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.
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Amen. It’s Truth that is impossible for the blind to see, but nourishment to the soul which has been redeemed.
Rote prayer is what Buddhist(and others) do..
Rote mechanical prayer to a mechanical God in a mechanistic way promises a Robot like God.. Buddhists use prayer wheels to display prayers to the Robot God.. others use beads of various sorts.. for the same purpose..
Those open to obvious and others to occluded idolatry seem to have no problems with a Robot God.. and with rote(liturgical) and/or robotic prayer..
Fascinating ...
Amen, Dr. E.
You’re so right! Angel-Gal is humility personified; something a lot of folks hereon could emulate, both RCC’s and prottys.
We are the Bride of Christ through HIM and HIM alone, because we have put our faith and trust in HIM. The ONE true church, IS the Body of Christ, His BRIDE.
Please don’t. I think you are the one out of kilter and I hope it doesn’t end up with your missing eternal life with Him because of it. I am concerned for all those who don’t put their faith in Christ and Christ alone. The HS speaks through ALL BELIEVERS. The Body of Christ IS the ONE TRUE CHURCH, not an edifice or a denomination. I hope you will one day come to that realization. God bless you.
If you believe that your salvation depends on the eucharist, you are in error. Otherwise, no harm in what you practice. We all have our beliefs and opinions.
The BIBLE, not just the Catholic Bible, gives us all the truth we need to live by. M
Wonderful answer, Dr. E. SOLA SCRIPTURE!!!
Anyone who can take the name of Jesus and commit worldwide spiritual mischief as their lifegoal is indeed a piece of work.
The Bible IS the Catholic Bible.
This gets more interesting all the time ...
No, it isn’t. I know you keep insisting it is, but the Bible was around before Catholics began to claim it.
These days, if someone told me the Jesuits were sabotaging a church, I’d ask “which parish?”
The NT was written by Catholics. The canon was defined by Catholics. History is history.
ROFL!!!!!
Incomprehensible?... The wafer becoming Jesus Flesh, to be consumed by the Flesh, for F...[etc etc.}
I don't think that was his question. He was asking (I think) what thinking was behind "needing" an ordained minister to preside at the Lord's Supper. For a kind of classix comix sketch of our view, the promise of the Sacrament is only certainly fulfilled when an ordained priest is there, (don't quibble, please, this is just to set up the contrast) but we have this carnal idea of a miracle taking place. To the questioner, no miracle was taking place (Is that a correct view of Presbyterian thought?) and certainly the actual bread was not treated with notable respect, and the teaching SEEMED to be that the "change" (if any) was in the believer, not the bread AND that the believer brought about the change by the exercise of gifts given grace through faith.
SO what is ordination about in that system of thought? I think it's an interesting question: not just what you think about "ordination" (though that's interesting too) but also what some Presbyterians might think about it.
True. But even those who may have what seems to be a harsh delivery (I prefer to call it boldness) are still loving you.
Well, you DO have to have discernment (LOL).
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.