The Eucharist: The Body of Christ? ("Respectful Dialogue" thread)

Our Sunday Visitor (via Catholic Culture) ^ | 1/2005 | Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

[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.

[OLD REGGIE]

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)

Actually, I didn't see it as much "snarky" as ignorant. Unless there can be a clear definition of "Protestant Denomination" it is impossible to count them.

Rather than chastise pgyanke why not just insist on a qualified list of the first one thousand? :)

BTW, While I admire your intent I disagree wholeheartedly with the need, nor the viability of such a forum.

[Quix]

Sigh.

Once more, with feeling . . .

a one and a two . . . [cue bubble machine]

1. The RC edifice construction on reality is that "The Roman Catholic Church" = Christ's Church Universal.

2. That is utterly 100% UNBiblical and utterly 100% intolerable to just wink at and pass on by, to me.

I cannot and will not, with a clear conscience, use the term the RC's demand that I use when referring to their edifice on that score.

imho, folks that find my substitute term (chosen with a great deal of care and caring)-- intolerable in civil discourse need to grow a thicker skin and probably simply to grow up. They COULD have noted REPEATED uses of the term for ALL DENOMINATIONS AND RELGIOUS HIERARCHIES. I've not exactly reserved it only and totally for the RC edifice--by a wide margin.

An edifice is also a human institution, to me . . . an organized, structured, hierarchical human institution. All congregations, denominations, PARTIUCLARLY RELIGIOUS CLUBS fit under that umbrella. It's just a fact, to me. Hence, it's a very generic, useful term with a wide range of meanings and applications, to me. THE CONTEXT in the paragraph and the thread is somewhat critical.

On this thread, I had not loaded it up with any load of negative baggage, per se. Thanks to RC's we can now assume that others HAVE so loaded it up, on this thread. I had not.

[NYer]

I have first graders this year, and I’ve been emphasizing this all year. It’s hard to tell how much they’re taking in.

In 2005, the Holy Father met with a group of children who had received thir First Communion that year. The following question with response from the pope left such an impression on me that I included it in a letter mailed hom to our parish families whose children will be receiving First Eucharist on May 4.

3. Andrea

In preparing me for my First Communion day, my catechist told me that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. But how? I can't see him!

No, we cannot see him, but there are many things that we do not see but they exist and are essential. For example: we do not see our reason, yet we have reason. We do not see our intelligence and we have it. In a word: we do not see our soul and yet it exists and we see its effects, because we can speak, think and make decisions, etc. Nor do we see an electric current, for example, yet we see that it exists; we see this microphone, that it is working, and we see lights. Therefore, we do not see the very deepest things, those that really sustain life and the world, but we can see and feel their effects. This is also true for electricity; we do not see the electric current but we see the light.

So it is with the Risen Lord: we do not see him with our eyes but we see that wherever Jesus is, people change, they improve. A greater capacity for peace, for reconciliation, etc., is created. Therefore, we do not see the Lord himself but we see the effects of the Lord: so we can understand that Jesus is present. And as I said, it is precisely the invisible things that are the most profound, the most important. So let us go to meet this invisible but powerful Lord who helps us to live well.
FULL TEXT .

[Quix]

The value to the receiver is the same, in my opinion, but if I’m wrong and transubstantiation actually does occur, I’ll be none worse for it! = = = Well, perceptively, wisely put, imho.

[Quix]

It is not a matter of difficulty but communications. The term “Roman Catholic Church” does not convey that the poster perceives a “large structure” or “edifice.”

= = =

A true and excellent point that has been a big part of my reason for using the term . . . I might also add ancient and tradition bound edifice but I had not yet done so on this thread.

[Petronski]

I cannot and will not, with a clear conscience, use the term the RC's demand that I use when referring to their edifice on that score.

Your reference to "RC" belies the rest of your claims. Your disrespectful comments continue.

[TheDon]

What is the point of this thread?

Perhaps to learn what other FReepers believe?

[big'ol_freeper]

Fair enough. Since we now get to pick what to call other’s faiths or churches, this member of the Catholic Church will from now on describe those formerly known as evangelicals as Truth-deniers since the evangelical edfice of evangelical = spreading the Gospel is in fact incorrect since the Gospel they spread is another Gospel, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Petronski]

Yes, and the very best way to learn what another believes is to hear what he says he believes, not what others say he believes.

