Posted on 07/09/2008 5:53:23 AM PDT by markomalley
True, but it pleased the Lord to bring it to us in the sacrifice of the Mass, of which the Eucharist is the central part ("do this in memorial of me"). If the Holy Communion were a mere snack to remember the Last Supper by of the Protestant theological fantasies, there would be no "this is my body", and no "my flesh is food indeed". In fact, if there were "nothing beyond that", there would be no Last Supper either to confuse us into Catholicism.
which door did He become
There are multiple instances where Jesus speaks figuratively, "I am the door" is one of them. They are easy to tell apart, -- there is no door secrament suggested in the Gospel, and the next passage makes Jesus a pastor rather than the door. The passage in John 10 also calls His disciples sheep, which we are clearly not, zoologically speaking.
I do not question your reverence, but objectively that is what your theology implies when it denies the Real Presence, and it is directly condemned by St. Paul:
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.(1 Cor. 11)
Jesus is clearly not bread, gastronomically speaking.
The difference is that the allegorical speach is evident in John 10, while Jesus insists on "food indeed" in John 6.
Christ's institution of Communion was not a reference to John 6. Would it have been the case, Christ would have referred to the Bread of Life during the Last Supper.
At the Last Supper He said, "this bread is My body and the blood of the new testament" and in John 6 he said "the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world". Direct match. However, you are correct in a way, because both John 6 and the Last Supper refer to the Cross and not to one another.
I don't read transubstantiation into the Last Supper account, you do
This is perhaps a bit technical, but I don't read transsubstantiation into the account of the Last Supper either. What Christ says is very simple "This is My body". Not a figure of My body, not a symbol of My body, but plain My body. This is Real Presence. Transsubstantiation is not the same as Real Presence, and it is not asserted in the gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Transsubstantiation is one way to explain the Real Presence: how is it possible for the flesh of Christ to look and taste like bread (wine, likewise)? The Aquinas's answer was by making the distinction between substance and appearance, -- transsubstantiation. The early Church was not philosophically equipped to delve into that and did not attempt to explain the Real Presence in any way. This remains to this day the teaching of the Orthodox Church, and it is perfectly fine with the Catholic Church also. A Catholic who denies the Real Presence ceases to be Catholic; a Catholic who refuses to explain the Real Presence in any way and believes in it as a miracle which defies explanation is a fine Catholic regardless.
The scriptural evidence for transsubstantiation is less direct than Real Presence, but if one is looking, he will find it in the road to Emmaus episode: Christ is not recognized in the appearance of the pilgrim (figure of priest) but is recognized in the breaking of the bread offered by the pilgrim. Here we have things appearing one way and being in substance something else. However, obviously, other interpretations of Luke 24 are possible.
**In accordance with the rest of Scripture, Jesus was not referring to Communion or the Eucharist for two significant reasons: 1) Communion had not been instituted yet. 2) If Jesus was referring to Communion, then He was saying that Communion, not His sacrifice, brings salvation; that partaking in Communion, not acceptance of His sacrifice, is how salvation is received… which contradicts even verse 40 of this chapter.**
I agree, one can indeed, go a lot further “according to Scripture” AND also according to 2,000 years worth of Church teachings by intellectual giants passed down by Apostolic Tradition which continues today...in the same tradition.
You write “in accordance with the rest of Scripture”...YET you didn’t give any other biblical ref. other than John and, as such, ended with your own personal interpretations as conclusions. See post #76 where Paul’s interpretations were posted but which you ignored ...and there’s more...the OT along with Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20.
In even fuller Context:
In the OT God’s request that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22:2) - there’s Eucharistic types. There was the bread and wine offered by the priest king, Melchizedek Gen. 14:18 which we memorialize in our first Eucharistic Prayer. Isaac and Christ share many similarities. The birth of both was supernatural. Both sons of promise. Both called “the only begotten son.” Both carried the wood of their own demise up the same mountain, Moriah. Both consented to endure death. Both were bound. Both were offered by their fathers. Both were laid on the wood. Both were in the vigor of life, and both lived again after the offering. Jesus and Isaac were both dead three days, though Isaac only figuratively. Isaac also prefigures Christ in the unique relationship each had with his bride — Isaac with Rebekah and Jesus with the Church.
