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.
Truly, we should expect insults but count them all joy and forgive those who tried to insult us.
Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. - Matthew 5:11-12
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them]. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. - Mark 11:24-26
Absolutely.
And, if we can’t laugh good naturedly at our own human flaws and the flawedness of humanity in general . . .
they odds are
there’s a train load of starch that needs removed.
“Full of Grace”
is one thing.
“Full of Grace—which being RC magicsterically translated as every wild fantasy AND the kitchen sink”
is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE.
Sheesh!
As though
the collection of personal interpretations of the political power mongers of the RC magicsterical
were somehow qualitatively DIFFERENT! LOL.
imagine your favorite dog going here.
And yet, even if every Catholic and Protestant here agreed with this view, I’m certain that we Protestants would be told that no matter what meaning or message any of us comes up with for any given verse, it will be the wrong one...
= = =
INDEED.
Alas, they have little choice . . . folks wedded to, welded to an edifice instead of JESUS THE CHRIST must cling to the edifice for dear life . . . it’s all they really have . . . besides even less substantial sawdust, ashes.
Really?
There are people who think that King James wrote a bible?
That would make them as stupid as those people who pray to Mary.
Amen to your post. Well put.
I think they are ready for the ‘rubber’ room!
8~)
Perhaps so . . .
Stubborn, proud, idolatrous folks of all flavors may well have a vulcanizing rubber room in their future.
Let all of us who think we stand, take heed lest we fall.
Woe is me, a sinner, Oh, Lord . . . a man of unclean lips and hands—be thou my Salvation, my ROCK, my High Tower; my Strength, Forgiveness, Provision, Covering, Redeption . . . my all in all, Oh, Lord Jesus, THE ROCK, My God and my Salvation; my Soon coming King . . .
I can readily understand that.
Didn’t have the Dad aspect . . . but the indentification with HIS KINGDOM COMING . . . is SUCH a BLESSED HOPE . . . tears are quite fittingly, endearingly automatic quite often.
That's not a correct understanding of "accidents" (or of eating, come to think of it, maybe)
Say "nourishment" is the substance. Then accidents would be weight, size, even the particular proteins and fats and (in the case of Chinese dumplings) insecticide. Say bread is the substance in question. Then you still have the "accidents" of the varying accidents of wheat, rye, oat, or banana.
The problem is that formulaic explanations and arguments based on the formulae often leave the impression that the question of "What a thing is" v. "what a thing is made of" or "looks like/smells like/feels like etc." is way simpler than it is. If Aristotle were that simple we'd all read him in 5th grade. As it is I still don't think I have a good understanding of his concept of substance.
For example: I'm not sure I think "water" is a substance, while I'd guess that "ocean", "sea", "river", "brook", etc. are substances.
It's hard from our place in the history of thought to realize how much thinking (and the language of thinking) has changed since the 13th century. The incredible power of empirical sciences to enable physical and economic change produced a real revolution.
I'm always dazzled by the fact that in that interval the meaning of "subjective" and "objective" seem to have changed places! I just mention that as an example of the not 'No-brainer" aspect of wrapping the cranium around the question. Fortunately it's not necessary to understand the Eucharist.
All must be in order for the religion to work.
Is this intended as a serious characterization of Catholic thought? If not, what is it intended as, and was that a good thing to intend?
Even that does not say that all accidents are perceived by the senses. It just says "if you perceive it by sense, it's an accident." It does not say "if and only if".
I understand your question.
It is a puzzlement to me: “we do not profane, we just disagree”, it has been said on this forum.
Yet when Catholics consider such a post as this one to be a profanation of our beliefs—a far cry from being just a “disagreement”-— we are considered to be whiners and thin-skinners, and even offensively defensive in our replies.
The “respectable” endeavor to do as God counsels: “Come let us reason together” is itself made into a mockery.
Damned if we do and damned if we don’t—which is what the implications about us is all about, anyway, isn’t it?
Don’t ping to me anymore. I don’t care to read your childish taunting.
It was a comment to Blue-duncan that reveals my perception of RC practice, not thought. I know not the thoughts of my wife, much less dead “priests” or other folk.
