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.
Amen, Harley!
Amen, Manfred!
Amen.
As also in C.S. Lewis, in The Last Battle, The Great Divorce, and other works.
This does not "go" to either side on the Free Will/Predestination question. Whichever "side" turns out to be right on that, still Choosing and willing seems to be something essentially bound up with what it is to be a rational creature. And whoever enabled or drove the choice, whether it was God or ourselves or some mysterious or undefinable cooperation, still I think that we can look at the Last Day as the time when our choices will be revealed.
Oh Lord, without whom no good thing can come to be:
direct our wills in accordance with yours, and graft our hearts in yours,
so that all our desires, purposes, and deeds will be acceptable in your sight and will make your Name glorious in the world.
Grant this through Jesus Christ, your only Son, Our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever.
Remember: the purpose of Sado-evangelism, the dynamic of Personality disorders can loosely be characterized as a need to feed (remember how the Emperor in the Star Wars mishegoss feeds off Luke's hatred) AND a need to control the food source. And implicit in this is the inability, possibly even a kind of terror, at the thought of treating others, or thinking of them, with true respect.
An awesomely effective way to degrade someone is
- to make all sorts of extravagant, insulting and false statements about them or someone or something they hold dear
- to say from time to time that one is doing this for their own good and out of love and justice (e.g.: "I'm pulling out your fingernails to make you stronger and more able to resist pain AND because you've been bad and MUST be punished for the salvation and cure of your wicked soul")
- and to ignore or forget whatever he says in his defense or in defense of the dear thing being assaulted.
It's not that the full-blown Sufferer of Sado-Evangelism is incapable of doing otherwise. It's similar to addiction* in that he is incapable of wanting to do otherwise. The vile nectar of the pain and outrage he can usually stir up in his targets is so rewarding and so affirming that comparatively bland and boring normal, respectful, and charitable human intercourse cannot compete.
The recovery of the target begins when he decides not to be food anymore.
The motive for this—the man behind the curtain—is hatred.
It should be, my friend. Good show.
Rubbish.
a) You'll notice that it is God that does this.
b) You seem to be saying that Catholicism is evil and Catholics are wicked people. Otherwise, your words would be irrelevant and your point would be moot.
Now that is a perfect example of your practice of pulling things out of context to contort them to your use.
By my entire post, it is clear that I said I did not care if she laughed about how the NT was written by Catholics...and I do not.
But you pulled part of my statement trying to make it seem like I was saying I don’t care about any of this.
In doing so, I believe you are being deceptive and intentionally so.
Jean Cauvin was a sick man.
You just demonstrated why I am reluctant to post anything in response to you: Rampant speculation of motives, among other reasons.
I was responding to your statement in post 1420:
“Calvin decided we do not have free will, that all is predestined, including the fall of some whom God created predestined to damnation.
“Does that sound like the God of Christianity?”
You infer what you will - I was not implying what you allege; merely pointing out that the comment you attribute to Calvin has Biblical basis. sigh
Everything he said had Biblical basis of a kind. The essence of misinterpretation of Scripture is starting from a basis in Scripture and drawing a conclusion not supported thereby.
As I said, though, no one should take my word for it. Read up on it. Start with the Wikipedia article, follow the links, do your own homework.
I was not “speculating” about motives. Quite the opposite. I demonstrated logically why my conclusion follows obviously from your words.
I hate to do that, Mad Dawg, but, OK!!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal. Attributing motive - or otherwise reading minds - is “making it personal.”
In the English language, we'll just stay with the KJB; never have had the “flaws" proven to me. The center of my studies in Bible college and seminary were manuscript evidence. I firmly believe that the motivation of Wescott and Hort in the revision committee for the RV (England, 1881 to 84) was to deliberately corrupt all future revision work from that point. I believe the principle motivation behind all American English translations/versions from 1901 has been MONEY (selling something new). I'll just stick with the KJB
Ahhhh welll . . . was fun while it lasted.
You do seem to have a way of making dreary work fun.
Thank you for that.
Apparently I’m required to say that when you pulled my words out of context it was possible you were acting unintentionally.
That would be pretty sloppy work on your part.
However, I don't hate RC's and I don't hate the WHOLE RC edifice.
Mostly, I have a hard time mustering the emotional negative intensity to rise to the level of hate about much of anything--except maybe idolatry, blasphemy and brazen hypocrisy, double standards.
Mostly, I just feel those things are extremely destructive to individuals and to the Body of Christ. I dislilke them. Even toward those things, it's not common for me to routinely feel the emotional intensity I'd have to feel to feel that hatred was a fitting word.
I hate child abuse. I hate abuse of the weak and defenseless and animals. I hate globalism. I hate satan's works. I hate the globalist oligarchy as a group, an organization.
I'm not sure if I hate Shrillery, or not. I hate all she stands for. I hate the idea of her being in the White House. I hate many, many things about her. I think she's demonized and dreadfully evil. When it comes to hating her as a person . . . I don't know. She's certainly a pitiful miserable creature--a living caracature of a person--more like a willful, sold out tool of satan. Most of the time, I don't feel hatred toward her as a person, per se. Sometimes, I might.
But God really has taught me to truly love my enemies.
I think in her case, I don't see any hint of any possibility of any redemptiveness for her--that's just what I feel in my gut, in my spirit. But I certainly wouldn't hinder any possibility of her confessing, repenting and being saved, if that were possible. I just think she's crossed a line making it no longer possible.
I certainly don't hate any RC's on FR. Don't hate any RC's not on FR.
I hate a lot of the delusions/illusions that blind a huge chunk of RC's.
I don't really hate, per se, Jihadi's though sometimes I might some specific ones guilty of outrageous human suffering, destruction. I certainly hate all they stand for. But even there, it takes some outrageous specifics for my emotional intensity to rise to a level of clear hatred. I don't per se hate in the abstract, very well or often, at all.
It seems to me, that a number of RC's are extremely prone to speaking, thinking and maybe even feeling in very stark fiercely black and white, all inclusive terms.
Virtually any statement, assertion less than wholesale agreement with virtually the whole of the RC edifice dogma = hatred to them--especially if put in strong, dramatic, vivid, memorable terms.
That being so evidently so . . .
An great double standard, hypocrisy seems to me to be persistently inescapably present, then.
RC's are routinely frothing at the mouth; fire out the ears and eyes outraged at the very idea that a single authentic 'adequately taught' RC anywhere in the world would be accused of any shred of idolatry. It's just inconceivable and impossible, supposedly . . . and regardless of oceans full of evidence otherwise. Therefore, they are quick to label any Protty asserting that ANY RC's are or even might be idolatrous blasphemers as 'bearing false witness' in Petronski's favorite Ex 20:19 terms.
It seems that anything Prottys assert which RC's remotely believe to be at all the least bit false is suitable grounds for accusing the Protty's of bearing false witness.
Yet, some are quick to label any description of any RC behaviors or stances in any way displeasing to the RC's as HATE. Of course it's attributing motives without flawless knowledge of the inner man of any Protty. It's also an outrageous double standard per the above.
The RC edifice position seems to be, if you are not 110% with us, then you are totally and totally hatefully against us.
That just doesn't remotely come close to the truth.
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.