 1974; additional graduate study at Dropsie College, St. Joseph’s University, University of Scranton, and Pennsylvania State University.
Pastor of Pittsgrove Baptist Church, Daretown, NJ, 1959-65; Calvary Baptist Church, Pitman, NJ, 1965-66. Assistant Professor of History at John Brown University, 1966-70; instructor in history at West Virginia University, 1970-73; Professor of History at Cedarville University, 1973-2001.
Articles (selected): “Edmund Burke: Christian Activist,” (Modern Age, 1973); “Mussolini And The Vatican,” (University Of Dayton Review, 1976); “Was William Tyndale A Synergist?” (Westminster Theological Journal, 1982); “Three Principles of Protestantism,” (Banner of Truth, 1983); “Luther on Life Without Dichotomy,” (Grace Theological Journal, 1984); “Patrick Hamilton: Luther’s Scottish Disciple,” (Sixteenth Century Journal, 1987); “Prophet In Scotland: The Self-Image of John Knox,” (Calvin Theological Journal, 1998); “Introducing Martin Luther,” (Reformation & Revival, 1998); “Luther’s Doctrine of Predestination,” (Reformation & Revival, 1999).
Author: Luther’s English Connection (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1979); Luther’s Scottish Connection (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1989); Baptist Successionism (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1994); God’s Renaissance Man: The Life and Work of Abraham Kuyper (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 2000).
Contributor: Great Lives From History, Chronology of European History, Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, Dictionary of Tudor England, Dictionary of Scottish Church History And Theology, Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England, Magill’s Guide to Military History, Global Encyclopedia of Historical Writing.
The burden to disprove McGoldrick is yours. Judging by your posting efforts so far, it’s pretty obvious that won’t happen.
The Apostle Peter of the scriptures would have ripped that robe off and flung it to the ground and walked all over it...
And that is 'real' gold thread in that robe...
Could you give examples of early Baptist writings? Could you point me to any churches which are still standing? Can you name any of the leaders of this church?
French protestants driven out of the country by the authorities for being protestant. Only being driven out was probably one of the nicer things that happened to them at the time, though.
Are you arguing that merely because of their nationality we can dismiss them? That makes no sense.
I’d like to grab a vial of that BoonesFarm after it was consecreted and rush it to the nearest lab to have it tested...Any Catholic takers on that one
Good for you for having read the Catechism.
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.
1- I don't know to believe
2- I dom't know what the unitarians were like in those days as compared today version
3- Servetus did not acept the Trinity Creed but did believe in the Father and Son.
4- The words he prayed to as was burning was -
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)
That would be the Bible
Could you point me to any churches which are still standing?
Churches aren't buildings.
Can you name any of the leaders of this church?
Jesus.
Meh, this thread isn’t going anywhere except for everyone bashing at one another.
Have a great Memorial Day, everyone. God bless.
You wrote:
“Don’t you realize that many Protestant groups and Roman Catholic groups have the same secular goals?”
True, and exactly how is that material to what we’re discussing?
“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?”
Look, you just admitted your denomination is a denomination and not a Church, that your denomination is based on anti-Catholicism and not Christ and then you claim you want to co-operate with us in spreading God’s word? Do you see any problems there? Seriously, I’m not trying to pick on you here, but do you see some logical problems with the implications of your statement?
“What truth are you talking about, that Reformed believers were subject to the Spanish Inquisition?”
What? I don’t even understand what you’re asking now.
“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.”
What’s your proof for that and why would it matter in any case?
“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.”
Please cease warning me of things I have absolutely no fear about. 1) Throw all the mud you like. I do not fear mud. 2) Protestantism is, I believe, one of the main reasons why we are facing a threat from Islam now. If there had been no Protestantism, there would have been no great rise in atheism, agnosticism, modernism, liberalism - all of which open the gates for the Western collapse before Islam.
“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?”
I have no problem against doing both. And it is clear that the latter would be more likely to happen if the former were accomplished. What would be the chances of Islam if Christians were all united? And I mean TRULY UNITED.
excuse me I am part French!
That is one very laughable stretch. That chapter of Isaiah is a warning of disaster to come and Isaiah is told to write the revelation on a scroll and to have it witnessed. One of the reasons for the disaster are those who are consulting mediums etc. The admonition is that if the revelation (word) does not cause them to change their ways then disaster will result. In no way does it support a doctrine of sola scriptura. Nice try though.
Thank you for demonstrating the danger of setting up one’s own personal magisterial authority. Every person has their own authority to define Holy Scripture....wonder what that leads to? Oh...likely division and ever expanding numbers of like-minded groups...in other words...protestantism.
Sorry, but no. Catholics are still using the ORIGINAL Bible, not the one mutilated by Martin Luther and post-Christian Judaism.
You wrote:
“Trinity is just a word that embodies clearly stated concepts in the Bible. Orthodox religions created doctrine out of thin air.”
Logically impossible. Orthodox means right teaching. If it is a right teaching then it cannot be out of thin air. Has logic truly died among Protestants?
Religion wants the temple made with [human] hands.
Religion wants the church that is visible and controllable by human masters in robes-n-stuff (or sometimes just in suits, but with superiority over a submissive and scared laity).
Christ gives life and liberty and peace, and forgiveness of sins, and eternal reconciliation with the Creator. He gives it through NO organized religious organization or “church” that is visible on this planet. He gave it through HIMSELF.
Cain tried to get blood from a turnip; Rome tries to get it from a cup. That's religion. It don't work that way.
Really??? Who were they?? And prove it from the historical record. There were a lot of HERETICS around back then, but are you sure you want to hitch your wagon to their beliefs???
So since there was no Tradition to rely upon, Aquinas then turned to the mysticism of that Greek philosopher Aristotle, who then became a patriarch, so to speak, of the Catholic Church.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Just because something is called something, does not make it so.
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.