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.
Well its obvious the bread is still bread and the wine is still wine after we consume it. Just plain 2 + 2 = 4 obvious. That it is a symbol of the intimate relationship we are called to with Christ is also glaringly obvious. That the context of the Last Supper is an emotionally charged heart felt scene for all Christians goes without saying.
That the Roman Catholic Church insists on mucking up this beautiful aspect of The Faith with magic is a tragedy. A great example of why our faith had to go through a reformation. It is sad that the Roman Catholic Church cannot heal itself of such misguidedness. That they top it off with actual heresy in their marianism is enough to make all heaven weep.
This is not respectful.
Truly, it was a Spiritual eye-opener for me too when I realized that whatever good was coming out of my life was not me but Christ in me. If we try to do any of the following on our own, we are just faking it:
After that I was not comfortable with any compliments addressed to me and I became wary of any religious leaders or institutions that sought such recognition.
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
Well say something respectful yourself..
You are being disrespectful accusing others of being disrespectful..
Are you a democrat?..
Right. Well Roman Catholicism is an affront to me. I’m sorry if you can’t stand that fact. Roman Catholicism is not respectful of Protestantism. Every time I see the Pope my gorge rises. I’m sorry. That’s just the way it is. That you can’t respect my heartfelt feelings on this subject is equally disrespectful.
Do you have authority to determine what language terms are forbidden in a "respectful dialogue?"
I have not said others are being disrespectful, but rather saying/posting something that is disrespectful.
I have not claimed any authority to determine what language terms are forbidden.
The comment was not aimed at YOU it was aimed at RCC teachings.. that it itself(RCC) is the repostitory of all things HOLY.. and was given all authority over all men for all things.. pertaining God and his Christ(Messiah) and his christ's body...
Do you hold this view?.. or a version of it?..
I have no obligation to respect disrespect.
Really?
You posted this to me:
What if you say something thats disrespectful.. You know like calling the RCC "the CHURCH".. meaning of course, the ONLY church..
Are you an ACLU lawyer?...
Because you are parsing respectful comments like one..
Could it be that this "Respectful Dialogue" thread was a ploy
to put out a trap in order to flame-bait other groups in order to censure
and or ban others and seize the religion forum for single church ?
Please do not make this personal.
Such a scheme would require the involvement of the Religion Moderator. Do you think the RM would agree to such a thing? Do you think the RM could be duped into such a thing?
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."John 13:34-35
The more I think about this thread the more I want to laugh.
A Roman Catholic demands respect from Protestants. OK. I’ll respect you as a person. I won’t call you names. I’ll even use marianism instead of maryolatry. But you will not believe anything I say is respectful and I won’t accept probably 80% of what you believe in a religious context.
What is the point of this thread? Aside from illustrating the absurd I just don’t see it.
Thank you for sharing that beautiful passage from Scripture.
Do you know that?
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.