The Eucharist is present in THREE distinct stages of salvation history. In the OT it’s present as a TYPE; with the arrival of the Messiah it is present as the EVENT; and in the age of the Church it is present as a SACRAMENT. The purpose of the FIGURE/TYPE was to prepare for the EVENT, and the purpose of the SACRAMENT is to continue the event by actualizing it in Jesus’ Mystical Body - the CHURCH.
The marital-covenantal that the Holy Spirit begins in Genesis then develops in the books of the Bible until the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rev. 21), the Eucharist is seen as the consummation of Christ’s marital oneness with his bride - the Church. This union is expected in the covenants God established with the human race through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc., all find their fulfillment in the marital covenant that Christ established with his Church: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk. 22:20).
In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus proclaims the parable of the “king who gave a marriage feast for his son and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast” (Mt. 22:2–3). Here one can see the Old Testament prophets.
The first of these was Melchizedek. St. Paul (see post #76) declares that Jesus is “a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6:20) who, in offering bread and wine, is clearly a type of Christ (Heb. 7:1 ff; Ps. 110:4; Gen. 14:18). John’s Gospel (6:31) makes the connection between the Eucharist and the manna Yahweh sent to feed the Israelites in the desert (Ex. 16:4 ff), but it is Jesus who shows that the manna is a mere foreshadowing of the “true bread from heaven” (Jn. 6:32–33).
Then there’s the FIGURE of the Eucharist in the Passover (Ex. 12:23). That night when God smote all the first-born of the Egyptians, he spared the first-born of Israel. Why? “The blood shall be a sign for you upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you (Ex. 12:13). But was it the blood of the Passover lamb alone, into which a hyssop was dipped to sprinkle blood on their doorposts, that saved the Israelites? No. This was a TYPE: What God foreshadowed by it was the blood of the Lamb of God — the Eucharist.
When Jesus, like other observant Jews, celebrated the Passover, it took place in two phases and in two different places. The first was the slaying of the lamb, which took place in the temple. The second was the eating of the lamb during the Passover supper. This meal was a memorial, not only of the Passover and exodus from Egypt but of all God’s merciful interventions in the history of Israel.
The memorial of the Passover looked forward as a prefigurement to mankind’s exodus from the slavery of sin. As one meditates on the new covenant one meditates on Jesus holding the unleavened breed in his sacred hands and saying: “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk. 22:19).
Jesus’ use of the words “remembrance” and “new covenant” (Lk 22:19–20) reminded the apostles that in implementing a new Passover Jesus was perfectly fulfilling the old Passover. The world had arrived at the “fullness of time” (Eph. 1:10) in which the TYPE BECAME THE REALITY, “for Christ our Pascal Lamb has been sacrificed” (I Cor. 5:7).
The four evangelists explain the EVENT that brought the new Passover, the Eucharist, into existence. John interweaves throughout his gospel the Passover (1:29, 36; 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14). In unfolding Jesus’ first miracle John introduced the chapter before from the lips of John the Baptist: “Behold, the Lamb of God!” (1:29, 36). In one verse he shows how Jesus identifies his mother, “woman,” with the “woman” of Genesis 3:1 whose “seed” will crush Satan’s head, and the event of that crushing, “my hour” (2:4). The same Jesus who by a miracle changes water into wine will later change wine into his blood.
John also writes about the Passover before the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves (6:4), which in turn introduces Jesus’ bread of life (6:26–71) where Jesus connects the Eucharist with its Old Testament TYPE, the manna in the desert (6: 31–35). In the second reference (12:1) John connects the resurrection theme with that of the Passover by his writing of Lazarus’ rising from the dead.
It’s John who confirms that Jesus died on the cross at the precise hour that his Old Testament TYPE, the Passover lambs, were being slain in the temple (19:14). In the Passover liturgy God instructs the Jews not to break a bone of the sacrificial lamb (Ex. 12:46); it is John who makes the connection with that rite and Jesus’ death on the cross: “For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘Not a bone of him shall be broken’” (19:36). Here John is quoting Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, and Psalm 34:20. And it is John’s alone of the four gospels that touches on the Passover significance of the hyssop: “Jesus, knowing that all was now finished said, ‘I thirst.’ A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, ‘It is finished,’ and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (19:28–30).
