Posted on 04/27/2008 3:36:18 AM PDT by markomalley
The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharist, the communion wafer and the altar wine are transformed and really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have you ever met anyone who has found this Catholic doctrine to be 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, his words met with less than an enthusiastic reception. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (V 52). "This is a hard saying who can listen to it?" (V60). In fact so many of his disciples abandoned him over this that Jesus had to ask the twelve if they also planned to quit. It is interesting that Jesus did not run after his disciples saying, "Don't go — I was just speaking metaphorically!" How did the early Church interpret these challenging words of Jesus? Interesting fact. One charge the pagan Romans lodged against the Christians was cannibalism. Why? You guessed it. They heard that this sect regularly met to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Did the early Christians say: "wait a minute, it's only a symbol!"? Not at all. When trying to explain the Eucharist to the Roman Emperor around 155AD, 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 Savior 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 many Christians questioned the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist till the Middle Ages. In trying to explain how bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, several theologians went astray and needed to be corrected by Church authority. Then St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic. In all change that we observe in this life, 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 5 kids to be beach bum, got tanned, bleached my hair blonde, spiked it, buffed up at the gym, and took a trip to the plastic surgeon, I'd look a lot different on the surface. But for all my trouble, deep down I'd still substantially be the same ole guy as when I started.
St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one instance of change we encounter in this world that is exactly the opposite. The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence or substance of these realities, which can't be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What was once bread and wine are now 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 power of God's Spirit and Word. After praying for the 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 to me like Genesis 1: 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 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.
lol
look at you! Ms Post 1000 (from 1000’s hisself)
Entire mountains are washed to the sea grain by grain by living streams.. And new mountains are created to take their place.. only to be disolved again..
Eternity is hard to get your mind around ain't it..
Grace is quite amazing.. Amazing Grace so sweet the sound..
To a sinner like me..
And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper
I can disagree with it too, for what you represent as Catholic teaching is not Catholic teaching.
Justified by words?
Justified by the truth those words impart to the believer. Or do you not believe Christ?
Whose words do you follow, Petronski? Christ's? Satan's? Your own?
It is interesting, however, that you're somehow skeptical of Christ's own teaching.
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63
Even Christ Himself told us the words that He spoke were not His own, but those of God. And all those who have been given ears to hear will hear them and know their salvation by them through Jesus Christ on the cross.
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." -- John 14:10
God's. All of them.
It is interesting, however, that you're somehow skeptical of Christ's own teaching.
It is you who is skeptical of Christ's own teaching, opting instead for Jean Cauvin's warped vision.
The Didache is not authenticated by the Holy Spirit. It is not Scripture. It is the work of men, sometime between 40 and 200 A.D. It is to be respected, like other ancient manuscripts, but it is not authentic words of God.
That it misappropriated a descriptive Name of God, i.e. "living water" - in describing water baptism stands as evidence even for the logic-only mind that it is not authored by God.
Again, believe God, trust Him:
The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. - John 4:10-14
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) – John 7:38-39
For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. – Jeremiah 2:13
O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, [and] they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters. - Jeremiah 17:3
For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. - Revelation 7:17
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire: - Matthew 3:11
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. - Mark 1:8
John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: - Luke 3:16
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. – Acts 11:16
NO WAIT.. I've left the reservation here.. but in my mind my imagination is fertile.. OH! well.. I'll save my fishing "vision" (on a boat in the river of life) for later.... maybe.. or not..
Again, though, I will go with the word of Christ’s apostles over the word of anonymous internet protestant chick any day of the week.
No you’ve got it, and don’t forget the fish and the fishers, you give us food for thought and you are not even a liveried nanny!
It is an action word. Jesus told us that His Disciples are those who do the Will of His Heavenly Father...
Do you know what the will of the Father is???
lol. You're the only one who has mentioned Calvin around here. The only one I've quoted was Jesus Christ, and you somehow scoff at His words.
Which apostles would those be?..
Are we talking additions to the dynamic 12.. no 13 counting Mattias?..
NAME some of them.. I dare you... (persona: 12 year old..)
Now he's just all out flirtatious
When someone “sees Calvin” in Christ’s words, I wonder what that means
As said to you before on this thread and others... there is no "other" Christ. The Priest stands for the one Christ as the Apostles were commissioned to "do this". There is no alchemy beyond that of Christ Himself. We take Him at His Word that What He fed His Apostles was Himself (as the Lamb of Passover was to be consumed by Jewish Law) and when we "do this" in remembrance of Him, we participate in the once, for all sacrifice (as the Jews were admonished to participate in each Passover as if it were happening to them).
Your argument is not with me, it is with Scripture. Either we have a God Who delights in being deliberately obtuse in His language for to foment controversy, or we are to take Him at His literal Word. Surely, the Evangelist could have said bracketed words of explanation to make himself clear in the Synoptic Gospels and especially John 6 if he wanted it understood as other than it was written.
But no. The other time it is mentioned in the New Testament, it reinforces once again our participation in this once, for all sacrifice: 1 Cor 10:16 The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? And again: 1 Cor 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew 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.
It is the RCC by the Council of Trent who damns to hell all those who are confident in their salvation by Christ alone.
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
Clearly, you are correct.
Perhaps "edifying discourse" is impossible on your part. It isn't on ours.
Really? Go back and read almost any post at random by Quix and some by hosepipe and say that again with a straight face.
On another subject... There's been some discussion recently about the Didache on this thread. One thing I would point out to my Sola Scriptura friends is the Lord's Prayer. You will note that Protestants say it a little differently than Catholics. The part that you add is found in the Didache... it is Liturgical, not Biblical. Meanwhile, we Catholics say the prayer as it is found in Matthew... and add the Liturgical piece in the Liturgy. Just an observation for you.
Ooo,,,Oooo,OoO,oOOo,, (hand up)...
(persona: Horshack(Welcome back Cotter))..
hit it sweathog
***What we disagree with is Rome’s presumption that there is “another Christ,” and that this “other Christ” can transmute the spiritual world into the material world through some kind of verbal alchemy when Christ’s sacrifice has already been completed on the cross and accepted by God as “paid-in-full” for all the sins of His flock.***
Actually, I agree with Rome that there are other Christs. It’s just that I agree with the Bible that other Christs are false Christs and anti-Christs.
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.