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.
I think you may be right. So far we have randomly bounced around from "I don't quote verses because of 10k interpretations" to "Sola scriptura" to "Mary conceived without sin".
I used the term ditching the scripture to mean setting it aside and looking elsewhere for doctrine. One must set aside the bible to find a doctrine about Mary being born without sin. The original post was to a comment that was completely about setting aside the bible simply because of other people's interpretations.
I happen to already know that there is no place in the bible that says anything about Mary being born conceived without sin. The bible says Rom 3:23"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". That includes Mary.
I (mis)understood the original post to be a kind of lament about the uselessness of arguing with a citation from here and a citation from there. (Mind you I would certainly cop to reading in that meaning.) So I was getting, "WHY argue from li'l bitty Scripture quotes if, as one of the poets indeed hath said, the devil can quote Scripture to suit his purposes?"
See, as an attitude or style thing, you say, "The Bible says ...." while I would have said, "Paul says in Romans ....". James says,"Man is saved by works, not by faith alone," but you don't catch ME bringing that up (any more) because I get how that can be sort of filtered or ordered into a sola fide weltanschauung
I could have explained more fully what I meant but hey, I knew what I meant when I wrote it and thought it was clear, especially if one followed the posts that I was responding to. I often find myself wanting to qualify everything I say so there can be no misunderstanding because I see how many posts are parsed with a certain mindset.
That is a problem? with Catholicism, there aren't 2 nifty phrases to explain the whole of it. I tell my older Catechism kids that it is as simple as "Jesus love you" and as complicated as all the world.
Because like all of us, I love the debate. ;-)
I (mis)understood the original post to be a kind of lament about the uselessness of arguing with a citation from here and a citation from there. (Mind you I would certainly cop to reading in that meaning.) So I was getting, "WHY argue from li'l bitty Scripture quotes if, as one of the poets indeed hath said, the devil can quote Scripture to suit his purposes?"
I can understand that. Just he other day I was circling around gay pride in my home town, like a buzzard observing the dead. I was on my bicycle. I saw 3 guys holding signs with verses on them and they turned out to be Baptists. I went over to talk to them and happened to mention that I wasn't going to church that terribly often and within seconds, they were attacking me. One said "If you're not right with the local church you're not right with God". I said that I just can't find that verse and he cited Heb 10:25 "not forsaking the gathering of yourselves, as is the manner of some". Well that's a damnsight different than saying "not right with God". The term "not right with" is probably not in the whole bible and you'd think a Baptist would know that words mean things. So I guess for that moment I felt exactly like you or any other RC might feel when someone is hammering them with verses in a very aggressive way. I really don't mean to do that.
See, as an attitude or style thing, you say, "The Bible says ...." while I would have said, "Paul says in Romans ....". James says,"Man is saved by works, not by faith alone," but you don't catch ME bringing that up (any more) because I get how that can be sort of filtered or ordered into a sola fide weltanschauung
ya lost me with those 3 last words.
I don't remember the Pharisee complaining about the people saying "Padre Pio healed me."
I always say,"Jesus is the answer. Jesus is a person. Every person is a fathomless mystery. So you expect to UNDERSTAND the answer? HECK no!' Ain't gonna happen, not in this life."
Then you have the combatants lining up their quotes like people arranging pawns on a chess-board, and then each pawn gets contested on the grounds of context, translation, or whatever. And at the end everyone leaves the field of battle bruised and irritated and wondering why he didn't win.
And that's why I don't much like the debate on religious matters, in fact -- as debate. There is enough here for all of us to profit from a little bit of it without one side having to win while the other loses.
Thanks for your peaceable response and intention. So now I will expose my soft superstitious Catholic underbelly:
My tag line is the prayer of what has come to be called the "miraculous medal". It comes from a vision or an apparition (I never know which is which) of our lady to an exemplary novice, the not learned or possibly even very bright daughter of a French farmer who was a Vincentian. (They take care of very poor sick people.) One remarkable thing about it is tha tthe vision happened before the "definition" of the Immaculate conception.
And yeah, I would agree in a heartbeat that there is no definitive scriptural text which would support it. Paul's remark admits of one exception, to wit: our Lord. So we dare to parlay one into one more than one. The definition, I guess, depends on our understanding of time and eternity (about which Forest Keeper and I have written much) And we see Mary's freedom from sin as possible through the eternal side of the redemption wrought by Christ. What He did on the cross reaches, we think, in all directions in time and space and so Mary herself enjoys an anticipation of the sinlessness all the blessed -- possibly even moi! -- will enjoy someday.
It is NOT that she did not need the "work of Christ". ON the contrario, it is that the work of Christ is so amazingly miraculous that it can reach back in time to have an effect -- in our point of view.
That is a very, very good question, for which I do not have an answer. The only thing I can think of is that when we try to fully understand the sovereign, infinite mind of God with a finite mind, we will always come up on the short end of the stick.
There are good ways to make a legitimate challenge & this was not one of them.
I don't think saying something that is untrue in a discussion among alleged adults about tings of importance is the same as teasing. I don't know your brother and would hesitate to guess why he teased.
I didn't say that the two possibilities you named had to be wrong, only that there was at least one more possibility that I could see. My brother teased because he was unthinking, not because he was malicious. Not caring if one causes harm is not the same thing as having harm as the goal. Need to have intent to harm as the goal to qualify as malicious.
