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.
I always thought that believers were the Body of Christ, which the bread represents.
That's all well and good... but can you show that from the Bible? Where does it say that the "bread" represents the Christian community and not Christ Himself?
There’s no need for me to consume the literal Body of Christ, since I am that already.
You make an assertion here that even St Paul wouldn't dare make (see 1 Cor 12:12-26). The Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph, Rev) and we are members of that Body. Just as we were created from the beginning to be joined in one flesh in matrimony, so have we been joined to Christ in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb which is His Passion.
You can find seven times when Christ told His Disciples "I AM"... the door; the light of the world, et al. You can only find one instance (repeated in the Gospels) when Jesus said something else was Him and that is at the Last Supper with the bread and wine. "This is My Body..."
For the God Who spoke and light was separated from dark and all else was made... why do so many doubt that He can transubstantiate bread and wine into His own Body and Blood?
Here's a question I ask all Protestants on this subject. Did the Apostles eat the Body and Blood of Jesus? Jesus said "This is My Body..."... was it?
One point. The Real Presence is NOT antithetical to science. Quit the contrary--unlike past generations, we know that there is a deeper level of reality than appears on the surface. We know, for example, that bread, blood, and our bodies are comprised of atoms (mostly C, H, O, and N, with a bit of Ca, Mg, and some trace elements). These atoms are linked together in different arrangements to form the different substances. It is certainly possible that the process of transubstantiation results in a change at the deeper (non-chemical) level, with the atoms of the bread and wine being "swapped" for the glorified atoms that comprise the risen body of Christ.
This is not to say that the above "is" what happens in transubstantiation, but simply point out that a Real Presence is NOT wholly impossible of today's knowledge of science.
Very interesting!
Here's a question I ask all Protestants on this subject. Did the Apostles eat the Body and Blood of Jesus? Jesus said "This is My Body..."... was it?
Christ often spoke in metaphors and/or parables and it seems clear he was doing so at the Last Supper. He was telling them of the sacrifice to come as he was the only one who fully knew and understood what was coming and used this as an opportunity to help them see one more bit of his omniscience and Godhood.
Of course He could cause the transubstantiation the bread and wine into His body and blood, but it also seems odd that they would continue to be bread and wine. I also have problems with the thought that, because one becomes a Catholic Priest, one is automatically endowed with the ability to perform (or perhaps facilitate is a better word) miracles that have not been readily accomplished since the apostles were dispatched.
I have trouble understanding why so many of the religions of the world absolutely require to have their priests available to "save" the souls of the congregation, when it clear that the Word of the bible only requires one to believe and ask Christ into his heart. We went from the Old Covenant, which proved that men could not become worthy on their own efforts, and into a New Covenant where it seems that other men (if you call them "priest") can help make you worthy.
I'll trust The Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit to be sufficient in and of themselves and consider the Lord's Supper as a symbol that we understand and appreciate that He was willing to be tortured and killed by sinners that sinners might have an Eternal relationship with Him.
God Bless
Could you provide a citation for this, please?
Yet, after the Last Supper, the disciples remained a bunch of frightened people who didn't understand what was going on with the crucifixion. Only after the Holy Spirit came on them at Pentecost were they transformed.
Indeed. Jesus said: "Do this in remembrance of me."
Great article, and a good discussion, so far.
It's because certain people always crave superior status and privileges over others. Basically the same motive liberals and socialists have. Jesus came to give us the truth and set us free from man-made "religious systems."
I do not understand the portion of your statement shown in bold, since the line of Catholic priests have been doing this since the time of the apostles.
There have also been many miracles worked through non-clergy. Are you suggesting, trebb, that there have been no miraculous works since the time of the Apostles, or have I misunderstood?
I keep plugging away, and use the writings of Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism.
At least they're hearing at from you. It will be great preparation for their first Holy Communion next year.
I’ll be an assistant teacher in the 2nd grade next year, so the (ahem) aggressively orthodox position will be firmly presented. The Spanish choir is taking up too much time for me to be a head teacher.
==> “The Real Presence is NOT antithetical to science.” <==
In fact, the constituent atoms of the very bread and wine given from the hand of Jesus as sacrament at the Last Supper remain present on the Earth, and a very few are LIKELY to be present in each Communion received today.
Avogadro’s number (6 x 10**23) is very large, and the part of the Earth we occupy is so small that virtually every breath we take might share that bounty.
John 6 was not given at the Last Supper. It is speaking a timeless Spiritual truth. Namely, that we must take Christ in, hunger for the living Word of God and let Him satisfy us, make Him part of ourselves - really, not just symbolically. He is our life and light.
Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life.
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:41-63
I realize that people who observe the Eucharist do not believe it is symbolic. And it is true that God’s presence was in the burning bush, the tabernacles and temple. Man, of course, cannot command God to do anything - but God can do anything He wills.
It would be wrong-headed to presume that God is subservient to man or that He has ipso facto transubstantiated a substance - whether a burning bush or bread and wine - simply because certain words were spoken and certain gestures were made. It is a Spiritual matter, not a physical matter.
Or to put it another way, if one were to trust the observance - and miss the person and power of Jesus Christ Himself - it would be a great tragedy. We are to take Christ in (absorb Him, make Him part of us) really not just symbolically.
To God be the glory!
In what SENSE!?!
Plausible meanings abound in a number of Scriptures.
We find no conclusive justification for the seemingly arbitrary interpretations the RC edifice makes of a number of Scriptures, including that one.
“Upon this pebble/rock,” is another.
Insisting that God meant one of several plausible meanings about which reasonable people can differ—and insisting that such an interpretation is = to Salvation vs damnation
makes God out to be a terrible writer or a terrible editor.
imho, Salvation issues are not that ambiguous in Scripture.
This is very disrespectful.
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.