While RCs may not like my characterization of the issue, the main question is that of veracity - not style.
We don't even have to go as far as "profanation."
"cracker", "'priests'" [with quotes to set it off as risible], "common folk", "monstrosity (or something like that)". I would like to see an argument which attempted to show that this was not intended as mockery and to cause pain.
To me it's not so much the words which are offensive as the appearance of an intent to cause pain, and thus to hinder reason.
The premises of a representative republic would seem to me to include the idea that people can and ought to reason together. But it seems that some (on both sides) prefer something like a Mexican stand down, where two people just exchange blows until one collapses, to understanding.
In such a case the profanation would not be of the Church or her teaching. To hinder reason, to work against charity and fellowship, to misrepresent something for the purpose of mockery, these all would be abuses of discourse and profanations of humanity, of the Divine image in which we were made and of the Divine call issued to at least some of us.
Back to "Sado-Evangelism" for a minute. Clearly the term itself is a parody of the terms of the DSM. But anyone who has visited the psych ward knows that the place is chock-a-block with people using religion as a structure to explain their illness. It is even used by the pathological process to defend itself. "Not only am I unable to heed my shrink, I OUGHT to ignore him because he is questioning my call and God's interactions with me. It would me a sin for me to doubt these things."
My guess about Personality Disorders is that the common thread is that the subject (hereinafter PDS) provokes reactions in others because the reactions seem to testify to the PDS's power and importance.
I recently took a stroll by U Cal Berkeley and down Telegraph Avenue. I was mainly walking briskly and taking in the sights (and steeping myself in "ou sont les nieges d'antan?") but I noticed an interaction between some "evangelists" and passers-by. It was ALL about control, and the winners were those who continued to pass by. In those cases the losers (the "evangelists") hurled abuse at them.
Some guy noticed my Dominican Junior G-man Badge and asked me some question which I could not hear owing to my geezeritude. I smiled and said, "Sorry, I'm walking," and strode on. "What a Hypocrite!" came floating down the air toward me ...
I guess it's important to understand that as a vampire's cry of pain and hunger. I hate you! If you won't let me feed on your vitality I will starve!"
Here, when we appear to be fed up with this nonsense, suddenly there are protestations of love and concern for us. If being nasty will run us off, they will try to be nice for a minute. But once we pause, it's back to the old abusive language. If we can say that at some level people intend what they do, then some of us intend to cause pain to others.
The PDS feeds off the reactions of others. Others are not really people, but food to them. For a full-blown PDS real dialogue is impossible. As Lewis portrays the life of demons in The Screwtape Letters The real question for them is who will feed and who will be food. IMHO the sorrow of personality disorders is that the prognosis is very poor indeed. A PDS can almost always find food. One of the most painful, but hopeful, books I have read is I'm not Supposed to Be Here which is the story of the recovery of a sufferer of Borderline Personality Disorder, written by herself.
Integral to my "recovery" is the decision not to be food for anyone any longer. The Pelican was a symbol of Christ because she was thought to feed her young with her blood. But she fed them for growth and health. The blood of Christ is grace for those in a state of grace, but judgment for those who drink wrongly. And in any event, though his murders thought to have taken His life from Him, in fact He gave it willingly. His murderers, like those who object to crucifixes, thought He was in their power, that they were gazing upon fecklessness, on weakness and defeat. But we know that when He was weak, He was remaking the Universe and conquering Death and Hell.
So while we are called to self-sacrifice, we are not called to squander our vitality to feed a disease process. Love may be the supreme virtue, but prudence and justice are still virtues.
What part of RC practice does
monstrosity (or something like that) to protect it, er - God,..
reveal?
the main question is that of veracity - not style.
True enough. But if veracity is your goal, why hinder its pursuit with such a style?
As touching veracity, truthfulness, it is hard to distinguish practice from thought, because practices have intentions. While we may speak of solicitude for the Body and Blood of our Lord, our reverence, at the least, is more to protect ourselves from the sin of profanation than to protect God. We believe that God can take care of Himself.
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.