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.
THey aren't produce, by the way. They are manufactured from produce. That's important.
Secondly our opinions have some effect but not a sweeping effect in our obligations. IF for the sake of argument, we assume that we Papists are right in our Eucharistic doctrine, your disbelief excuses you from the kind of sin it would be if I showed disrespect. But if the thing in question is truly worthy of respect, failing to show respect is still somewhat culpable, possilbly. There's alwayus a "Should have known" question.
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.
We're "leaders" of our Church? He had compassion for the followers of the leaders.
Further His forgiving disrespect shown to Him did not mean it wasn't disrespexct. It was forgiven disprespect.
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.
NO argument there, on principle. The next question is: what is the Church?
I would like to think that my confidence in my beliefs gave me the ability to be respectful to others. Evidently some find in their confidence a command to be rude and painful.
Fair question, though I’m somewhat surprised you do not know the answer.
Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Matthew 12:9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Praise God.
I am asking you—again—please do not post to me.
I have made this request several times.
Please have the courtesy to honor it.
Thanks for your wondeful narrative.
(1)The RM entity posted that s/he could not control who posts to whom. Some posters here think that if they CAN do something it is RIGHT for them to do it. So they do not honor requests to be left alone. "If you can't stop me from doing it, it is in accordance with God's Law for me to do it" seems to be the moral principle.
(2) Suppose that whenever I get poked I say, "Please don't poke me." Then suppose that the person I say that to persists in, ah, pokery. We can conjecture that being asked to stop poking meets a desire or need. What need is met may possibly be indicated by the preceding discourse on Sado-Evangelism. Further support for the conjecture is provided by bizarre and forced arguments that there is some kind of religious duty to cause pain to people who disagree with you, whatever the outcome.
Strange you would say this to me right before you would post the same example I'd given you.
Yes, He worked on the Sabbath--generally in service to others. He did so as the Lord of the Sabbath and also as a faithful Jew. He used it as a teaching lesson to those who put man under the yoke of the Sabbath rest in an authoritarian rite rather than allowing men to rejoice in the rest God has given man. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This rest wasn't meant to be to the exclusion of the Law given in Deut. 6:3 and Lev. 19:18--and reiterated by Christ in the Synoptic Gospels.
If Jesus transgressed the Law, then He is not an unblemished Lamb for the sacrifice. That He had done no wrong to synagogue or civil authority is noted in Scripture and foundational to His being led to slaughter... not to a just punishment.
When understood this way, you can see that there is good reason for challenging your assertion.
That person sounds like my brother, when we were kids!.... Mom!!
I never said that Jesus transgressed the law. Made that clear twice already. I said He violated the teachings of the “church”. The “church” had missed the mark of the law - not Christ.
You are conflating church and synagogue. They are not the same.
It's all part of that presumed burden to shock us from the ways of popery, with a 2x4 if necessary.
I figured it would come to this argument. The word from which we get “church” means “called out ones”. The nation of Israel was God’s “called out ones” of that covenant. The teaching of those in religious power represented Israel. Not exactly the same, but similar enough for the comparison to be valid.
Sure you do... You entertain the Queen of Heaven, Purgatory, Indulgences, Popedom, Eucharist, Homosexual priests and probably nuns, and the most famous sheep pen(John ch 10) of them all the Vatican..
Then there are the "icons/totems".. amulets(cross etc.), talismans and other RCC religious doo-dads.. which I admit other prostie conclaves(Angleican/Epistople) breath heavy over..
AM I CLEAN?.... Absolutely NOT.. for I am a heretic..
A BAD, BAD man.. a sinner really..
I need Jesus.. as my sin offering.. and he is...
The way I see it you are not too clean yourself..
Which IS the point..
imho, your whole post is excellent. Particularly these parts:
AM I CLEAN?.... Absolutely NOT.. for I am a heretic..
A BAD, BAD man.. a sinner really..
I need Jesus.. as my sin offering.. and he is...
The way I see it you are not too clean yourself..
Which IS the point..
= = =
And, as I posted somewhere recently . . .
All we who think we stand must constantly take heed lest we fall.
LUB
BTW, is it my imagination or . . . has the bellowing of the gored “sacred” oxen been louder recently? Perhaps some of the spears have been striking more to the bone marrow? Hard to say.
Jesus's vision(Rev 1;1) transcribed thru John, denotes to the Seven Churchs of Asia that "they" countenanced the Synagogue of Satan.. Thereby equating the/a synagogue and a church..
A synagogue was an illegal temple since they had no ARK of the Convenant(or GOD), anymore.. When "the Church" took on the attributes of a synagogue, as they do now and then somewhat.. ALL of them.. The difference is marginal..
The Synagogue of Satan is a harsh description but it is probably the most accurate.. Not only of RCC and EO practices but of most Protestant applications also..
Must be Satan loves church buildings and 501c tax free corporations.. OH! and the STAFF to run said synagogues.. You know, Nicolaitans...
Good question. I’m just guessing. But Papa Ben does not strike me as the “Take over the world (or at least central Italy)” type. I know there are some serious Cahtolic Monarchists, but I don’t know of any who want the Pope to have seculklar power. Could be. That’d be weird.
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.