[defconw]

Wow. Thanks for sharing.

[TheDon]

Thank you sir can I have another!!

[Quix]

Penn and Teller Christianity

This is very disrespectful.

Yet again . . .

"USEFUL, COMMUNICATIVE DESCRIPTION" is NOT

the SAME as

"deliberate epithet."

Except, of course, in the 'eye' of the beholder.

In which case, the proverb comes to mind . . . we see life and others not as the reality that they are . . . but as we are.

hosepipe, sometimes methinks that the seeming paucity of useful shorthand descriptors on the part of the tradition bound RC edifice tweaks up the outrage when others post with a greater range, variety and potency of such descriptors. Guess I have no great apologies about that. They have a wealth of fine minds. Let them come up with their own.

They have a few--sadly virtually all of them personally assaultive ones vs assaulting ideas, beliefs, habits, rituals, practices. Alas, that seems to be their habit. I have no delusions of changing that in this life so I'm happy to rack up the Heavenly points and enjoy the humor. At my age, a more mature response like that is perferable in most situations.

[Mad Dawg]

I don't understand. Are you saying that to discuss a doctrine not essential to salvation is divisive?

In any event, I would guess the Doctrine of the Real Presence is "ordinarily necessary" but not absolutely a prerequisite to salvation, but that's my untutored opinion

[Petronski]

And by setting aside, arguendo, the Golden Rule, we demonstrate why the Golden Rule is so important to this kind of discussion: without it, communication fails.

It can continue if one side continues to observe it, like the driver blinded by oncoming high-beams, relying on the other driver's sight to avoid a crash.

If both sides resort to name calling, it is like the fool who puts on his own highbeams in revenge against the oncoming car: now both sides are blind....BOOM.

But alas, the Golden Rule only works when both sides are trying NOT to trespass against the other.

[Quix]

As Catholics correctly point out, the did not say “this is a SYMBOL of my body.” However, IF we want to take this argument to literally and to it’s logical conclusion, the the ONLY bread that was Christ’s body was the bread he was talking about at that time. He said “THIS is my body”. He didn’t say “This, and future pieces of bread, are my body.”

= = =

Quite correct, imho.

[NYer]

What did the people who were taught about Christianity by Paul, Mark etc. believe? I am curious about the Coptics in Egypt, who I think were taught by Mark, the Chrisitians in the Iraq, (I forget what they are called but I don’t think they are Catholic), Syria etc. Did they have the same belief or do they have a different theory?

Just finished reading an extraordinary book about the Coptic monks and highly recommend it!

JOURNEY BACK TO EDEN

And, yes, they believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The christians of Iraq are Chaldean Catholics. (Many people are not aware that the Catholic Church is both Western and Eastern. There are 22 different Catholic Traditions, including Byzantine, Armenian, Coptic, Chaldean, Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian, and Ruthenian. A Roman Catholic may attend Mass at any of the Eastern Catholic Churches and fulfill their Sunday obligation. As my Maronite pastor often describes it - "same faith, different flavor")

In fact, this morning Pope Benedict XVI ordained 29 new priests for the Diocese of Rome. In the group was 1 young man who is Chaldean and will serve in Iraq. Like all Catholics, they believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

[Petronski]

Thank you sir can I have another!!

The supply seems to be unlimited, so, yes you can!

[Tax-chick]

It appears the immovable object has met the irresistable force, and I think it’s not irrelevant that both are male. Sigh.

[Quix]

We find no conclusive justification for the seemingly arbitrary interpretations the RC edifice makes of a number of Scriptures, including that one.

= =

Indeed. That was the context. And what’s so hard, mystifying or prejudicial, for that matter, about such a perspective. It’s a straight-forward, passionless assertion based on my reading of Scripture and my experience of a large number of RC folks and their . . . . hierarchy’s pontifications. [temporarily leaving out a more accurate and useful word in the interest of PERCEIVED respectful dialogue].

[TheDon]

The Catholic Church consists of 23 rites, one of which is the Latin Rite (or Roman Rite).

Do all the rites consider themselves the same church? They do not all fall under the authority of the Roman Rite pope do they? If not, do they all have a pope or comparable individual? It would seem that refering to the Roman Rite as the Catholic Church would not be precise enough. How about the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Inquiring minds want to know...