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.
“When those accidents no longer remain, neither does the Real Presence.”
Accidents are the qualities of things. Accidents always remain, that’s how you recognize “things”. When Jesus says “this is my flesh, this is my blood” under the doctrine of transubstantiation, the “substance” of the bread and wine changes into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, based on the interpretation of John 6. Where in the scripture do you find that it changes back to the “substance” of bread and wine during the digestive process?
This question is not meant to be ridicule but to reasonably follow this doctrine to its logical conclusion.
By the way, where is the warrant for changing Jesus explicit commands and Paul’s admonishment to “eat and drink” to “eat and/or drink”?
Not God's fool, just foolish.
The accidents of the host do not always remain. The wine neither. Christ specified bread and wine. When the consecrated bread and wine no longer remain as bread and wine, the Real Presence does not remain either.
MD,
In the short time you have inhabited this forum and I have been reading your posts, this is—so far—your most eloquent, insightful and moving post. It is the work of your reason, your profound insights, your appropriate and meaningful analogies, your broad grasp of human interaction and what that interaction does and cannot do.
You have understood the pain that I have felt and have expressed it for me.
You, and the other faithful Catholics who have helped to support me and sustain me through the troubled waters of this thread —and all the others like it—have been my “friends for the journey” and I know not how I can repay all of you in gratitude except with my poor prayers.
All is grace.
ROE
Taking that one phrase out of its context strips its meaning from it.
All authors use style to make points (”brood of vipers” comes to mind) - why would anyone denude themselves of it? My intent is not to give the impression that I have a mere difference of opinion on this issue. I stand with the reformers in thinking it is central to the issue of defining Christianity.
While actions are based on thoughts, one can see only the actions and can merely guess at the motives and thoughts.
As I do not see Biblical warrant for thinking that crackers and wine are Christ, I am not bound to honor or worship those bits of produce. I see in Scripture how the Lord released Himself from the teachings of the church in His day and had no sensitivity for the leaders thereof. His apostles followed suit.
Christ teaches grace to the humble, law and rebuke to the proud. People bound up in religion need to be freed from those shackles. Christ is not a religion - He is life for those whom He has redeemed.
It is “Christ who teaches grace to the humble, law and rebuke to the proud”.
You are right—it is Christ who does that. It is Christ who knows who is proud and who is humble. It is Christ who said of Nathaniel: “he is a true man of Israel; he is a man without guile”.
Christ alone knows who is truly humble and who is certainly proud.
“He is life for those whom He has redeemed”.
I am redeemed by Him and I am on my way to glory. He will not let me fall out of His everlasting arms.
Amen and amen! If it were up to us to insure we would not fall from Christ - and could lose our standing as redeemed - we would all be hell-bound.
Praise be unto the Lamb of God, Who has saved us and holds us secure in His hands of love. What manner of love, the Father has lavished upon us! That we should be called the sons of God!
You are wrong in that. He didn't change one bit of the law and practiced it as a faithful Jew. He clarified what the leaders had bastardized... the Sabbath rest, for example. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Yet man, through these leaders, subordinated his reason to a rote practice that wouldn't even allow him to help his neighbor in need--in contradiction to the second greatest commandment.
I think this post would have been all that was necessary and an example of the “more excellent way” than the other one was— but it comes late.
I believe that one who loves Jesus Christ and wishes to live in Him and for Him avoids any semblance of giving pain to anyone while having it appear to be evangelizing.
From Wikipedia:
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen "
The doxology of the prayer is not contained in Luke's version, nor is it present in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew. The first known use of the doxology, in a less lengthy form ("for yours is the power and the glory forever"), as a conclusion for the Lord's Prayer (in a version slightly different from that of Matthew) is in the Didache, 8:2. There are at least ten different versions of the doxology in early manuscripts of Matthew before it seems to have standardised. Jewish prayers at the time had doxological endings. The doxology may have been originally appended to the Lord's Prayer for use during congregational worship. If so, it could be based on 1 Chronicles 29:11. Most scholars do not consider it part of the original text of Matthew, and modern translations do not include it, mentioning it only in footnotes. Latin Rite Roman Catholics do not use it when reciting the Lord's Prayer, but it has been included as an independent item, not as part of the Lord's Prayer, in the 1970 revision of the Mass. It is attached to the Lord's Prayer in Eastern Christianity (including Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches) and Protestantism. A minority, generally fundamentalists, posit that the doxology was so important that early manuscripts of Matthew neglected it due to its obviousness, though several other quite obvious things are mentioned in the Gospels.
Obviously, the Wikipedia source is dubious... but it is very consistent with what I know from other sources. I can't source your information... despite my honest attempts to do so.
Have replied to things I felt like replying to--which I'll continue to do.
I may or may not think or bother to remove your screen name to replies.
Many RC's have an idolatrous addiction to fantasized lap-sitting with the Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary caricature
. . . yet I'm the childish one! . . .
Taunting?
