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.
Except for the Revelation of Jesus Christ(Rev) you would be correct..
This book speaks fully to "the Bride"..
And, by the way, ONLY the bride can begin to understand it.. To; All others this book is some kind of gibberish.. But there many that pretend to understand it.. Understand parts of it or make something magical out of it..
In my understanding and construction on
BIBLICAL reality and spirituality
that would depend on the understanding one has of the
WHOLE COUNSEL OF SCRIPTURE.
Is not binding and loosing in a spiritual sense part and parcel of an activity taken
WITH and as an agent of HOLY SPIRIT?
Else there would be NO EFECTIVE binding and loosing.
Of course, all such are for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Matt 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.
There were other ministers in the House of David, but the Prime Minister held the key. Interesting how we've come just about full circle on this thread, eh?
And so it is.
You bring up a different point entirely, which is another reason I dislike answering you.
I never said to anything was relevant of not. Teaching that is Biblical is right; that which is not is wrong.
Then you bring in the un-Biblical dogma of the Lord supposedly founding the error-laden RCC. Sorry, I will not argue with you.
The Key of the House of David is held by Jesus Christ.. (Rev 3;7) and conversly by the Holy Spirit.. and those annointed by the Holy Spirit.. rherefore in the Bride of Christ as I just mentioned a few posts UPstream..
Yes, as the King of all Kings and, specifically, the everlasting King of the House of David, the key is His... His to give His prime minister as was done of old. Do you now deny that He gave the keys to Peter in this explicit text?!
Yes.. so it is.. "WE" are exactley where we are supposed to be.. IN or OUT of the sheep pen(s).. If you are in a sheep pen .. you are SUPPOSED to be there.. You or I are legitimately penned up.. if we are..
Thats WHY there be sheep pens.. holding tanks.. The Body of Christ is a powerful metaphor the Bride of Christ is a much more sybtle metaphor, as indicated in the Seven chruchs o=f Asia(Rev),,
You said important, I said relevant....synonymous for this purpose.
Sorry, I will not argue with you.
You are wise not to make an argument on a point you cannot win. The facts are not with you on that point whether you argue with me or anyone else.
There is no new revelation but as time goes by the heretofore "secret" revelations will be made known to us.
Thus, for example, the "revelation" of the Bodily Assumption Of Mary was unknown to us for nearly 2,000 years.
See how it works? I wonder why it was kept secret for all those years. I don't understand the necessity. Do you?
To quote (from memory) capt Kirk, speaking to Kahn: I laugh at your superior intellect!
Teaching that is Biblical is right; that which is not is wrong.
And who do you say is the final arbiter of what is Biblical? We have provided many quotes and supports for the Catholic position and yet you tell us the Church is wrong and unbiblical. Why don't you stick to discussing the issues instead of saying we are wrong because we are members of the universal (Catholic) Church.
Then you bring in the un-Biblical dogma of the Lord supposedly founding the error-laden RCC.
Isn't this entirely the issue? If the RCC is the Church founded by Our Lord then She is the One appointed by Christ as the "bulwark and pillar of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) Who is to "teach the principalities". If She is not, then we would have to look outside of Her to another... but who? Whose interpretation of Scripture or whose congregation can be relied upon to teach the principalities as the bulwark and pillar of truth? Since there is no agreement among those who take private revelation from the Holy Spirit and each insist in their accuracy, what are we to do and what are we to teach?
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Yes, and tell me how Protestatism is dealing with this... They aren't! Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium are mutually illuminating. You say that the Church is wrong to interpret Scripture beyond the obvious text and then throw this at me to bolster your opinion? The Holy Spirit is teaching through the Church. The Bridegroom is with His Bride and She reads to us and helps us understand the depth of the Love Letters.
You seek any answer to Scripture that you don't understand. We seek to understand whatever the Spirit is teaching. You, however, will not be taught by us... because we are the ones doing the teaching. You create circular arguments!
Thus, for example, the "revelation" of the Bodily Assumption Of Mary was unknown to us for nearly 2,000 years.
Uh, no. You are historically inaccurate. If you truly want to learn and not just snipe at what you don't understand you may read here on the subject.
Thanks for your reply.
I think we’re in agreement.
RCs and proddys have a HUGE disagreement on the alleged founding of the RCC by anyone in the Bible. The universal church is catholic, not Catholic. The latter is the RCC, to distinguish it from the former.
I’ve never said anyone was wrong because they are RC. I’ve posted tons of documents and links showing why certain RCC dogma and doctrine is wrong. I’ve found very few RCs in this this forum willing to even look at most of those.
Speculation and supposition of ex-post history is all the RCC has to claim it’s foundation of Christ on the apostle Peter.
Don’t see how you and I can agree on much, if you insist on proclaiming that which the Bible is silent on, or which rests on twisted interpretation.
I find that perspective essentially groundless.
Of course, I recognize the whiff of the RC magicsterical in it. They have a very long vested interest in maintaining their political power-mongering monopoly over the RELIGIOUS serfs.
Christ was very familiar with such folks in His dusty pathed days.
INDEED.
Christ indicated IIRC in more than one place that He gave HIS BODY—BELIEVERS incredible authority in His Name.
If the Church doesn't do it... who will? Because the Bible is silent on a number of things...
John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
Groundless? You may disagree... but groundless?! Give me a break!
Of course, I recognize the whiff of the RC magicsterical in it.
Ipso Facto it is groundless... got it. Once again, the Protestant position is that if the Catholic Church believes it, it must be wrong. How can you possibly say you are open to dialogue?
By the way, it is called the Magisterium. Calling it by its name doesn't make you a believer in its authority, so what's your hangup? I don't have to be a Catholic to object to your childish imprecations.
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.