The Eucharist: The Body of Christ? ("Respectful Dialogue" thread)

Our Sunday Visitor (via Catholic Culture) ^ | 1/2005 | Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

[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.

[pgyanke]

You have made it abundantly clear that you hold the Church in disdain. I will now shake the sand from my sandals and walk on. Enjoy your echo chamber.

May God bless you.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

one of the hardest things any of us can do is to let go and let God. And yet there is real peace when we do.

AMEN to all your Godly posts on this thread.

Our justification by Christ on the cross has been graciously accomplished by God for His glory.

Our sanctification takes a life-time, and parts of it are certainly easier than others. "Letting go and letting God" is not in our nature to do, but mercifully, He provides the way.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You have made it abundantly clear that you hold the Church in disdain.

How can I have disdain for that of which I am a member, by the grace of God alone?

My membership in Christ's church is my greatest possession, won not by me but by Christ on the cross and graciously given to me by God for His glory.

May God bless you.

Thank you. He has, and continues to do so every day of my life. I hope the same for you.

[1000 silverlings]

Alas, poor Peter o'Toole. First they give him a screen name he could never live up to with the leading ladies, and when he's old and senile, they make him a pope.

[Petronski]

Which Bible includes this in Matthew 6?

I remember a wedding Mass a couple years back when, at the end of the Lord's Prayer, the Protestants in attendance started to say that bit and smiled inside when the sound of it trailed off to nothing.

**smile**

[1000 silverlings]

smiled inside

You have remarkable gifts to know they "smiled inside".

[Dr. Eckleburg]

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).

Interesting that you equate the Jews' sacrifices with your understanding of the Lord's Supper. You are correct to compare them. Both are incomplete understandings of the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

It is not the physical or material that saves; it is the spiritual.

"In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:6-14

We are to "remember" His sacrifice; not to repeat it.

[hosepipe]

[ He was also the pope who most recently declared that all Protestant churches are "defective." ]

Well there you go some of them surely are defective..
He throws all of them under the bus..
I throw most of them under the bus including the RCC..

He's on the right track.. I'll give him that..
Maybe he will see the truth in John ch 10.. maybe not..

Whether a Rottwieler, a Spitz or a WeinerDog.. I don't know..
He is for sure barking up the WRONG Tree..
But many Protestant Beagles are following imaginary rabbits as well..

My dog whistle don't work(probably), not that I can hear it..

[1000 silverlings]

nice haiku

[hosepipe]

LOL... O’Toole would make a good Pope.. (Pope Innocent the NOT)..

[Petronski]

That’s a typo. I smiled inside. I’m sure they were confused.

[Alamo-Girl]

Click on the following link to see where the boldface phrase is included/excluded:

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. – Matthew 6:13

The phrase is translated from the Greek:

hoti sou esti basileia kai dunamis kai doxa eis aion amen

The Vulgate excludes that phrase.

The Vulgate (or Latin) contained other errors. For instance, from the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) – the specially published Name of God, “The Rock” was lost in translation:

First, in context (emphasis mine:)

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deuteronomy 32:1-4

English from Hebrew (Masoretic)

[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he

tsuwr po`al tamiym derek mishpat 'el 'emuwnah `evel tsaddiyq yashar

English from the Greek (Septuagint)

As for God, His works are true, and all His ways are justice. God is faithful and there is no unrighteousness in Him; just and holy is the Lord.

English from Latin (Vulgate)

The works of God are perfect, and all his ways are judgments: God is faithful and without any iniquity, he is just and right.

Dei perfecta sunt opera et omnes viae eius iudicia Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate iustus et rectus

As I recall, the Latin was translated from the Greek instead of the Hebrew and thus the Name of God, The Rock, was lost.

For more on God is The Rock: Research Project

To God be the glory!

[redtetrahedron]

ping

[1000 silverlings]

No, we've all been to weddings and funerals. we just stop out of respect. Now there's a term you don't see used too often

[Alamo-Girl]

Amen. Praise God!!!

And thank you so much for your encouragements, dear sister in Christ!

[Petronski]

The phrase is translated from the Greek:

It was a doxology added in where it did not belong.

[papertyger]

It is not the physical or material that saves; it is the spiritual.

Then there was no need for the cross.

[papertyger]

He's on the right track.. I'll give him that..

Perhaps you should send him an email to nudge him in the right direction...

[redtetrahedron]

It is not the physical or material that saves; it is the spiritual.
Then there was no need for the cross.

Or for Christ to become man at all for that matter.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The Vulgate excludes that phrase. The Vulgate (or Latin) contained other errors. For instance, from the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) – the specially published Name of God, "The Rock" was lost in translation

Amen. Great post, and further shows why the OT in the KJV is based on the correct Jewish text and not on the Greek.

THE ENCOUNTER OF JERUSALEM WITH ATHENS
by Rev. Greg Bahnsen

~~~"What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?  What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?... Our instructions come from "the porch of Solomon"... Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition!  We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus...!~~~

So said Tertullian in his "Prescription against Heretics (VII)."  Tertullian's question, what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?, dramatically expresses one of the perennial issues in Christian thought—a problem which cannot be escaped by any Biblical interpreter, theologian, or apologist.  We all operate on the basis of some answer to that question, whether we give it explicit and thoughtful attention or not.  It is not a matter of whether we will answer the question, but only of how well we will do so.

What does Tertullian's question ask?  It inquires into the proper relation between Athens, the prime example of secular learning, and Jerusalem, the symbol of Christian commitment and thought.  How does the proclamation of the Church relate to the teaching of the philosophical Academy?  In one way or another, this question has constantly been before the mind of the church.  How should faith and philosophy interact?  Which has controlling authority over the other?  How should the believer respond to alleged conflicts between revealed truth and extrabiblical instruction (in history, science, or what have you)?  What is the proper relation between reason and revelation, between secular opinion and faith, between what is taught outside the church and what is preached inside?

This issue is particularly acute for the Christian apologist.  When a believer offers a reasoned defense of the Christian hope that is within him (in obedience to 1 Peter 3:15), it is more often than not set forth in the face of some conflicting perspective.  As we evangelize unbelievers in our culture, they rarely hold to the authority of the Bible and submit to it from the outset.  The very reason most of our friends and neighbors need an evangelistic witness is that they hold a different outlook on life, a different philosophy, a different authority for their thinking.  How, then, does the apologist respond to the conflicting viewpoints and sources of truth given adherence by those to whom he witnesses?  What should he think "Athens" has to do with "Jerusalem" just here?...