Matthew, Mark, and Luke focus on the other part of the Passover ritual, the supper. They portray the Eucharist as the transformation of the old Passover to the new. They understand that the Eucharistic consecration already contains the EVENT of Christ’s immolation on the cross, just as future Eucharistic celebrations are inseparably linked to that same event. Jesus’ words and actions are literally creative - they produce what they signify.
Therefore in the consecration at the Last Supper and in the breaking of the bread, which became synonymous with the consecration of the Eucharist (Lk. 24:35), we have the symbolic and prophetic action that restores mankind in a new covenant (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 12:24). In breaking the bread Jesus breaks his body on the cross. The words of consecration constitute the moment of the mystical immolation of Christ which (in the sense in which we have used the word) “figures” Jesus’ real immolation on the cross. The great EVENT of all history is that moment when Jesus allowed his own death on the cross. His death and subsequent resurrection constitute the EVENT that institutes the Eucharist and ushers in the final stage of salvation history, the CHURCH.
Today, the Eucharist is present in the SACRIFICE of the MASS. As a SACRAMENT it is in the signs of bread and wine which were instituted by Christ at the Passover supper with the words: “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. . . . This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk. 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25).
The difference between Christ’s death on the cross — the EVENT — and the Eucharist — the SACRAMENT — is the difference between history and liturgy.
The HISTORICAL EVENT happened once and it will never happen again (Heb. 9:25–26). The LITURGICAL SACRAMENT not only keeps the past from being forgotten; through it the Eucharist of history, Jesus’ passion and death, is made present again. We are brought to the foot of the cross and invited to witness with Mary, John, and the holy women. The old spiritual asks the question, “Were you there when they crucified my Lord?” Through our participation in the SACRAMENT of the Eucharist we can answer: “I was there at the foot of the Cross.”
Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is concluded as an event, but through the Holy Spirit it continues in time sacramentally and in eternity mystically. This insight provides the key to understanding John’s heavenly vision of the resurrected Jesus, who appeared as “a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered” (Rev. 5:6). While his act of physical death will never be repeated, Jesus’ act of total self-giving to the Father for us (Rom. 8:32) continues eternally in Love, that is, the Holy Spirit.
REFERENCES: There are three particular areas that are seen as unity within the Church: Christology (what the Church teaches about the person of Jesus Christ), ecclesiology (what she teaches about the Church), and sacramental theology (what she teaches about the Eucharist). The BODY OF CHRIST is three-fold...Incarnation, Eucharist and Church are interrelated. To understand who Jesus really was, God has given us the Church and the sacraments. When our views on the person of Christ, the Church, and the Eucharist don’t support and reflect one another, heresy creeps in. Error in one area of belief soon infects the other areas.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea5.asp
All things considered, Jesus explained the Eucharist best: “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him” (John 6:55). We are the BODY of CHRIST - we are Christ’s Church.
***I don’t think “objectively” is the right word to use. And, from here on out, I will refrain from using “transubstantiation” when referring to Real Presence. As I understood it, transubstantiation was the popular explanation for Real Presence, as it was what was explained to me by my grandmother (a devout Catholic), my mother (her daughter and former Catholic) and my mother’s former church leaders. But, I understand your explanation and cede the point.***
I agree with annalex - Real Presence - is the common expression and has been for as long as I can remember and that’s been a while.
I didn’t realize how long my last post was - sorry - but I narrowed it down as much as possible. The fuller contexted the longer the response. Still it was an enjoyable endeavor and great learning experience for me. If you haven’t read the Apostolic Fathers you’re really missing out ray. :}
BTW, my dad’s forefathers were/are all Protestants.
After reading all that, not only do I forget the original thrust of the post, but I forget what you wrote too.
Meanwhile, the real issue is not that less than 1 percent of priests are pedophiles, but that the Church knew and passed them on. That is an even worse evil, IMHO.
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.