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.
Where are they indeed... please post one for us to discuss.
I proffer one for you:
"As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: “And if you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion."
Clearly, he respects the Authorship and Sacredness of Holy Scripture. It is without error as it is the Word of God. One way to view this controversy is to recognize Scripture as a love letter from the Bridegroom to the Bride. The children are better to read the letters under the understanding of the Bride than on their own where much could be misunderstood... St Augustine also suggests, with more or less weight, in De Doctrina Christiana, and various places in De Trinitate that Scripture are divinely-given signs whose interpretation is entrusted to the Church.
There you go again, comparing an encyclical to, ah, material that gets, ah, voided, if you know what I mean ....
Seriously, kids, I don't think that voiding Unam Sanctam is a necessary pre-requisite to trying to conquer the world by force. I could be wrong. AND I could be missing your point. If either is true, enlighten your humble, Papist servant (While I sharpen my battleax, heh heh).
I think the Swiss Guard gets to carry those awesomely great H&K sub-machine pistols. I SO need one of those.
I don’t follow you. I am not arguing about whether or not the religious leaders of Israel were 100% faithful - scripture shows this NOT to be the case.
This “conversation” started because you didn’t understand what I meant when I stated that Christ “released Himself from the teachings of the church in His day.”
As a young child, Jesus submitted Himself to His Earthly parents and religious leaders. As He grew in stature and knowledge (a mystery, that bit), He began speaking in the synagogues, astonishing the elders. When He began His public ministry, as an adult, He publicly disregarded the teaching of the religious leaders - as the Scripture reveals.
THAT is the “argument” I was making. Not sure what “phony argument” you are referring to.
The conclusion of my point is also clear: the teachings of today’s church - be it SBC or RCC - are to be discarded if they conflict with the Word of God.
More kindly, protestation. It is what holds some together, this common protestation. I've seen on these threads all manner of disagreeing theologies, agreeing only on this. We have Messianic Jews who disagree with Jews and Christians and Universalists who disagree with key Christian tenets, finding their common purpose in anti-Catholicism.
I think in religion often it is easier to be passionate about what we oppose than what we are for.
But I do point out Spiritual errors where I see them regardless of whose ox is getting gored.
And yes, I understand the Catholic reasoning of protecting people from themselves - that they might accidentally bring damnation on themselves by partaking in the Eucharist unworthily. But the will of God, the words of God, overrule the Catholic doctrine. Let the man examine himself, and so let him partake.
I see the difference between the Catholic and Protestant views as if two people are looking at the same seven-faceted diamond but from different facets. The one sees images in the diamond - himself, his forebears, saints, etc. - and thus sees that to honor those images is to honor the Light which illuminates them. His emphasis is on the images, the physical. In this case, the physical Apostolic succession by laying on of hands.
The other looks into the diamond and is blinded by Light. He sees no images at all and thus, to him, seeing images in the diamond is to miss the revelation of God altogether. His emphasis is on the Light alone, the Spiritual. In this case, the Spiritual succession, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by the will of God alone.
It is the same diamond and the same Light. As long as the one is aware of analogical knowledge (the picture of a man is not the man, the statue of Christ on the cross is not Christ on the cross) - he will not fall into Spiritual error.
You are not my enemy, dear brother in Christ. May God bless you with His peace and guidance!
To God be the glory!
Actually, the RCC agrees with you. There is nothing that may contradict Scripture... it is God-breathed. However, as I mentioned in the previous post, that doesn't suppose that each individual understands Scripture enough to sit in judgement of the Church.
Indeed, as I stated early in this thread, personal interpretation has brought disunity to those who have hung their hat on it, not unity. If ever there was a clearer warning to those who seek private revelation, it is the fractalization of Protestant theology brought on by Sola Scriptura.
Catholics are accused often of answering a question with "It's a mystery." Why is this?This is one of those silly charges one hears from time to time, undoubtedly the result of frustration. Imagine that you are engaged in a debate and think you have just back your opponent into a corner and then he counters with an argument that is impossible to disprove.
The truth is we can only understand what God has seen fit to reveal. The rest remains veiled and is a mystery that we must accept through faith. "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world ..." Corinthians 2:7
Why do Catholics prefer to sit in the back of the Church?That we can't answer. It's a mystery.
Thus? I certainly don't see the error you do.
I see the difference between the Catholic and Protestant views as if two people are looking at the same seven-faceted diamond but from different facets. The one sees images in the diamond - himself, his forebears, saints, etc. - and thus sees that to honor those images is to honor the Light which illuminates them. His emphasis is on the images, the physical.
It is a pretty analogy but incorrect. We do not look to others instead of God. We are part of God's family both temporally and eternally. We believe in the communion of saints. Those who have gone before and those who are here now participate in that same family mystery together.
Perhaps to add to your analogy... if Jesus is the diamond, then Protestants are blinded by the light and fail to see the diamond...