Would that be as in the egregious fiercely UNBIBLICAL idolatrous topic/assertion threads started so chronically by the RC's?
If our goal was to cause pain--some of us could be MUCH better at it . . .
. . . even within the rules.
However, for those who wear their idolatries on their sleeves . . . and piled high on their shoulder chips . . . I suppose I can understand their wails . . . in a sense.
As was pointed out . . . a Protty was called a satanist by an RC plain and simply.
And took no offense.
I realize the target was a Protty and thereby more or less automatically much more mature in their emotions and spirituality--but still . . .
INDEED. Preach it, Bro.
I believe that one who loves Jesus Christ and wishes to live in Him and for Him avoids any semblance of giving pain to anyone while having it appear to be evangelizing.
= = =
Ahhhhhh . . .
that might explain a lot of verses that seem to have been ripped right out of the RC rubber “Bible.”
You just did.
Would that be as in the egregious fiercely UNBIBLICAL idolatrous topic/assertion threads started so chronically by the RC's?
Our beliefs are open to all inquirers and they are nothing like what you have blasphemed here in our name. I welcome honest inquisition and discussion. You have proven time and again on this thread that you are interested only in profaning what you will not understand.
Contrary to your methods, I have read and continue to read Protestant theology. One of my best friends and a man I respect more than any other is the pastor of a Bible Church. I nearly left the Catholic Church a few years ago due to this inquiry and the things I couldn't reconcile on my own with my cradle-Catholicism.
An honest and open-ended study of Scripture, history, and our early Church Fathers brought me back to the Bride of Christ. I was willing to follow the Spirit wherever led and I was led home to Rome. I am now a cradle-Catholic with the Spirit and passion of a convert to the faith. I know whereof I believe and can defend the same. I am not threatened by your theology and will walk with you to the depths of it and point out what I have learned that is so much richer and deeper. What I will not countenance is arrogant blashemy in the guise of religious discussion.
You reacted angrily earlier in this thread when another poster (Petronski, I think) took Alamo-Girl to task and yet you seem confounded that we would bristle at your characterizations of the Mother of Our Lord.
Once again, I enjoy conversing of Our Lord and His Church. Do not ping me with childish taunts.
I didn’t say He changed the Law - He disregarded the teachings of the church (Jewish synagogue) that were not in accordance with His Law. BIG difference.
FWIW for Aristotle and Aquinas the accidents related to a substance do NOT always remain, (and those guys would be the authorities NOT for the correctness of our explanation, but for understanding it correctly.)
So if consecrated wine were to turn to vinegar and if a consecrated wafer were to mold and decay, in this thinking they would no longer have the accidents of bread and wine and would no longer be the locus for the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. (To the best of my recollection, Aquinas "works" this very problem. I don't have the complete Summa, when I studied this it was on a photocopy.)
Anyway, without a forensic lab or the like I think the accidents of a thoroughly rotted wafer would not remain and not pass your 'test' of recognition. Let it rot, dessicate crumble and blow away as dust. Let a mote of that dust lodge right alongside the beam in my eye. It would not be recognizable as bread.
Does that address your argument?
BTW thanks for posing the question. It IS a very different way of looking at things.
Let me know if my suggestion about river and, say, swamp, is apposite.
I gave you an example with my reply to make my reference clear. Please do the same for me so we can understand each other better. Which teachings of Judaism did Jesus not follow?
I should have pinged you to my post 1096 and 1240. My apologies.
See Sovereign Word for more.
Essentially, there are two schools of the Greek, the Alexandrian which omits the doxology and the Byzantine which includes it. Likewise there is a great divide between textual criticism and the doctrine of Biblical preservation.
Many scholars take the critical approach – and certainly, Wikipedia is dominated by it. In the case at hand, they defer to the oldest available evidence – which in this case is the Chester Beatty papyri – even though they also recognize that papyri often contain many transcription errors (P46 for example) and that both schools are not necessarily fully represented in the archeological record. For that reason, the NIV omits but typically with a footnote.
Moreover, these critical translations are not considered conclusive because (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) more papyri may yet be uncovered.
The other two approaches - majority text (consensus) and Textus Receptus – do not omit the doxology. The majority text surveys the general population of ancient manuscripts and looks for a consensus.
As another example of the critical approach, scholars often date an ancient manuscript based on content. Thus, when the manuscript speaks of an actual historical event they date the manuscript after the date the event occurred – in other words, they exclude prophesy (indeed all things supernatural and most especially God Himself) on principle. More specifically, the principle of science is “methodological naturalism.” To their chagrin, carbon dating of certain fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls has belied that scholarly presupposition. LOLOL!
And, of course, the Biblical preservation doctrine trusts God to look after His own words and thus excludes the critical approach on faith.
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. - Isaiah 55:10-11
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
"Amen" is a Name of God.
The Spirit's leading is the will of God and is irresistible.
Finally, I posed a question to you way back at post 1046 to which I have not yet seen a reply:
To God be the glory!
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.