I'm assuming the term you all are talking about is transubstantiation.
I had no idea that transubstantiation of the priest was involved. I only knew that Catholics don't believe that the priest "becomes" Christ. I think I see why my use of the term "placemarker" got the reaction it did now.
I am intrigued that you think it is okay for others to attack a belief and misrepresent a belief which they do not understand.
While I'm intrigued that you think that's what I think. Going after a sacred cow by first misrepresenting it is a straw man, so it's not very effective. If there is iron in a belief it will withstand all attacks. If your belief begins to crumble under assault, is it a worthy belief to hang your hat on? If you don't know whether or not your belief is up to the test, do not blame the one that is beating on the door. Do the work you need to do so you *know* your belief is worth defending.
I think it is contemptible.
Understandable. Your indignation is justified, so try to change the behaviour of the other guy. Shame him into shaping up. Expend your energy on him.
It is also sowing dissension.
It is. If you cooperate with it, you own it too.
He could have asked. he could have said, "I've heard such and such. Is that so?" and we could have talked about the priest's role in a friendly way.
I don't think he wants to learn more about your beliefs. I could be wrong, but that's the way I see it. Use what he sends your way or move on.
But he chose to say something he did not know as though he knew it.
He owns his action & you own your reaction.
YES, good may have come of it. But it was not good to do.
You look like you could use a glass of lemonade.
*************
This is the very thing that is wrong with these threads. We need more discussion and less debate.
It is NOT that she did not need the "work of Christ". ON the contrario, it is that the work of Christ is so amazingly miraculous that it can reach back in time to have an effect -- in our point of view.
That's beautiful. I'm glad you shared it.
WITH Tequila? AND salt around the edge?
Global comment: I think we were talking past each other.
I yam toadally lost on what term we are talking about here. No, I sure don't think the priest gets transubstantiated. He acts, in a way, in persona Christi, yeah, and I didn't think placeholder was so off the mark, myself. But I haven't given the role of the priest all that much thought in that way. It's like I haven't taken my eyes off the altar yet. I'll get to the priest next decade.
He owns his action & you own your reaction.
Barkeep! No more transactional analysis for this young lady. I think she's had enough. ;-)
Thanks for the lemonade and sage advice (Does sage go with tequila?)
I have to go give a plausible imitation of being responsible.
Thanks for your gracious reply. I have been feeling a bit poorly so have not had a chance to formulate a response.
Hope to do so soon. God be with you.
"From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I." -- Psalm 61:2
Thank you.
It is NOT that she did not need the "work of Christ". ON the contrario, it is that the work of Christ is so amazingly miraculous that it can reach back in time to have an effect -- in our point of view.
Well, as you said, there is no scripture but it is a commonly held belief. Between our posts I was in the lab and found myself surrounded by an evolutionist and a Budist. They were talking about evolution and the big bang and string theory and dark matter. I seemed like a nut to them when I started saying what the bible says about a young earth and the six days of creation. I think that is my job here on Earth. To be a person that just says "The bible says...".
From this website:http://www.adoremus.org/JPIIadlim1198.html
Pope John XXIII in a radio message to the 16th Eucharistic Congress of Italy on Sept. 13, 1959, (AAS 51. 713) said he hoped all would grow in their fervor and veneration for the Blessed Virgin,"the Mother of the Mystical Body, of which the Eucharist is the symbol and vital center." And he added: "We trust that they will imitate in her the most perfect model of union with Jesus our Head; we trust that they will join Mary in the offering of the Divine Victim."
website:http://www.adoremus.org/JPIIadlim1198.html
Pope John XXIII in a radio message to the 16th Eucharistic Congress of Italy on Sept. 13, 1959, (AAS 51. 713) said he hoped all would grow in their fervor and veneration for the Blessed Virgin,"the Mother of the Mystical Body, of which the Eucharist is the symbol and vital center." And he added: "We trust that they will imitate in her the most perfect model of union with Jesus our Head; we trust that they will join Mary in the offering of the Divine Victim."
Staggering.
The RCC would have us believe Protestants to not understand their faith.
In truth, it's not difficult to understand what RCs believe. It is, however, puzzling to understand why they choose to believe in fables over Scripture.
The RCC believes Mary was born and died sinless by some scattergun, retro-salvation through Christ which was greater than the salvation Christ won on the cross for you and me and all believers.
If RCs would simply return to Scripture they could read, just as we read, that Christ declared His flock to be of even more import than His own mother...
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." -- Luke 11:27-28"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
Everything in Scripture points to the glory of God through the redemption of Christ's sheep. It does not point to anything above the one-time, single, perfect sacrifice Christ made at Calvary for each and every believer.
And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours. And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it. And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste... And upon them that are left alive of you I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth. And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies. And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up." -- Leviticus 26:30-33;36-38"And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.
God is very specific about the singular attention He expects His flock to pay to Him. To glorify men in place of God, even alongside of God, is error of the first magnitude.
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?" -- 1 Corinthians 10:19-22"What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
"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."
Jesus said to partake of the Lord's Supper in "remembrance of me."
If the RCC uses Christ's words -- "This is my body" to mean Christ's real, materialistic body as in the alchemy of transubstantiation, then it follows when Christ refers to believers as "my sheep" that we should all be covered in wool and say "baaahhh."
Jesus "said it," after all.
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.