I regret that you do not discern the diamond metaphor or the Spiritual error of exclusion concerning the Eucharist.
I cannot make it clearer, so thank you for the discussion. May God ever bless you and those you love.
I know why I prefer the back of the church. Matthew 6:5
And there are also advices to toss people out of the Church, are there not?
What do you think of them? AND, the default is to let someone receive communion, unless you know some reason to forbid it. We don't require photo-ID. (sometimes in the case of the Kennedys and such I think it might be a good idea ...)
No kidding. I wasn't the one who brought up the diamond.
I regret that you do not discern the diamond metaphor or the Spiritual error of exclusion concerning the Eucharist.
If you'd ever been to Mass, you would probably have heard the priest say (or it may just be in the missal), "If you do not believe the elements before you are the Body and Blood of Christ, you should not present yourself for communion."
The priest isn't turning people away at the altar, he's warning them ahead of time in the spirit of 1 Cor 11.
I do, though, see a need to warn Catholic politicians publically that they should not present themselves for communion if they publically support acts abominable to God and Church. You may find this out of kilter but I see it as necessary to prevent scandal and for the soul of the individual.
Thank you for the valuable discussion. May God bless you and yours as well.
Perhaps I’m missing something here or probably you have answered it a dozen times and I have not seen it, but how does his presence in the Eucharist differ from say his presence in “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”?
The Real Presence is Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.
The Scripture you cited would refer to the spiritual side, but not the Body and Blood.
To God be the glory!
I think THAT is the $64,000 question. As I like to say, "Where is He NOT present?"
It's a mystery. (lol) (See the above post here This is where Catholic theologians start saying "in a special way," or even "in a very special way," and I start percolating up and down in my seat wanting to say, "WHAT special way?"
Short answer: I don't know.
Longer answer: Part (a) HE said "Do this". He gives no command, imposes no duty that is not for our good. For a related example, I think that God uses our prayer "Thy will be done," to conform our will more and more to His.
There is a brief catalogue of graces bestowed when one receives the sacrament "worthily" (that is, "in a state of grace"), but I don't think that if I get two from column A and one from column B (not saying I don't, mind you) that that adequately comprehends what we mean by His presence in the Sacrament.
Part (b) As I've said before, in the Sacrament He is localisable. He is "there", uh, in a special way. NOT a way that makes Him NOT elsewhere, but in a way in which it becomes appropriate to make gestures of worship because they are "sacramentally" made to Jesus Himself.
If two or three of us are gathered together in His name, which way should I face if I want to prostrate myself to Him? But when He's in the tabernacle or in what someone called a monstrosity, I can bow or whatever in His direction, "to Him".
Someone else said "You are what you eat," and certainly We see the grace of re-creation given in Baptism as getting a kind of bump in the Eucharist. AS that great theologian, Moi, has said, If Baptism plants the seed, The Eucharist is the manure. But unlike any other fertilizer, it is the very thing which the plant is, and not something changed into the nutrients the plant needs - so it's not that good a metaphor.
That is all theoretical. I know that, as is perfectly reasonable, claims to experience can rightly be challenged as possibly coming from demonic misleading and confusion. But I have to mention that many of us who "visit" the Lord in the Sacrament find that there is something going on there that is WAY more like sitting with your friend who is also your Savior and King than it is like some "Spiritual exercise".
And now I have to stop because I'm, in a special way, going to Mass.
And I might add... no one knows the state of the mind of the priest that is administering the Eucharist.. What if he be a child molestor, pedophile or pederast.. or just a homosexual(active or not).. or addicted to some other vice..
You know as, obviously, some have been, and still are..
Is the alleged Holy Spirit bound to honor the Eucharist.,.
Making the Holy Spirit a moron.. or worse..
What spirit are the Eucharoids subject to then?..
Right after college I was one of eight bridesmaids in an elaborate Catholic wedding celebrated during a high mass. The officiating priest was supposed to have been told who among the wedding party were Catholic and who were not. Therefore he was to refrain from giving the wafer of the Lord's Supper to the non-Catholics.
As I knelt among the crowded wedding party at the altar, eyes closed, the young priest apparently "forgot" and shoved a wafer in my mouth. Because I wasn't expecting it, I nearly choked to death right then and there. Another sacrificial lamb, perhaps, this time dressed in peach silk organza and white roses.
Flustered, the priest smiled, and under his breath, he quickly whispered, "Don't worry; it won't kill you."
Would that all of Rome thought likewise. 8~)
The Lord's Supper doesn't kill, and it doesn't save. It is a sign and seal of Christ's promise regarding His completed work on the cross. The only thing that saves is Christ's righteousness via His sacrifice at Calvary imputed to the fallen sinner by the will and purpose of God alone for His glory.
And that salvation doesn't change with any set of prescribed words or precise elevation. It is constant and eternal and rock-solid.
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.