Posted on 06/10/2007 4:48:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.
Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
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.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.
The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
And thank you for the story of Pilot Officer Magee. He was 2 years younger than my mother, who passed away 3 weeks ago. May they both rest in the eternal hands of God.
Regards to you and yours and maranatha.
Zwingli was the first to assert that the Eucharist is mere symbolism. By comparison, Calvin is ambivalent.
The term “substance” as used by St. Thomas and others in reference to the Bless Sacrament reflects the Credal meaning than that of Aristotle. Maybe that is what led Luther to use the term “consubstantiation.”
In the 17th century Latin terminology appear in in Eastern Orthodoxy by way of pat. Cyril Lucaris, who studied in Geneva and was infuenced by Calvinism, and in Ukraine following the 1596 Union of Brest-Litovsk which resulted in millions of Eastern Orthodox accepting communion with Rome, and the establishment of the Unkrainian Greek-Catholic Church.
Met. Peter Mogila (Mohyla) of Kiev uses the term "transubstantiation" around 1640 for that reason, and in 1672 the Council of Jerusalem states:
The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place. [Confession of Dositheius, Synod of Jerusalem, 1672]
Several years later a local Council in Constantinople uses the word "transubtsantiation" in a similar manner. However, the term is not encountered in source earlier than 17th century, and probably not much if at all in the 18th century onward.
This comes mainly from the fact that Orthodoxy treats the Eucharist as real Presence and change from brea dnad wine into true Body and Blood, but wihtout elaboration or suggestion as to whta the mechanism of that is.
Today, the EOC uses the term "change" rather than transubstantiation.
Thanks Kosta.
Okay. You’re saying it’s all our fault? Go check the rosary thread again please. That’s our fault? That’s hard for me to believe.
I’ve nothing to add to Kosta’s fine explanation save these words from the Divine Liturgy of +John Chrysostomos, called the “epiklesis” when the change actually takes place. Note that it is the Holy Spirit Which makes the change, not the priest:
“Priest (in a low voice):
Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.
And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.
(He blesses the holy Bread.)
Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.
Priest (in a low voice):
And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.
(He blesses the holy Cup.)
Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.
Priest (in a low voice):
Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.
(He blesses them both.)
Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen. Amen. Amen.
Priest (in a low voice):
So that they may be to those who partake of them for vigilance of soul, forgiveness of sins, communion of Your Holy Spirit, fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, confidence before You, and not in judgment or condemnation. Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who repose in the faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith....”
In fact, that would be appropriate to speak to the Latin Eucharistic Prayer, which largely says the same thing (in a different light):
Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.
On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.
Different words...but largely the same content. The epiklesis in the Latin (novus ordo) liturgy is italicized.
“Different words...but largely the same content.”
Well, yes and the order in which we say things is a bit different and, surprise, surprise, our consecration litany is a lot longer, but...it is the EXACT SAME EVENT, the EXACT SAME MYSTERY! Sort of nice and comforting knowing that, isn’t it.:)
markomalley:”He’s very explicit there in what he taught...and many of his disciples were disturbed by his teaching and left that day (cf John 6:66). If he were speaking in allegories, why would they have been disturbed?”
Obviously they did not take it allegorically (as you have not). Had they not made the same mistake you have made, perhaps they might have stayed around??
They probably would not have stayed since I agree with ears_to_hear that the true hang-up was acceptance of Christ’s divinity.
************
I would think it would be difficult to get past this point if one were to try to deny transubstantiation.
I assume you mean that the Eucharist is not the as the "only" method of imparting grace. That is true. If memory serves me correctly there are seven sacraments, the Eucharist being one of them. But the Church teaches that grace is imparted through the Eucharist (as one method).
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. - Council of Trent, 23rd Session
Lutherans treat the Eucharist as real Presence and the bread and wine changes into true Body and Blood, but without elaboration or suggestion as to what the mechanism of that is. However, the visible elements are bread and wine.
Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,—not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe.
Augustine-A Treatise on the Predestination of Man
That being said, it doesn't negate the purpose of the Lord's Supper. Paul is very clear and, to my knowledge, this is the only place in scripture that specifically states the purpose; we proclaim the Lord's dead and return.
Agreed!
It drive a knife through my heart every time I see “INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION by John Calvin “ posted anywhere.
I pray that we Catholic,s and Orthodox have the courage of Saints in defending Eucharist. They defended the Blessed Sacrament even until death.
I would do the same.
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
“For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359).
Dear Markomalley, please consider caucusing these threads .
There are too many wolves around here!
I wish you a Blessed Day
Now, really, if the priest were capable of doing a "mind-meld" would there be a need for the confessional boxes? :O)
I wouldn't make that claim. I no longer blame others for my behaviour.
Go check the rosary thread again please. That’s our fault? That’s hard for me to believe.
I rechecked the beginning of that thread again & I am quite "over myself" thankyouverymuch. We really should not be dragging any thread over to another thread though, because that sort of thing is rarely constructive.
Yep, agree.
I believe Trent included something having to do with the mechanism, which is the part that the Orthodox didn’t embrace.
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.