If everyone were as conciliatory as I, the Molasses Miasma of Niceness would pervade the Religion Forum, and we could all have a Guinness together.
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.
No...
The very linaeage of Cephas/Peter(spiritually) is said to be the mantel of the Pope.. and he holds (they say) all authority.. i.e. whatever he binds or looses.. or his assigns..
ALL others are not authoritative.. With zero authority how THAT be then a CHURCH(reformed).. You may be confused.. Of course Peter was NOT given all authority himself personally.. by Jesus... BUT ALL Roman Catholics think he was.. Else they are not roman catholics..
Then stop parsing and say something..
On another note, Manny Ramirez just stole second base on a straight out steal... now that’s something you don’t see often.
You are wrong.
Yes, this is one of the most obvious mentions of Confirmation as a distinct transmission (not sure that's the best word) of the Holy Spirit. There are some other examples in the New Testament.
Our deacon also talked about how Jesus intended to remain with us, and why the world would not see Him, but the disciples would. There was more about the Holy Spirit, but I missed some, because it was in Spanish and my kids kept poking me and asking, "What did he say? What was that about? Why are you laughing?"
About WHAT?...
One thing to recognize, though, is that both Catholics and Orthodox (I cannot speak to other groups that confess the Real Presence, such as Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that it is the Holy Spirit who changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ (rather than it being by man's power)(Ref: CCC 1353).
In fact, the Latin version of the Eucharistic Prayer (during the Mass) has the following text: Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Later in the prayer, Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.
So it is not the priest doing it through some inherent power. The priest is a minister, that's all. It is the power of the Holy Spirit that enables this to happen. And it's not a matter of commanding God to do something, it is a prayer asking the Holy Spirit to do so.
One other point: you quote 1 Cor 10:1-4. I would suggest that you continue reading down to v16:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?
Speaking for myself, I see a tremendous continuity in God's Word, from Genesis to Revelation. This is shown through the use of parables/ figures/ types, as illustrated in Hebrews 9. That recognition greatly assists in my understanding of the Eucharist.
Your comment, As Christ sustained the Hebrews in their wanderings toward their promised land, He sustains us today in our walk toward our new home in His new heaven and new earth, is likewise very perceptive. That is, in fact, the primary reason He instituted the Eucharist: to provide us that spiritual food and drink to sustain us while we wander through the desert of this life.
I truly enjoy reading your posts. I believe that you are one of the most insightful people who contribute the the Religion forum. The fundamental issue I think separating our views is that of the role of sacraments, in general.
Your post was somewhat hard to understand, but if you were saying that Catholics believe Peter was personally given ALL authority then you are wrong.
Please refresh my memory,What year did the religion forum begin ?
And what was it's purpose ?
As opposed to the "Never-ending Thread"
If everyone were as conciliatory as I, the Molasses Miasma of Niceness would pervade the Religion Forum, and we could all have a Guinness together.
Did someone say Guinness? *perk*
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12).
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him (John 3:36).
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, he has crossed over from death to life (John 5:24).
He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy (Titus 3:5a).
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:11-13).
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! (2 Corinthians 5:17).
So, unless you have other citations to offer, what your earlier post said was "the Word of the Bible," is in fact not in the Bible at all.
To throw out some more suggestions: Since this can only be useful with great precision of words, it might be worth encouraging the use of phrases like "some," "most," or "faithful"/"nominal" in terms of describing confessions. For example: "Some nominal and uncatechized Catholics think it's ok to worship Mary, even though the Church says that it isn't. Faithful Catholics know better and follow what the Church teaches."
For issues like Quix's "RC Edifice" issue, it might simply be worth naming the confessional group instead of the ecclesial institution. "Catholics" (or "faithful Catholics" per what I said above) instead of "RCC" or "RC Edifice." I think I can understand his hesitation to use the phrase "Church" in regards to Catholicism given his particular confession. (courtesy ping to Quix.) As another example: we can say what a particular Anglican believes regarding a matter, but to say what the Anglican Communion in general believes (or asserts what individual Anglicans should believe) would be a difficult if not impossible exercise.
And a huge dose of Christian humility doesn't hurt. Rewording or apologizing for something that was taken as offensive (even if one doesn't think it should have been) would be far superior to arguing whether it was or wasn't. It would also do well to breed the sort of good will that this type of thread would require, should more of them come about.
Guinness makes the world go ‘round ...
While a true statement (particularly if you consider each independent congregation its own denomination), I fail to see what that has to do with the subject at hand.
How can we complain about "them" bashing us when "we" take a cheap shot like the one above? (I call it a cheap chot, since the discussion had nothing to do with a universal church or the validity of protestant denominations)
No offense, but how can we complain about snarky comments if we make them as well? (especially, on a "respectful dialogue" thread)
Yes it does...and it’s good for you too. Very high in antioxidants, especially Guinness Stout.
Another proof of the Divine nature of the Catholic Church.... monks perfecting the brewing of beer. *wink*
What you call parsing, I call reading. I have already said many things.
I don’t have any problem with “RC Edifice,” except that for some reason, it looks like “edifice” is spelled wrong. Baby-slimes on my glasses, maybe ...
“RC” means “Roman Catholic” to everybody in this context, I think. And the Church *is* an edifice, both a spiritual building on the foundation of the Lord Jesus *and* the Apostle Peter, and a collection of physical edifices, including St. Luke’s Redneck Evangelical Catholic Multipurpose Facility, such as it is.
So whether the poster intended it to be impolite, is, in my opinion, irrelevant. Kumbayah, y’all!
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.