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.
Just the thought moves me to tears.
You're so right. I can never hear or sing the building crescendo of the last sentence without choking up. I've tried many times. It's just not possible. It always seems to bring my thoughts to my dad and his voice as he sang that verse in church and I just dissolve. I must look ridiculous.
You repeat this like a mantra, but Christ never instructed us to make of Him a door, in remembrance or in any other way.
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Why do you think this helps you? Christ is saying Holy Eucharist is not mere manna or bread, but His body. If you want the fullest story, go back in John a bit further:
Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. --John 6:49-54
Seriously, my bookkeeper who went into one of the seminaries to become a priest told me it was the reason he quit, watching the priests drink and talk in private.
And altar boys taught me how to swear. I had never heard such language
Or a tall tale even.
Sheesh.
His body, given once to cover all the sins of His flock.
The RCC makes the cross of no effect when it insists Christ must reappear on the altar and suffer again, over and over and over, as if the first time hadn't really saved anyone.
As Calvin said (I know you're partial to his name) the mass profanes the work of Christ on the cross by saying it is incomplete and must be "perpetuated."
What a bodacious concept?... LOVE GRENADES.....
I love it.. YOU'RE A GENIOUS...
It does not. That's another false statement of Catholic faith, a strawman you find easy to bat away.
As Calvin said (I know you're partial to his name)
Not partial at all, It's just that I've seen so many examples of how his errors have addled your understanding of Scripture.
...the mass profanes the work of Christ on the cross by saying it is incomplete and must be "perpetuated."
And that's yet another example.
Let us suppose that Smith dislikes Protestantism, and wishes to discredit it.
Smith could, of course, simply begin arguing against it openly, showing where he believes it to be in error whether on a Biblical, historical, or philosophical basis. Many folks do this, with varying success.
Alternatively, Smith could be devious. He could set himself up as a protestant apologist, vigorously defending various positions of the reformation. Or, at least, seeming to do so ... when in fact, Smith is gradually following them to their logical conclusion in a sort of “reductio ad absurdum”. Before too long, Smith is upholding positions which are intolerably arrogant, self centered, and disingenuous ... yet he has impeccable protestant credentials. He’ll get nothing but “Amens” and “Huzzahs” and “Dear Brother” from the other protestants ... yet he has succeeded in making them look ridiculous.
It would be brilliant.
Just sayin’
Sure, they’re called “Jesuits”
Then what are these "spiritual bodies" we are to be given at the resurrection if "spiritual" just means "allegorical?"
The RCC makes the cross of no effect when it insists Christ must reappear on the altar and suffer again, over and over and over, as if the first time hadn't really saved anyone.
It is so sad to see such crusading vehemence in one so ignorant of "eternity" as a concept.
The only other place I see it so displayed is in moslems who insist Christians worship three gods.
Spiritual don't mean allegorical but allegorical can mean spiritual..
"Flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit" -Jesus..
God is Spirit and those that worship him MUST worship in spirit and truth.. The Spirit can speak metaphorically and metaphors can speak of the Spirit.. but the Spirit is not a metaphor and a metaphor can be reality expressed..
All Spirits are living persons and all metaphors are parts of speech but are NOT living persons..
"Flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit" -Jesus..
Apparently Jesus didn't share such a "flexible" sense of definition.
Thanks for the correction. Matt 6:13. I do believe this is the FIRST time I’ve agreed with you.
That phrase being in the Bible is secondary to my main point of avoiding rote recitation as prayer.
Yes, and even if it was directly on point, it's better to just point it out than play gotcha.
Jesus was always Spirit but became flesh for a season..
As Angels sometimes did that, appeared as flesh..
Angels are not flesh as Jesus was not flesh..
What appears permanent may not be.. We appear to be flesh also, yet we will live for eternity.. ALL OF US(some where)...
What is flesh and what is spirt/Spirit and what that means is occluded.. We are born on this planet absolutely sure we are merely flesh.. but some of us entertain the concept of "spirit".. as we learn more.. SOME DO NOT...
As a passing-by comment: I find it incomprehensible that RCs think having a “priest” ordained (or whatever it may be called within the RCC) gives him standing/power/whatever required for the spiritual magic known as transubstantiation. “Blessing” the bread and wine by the proper human empowers Christ to become food particles?
I didn’t know humans had the potential to restrain or constrain God.
No.
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.