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.
Off the top of my head . . .
—shew bread
—Aaron’s rod
—stone tablets of 10 commandments
—golden hemroids? Not 100% certain on the last one.
The clear claim of Christ in Holy Scripture
= = =
Obviously not. Else there’d not be so much fierce disagreement amongst reasonable bright people on it.
I took it to mean in a short-hand way—quite usefully and economically, I thought—
to mean
staged, manipulated, showmanship sort of charade of something or other.
We had 12 First Communicants today. They looked lovely in their 1st Communion suits and dresses.
Unfortunately, like baptisms, we don't always see them at Mass on Sundays. That is heartbreaking.
EXACTLY! Most informed Catholics separate the terms "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic." Technically, Roman Catholic refers to those individuals who practice the Latin Rite of worship. As opposed to those who practice one of the Eastern Rites, such as the Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Syro-Malobar, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic, etc.
While the term "Catholic" does clearly mean universal, as you rightly point out. Therefore, ALL Christians are members of the Church Catholic (Church Universal).
A practical example of this is that the Roman Catholic Church prohibits a married presbyterate. That is not a dogmatic distinction.
' That is reformed churchs are NOT the church..
I don't know many informed Catholics who would make that statement (see above). I don't know many informed Catholics who would say that the reformed communities are "churches," though. The distinction comes that (at least most) reformed communities do not have a valid apostolic succession. That is literally the only reason why a distinction is drawn. But that has nothing to do with whether the members of those communities are members of the Church Catholic (Universal). They may not be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but that does not mean that they are not members of the Universal Church, the Body of Christ.
My perception is that you understand the Catholic Church to be a denomination (unless you are speaking of some sort of "invisible church"). The scriptural, historic reality is that the Catholic Church is the universal Church. You or your group may not be in communion with the hierarchy of that Church, you may not respect the teaching authority of the bishops of that Church (either eastern, western, in communion with Rome, out of communion with Rome), you may disrespect each and every council or synod of that Church, to include the First Council of Nicea and the Council of Jerusalem. You can say they went off the tracks before the apostles died and that your group has only since (fill in the date) restored the truth. But unless you reject the writings of St. Paul as being divinely inspired, you have got to recognize his unambiguous writings that there is ONE body of Christ. Christ is preparing ONE bride for the Royal Wedding Feast.
And that is the Universal (Catholic) Church.
And like it or not, if you accept the teachings of Christ, even if you reject ALL that you consider to be "papist" or "roman" or whatever, you are a member of that Body. To reject being a member of that Body is to reject Christ.
If you consider that insulting or abusive, so be it. I've tried to say it as charitably as I possibly can.
I had 8th graders this year, and the boys for the most part just didn't care to be there.
So sad....
I don’t think you could read my heart remotely well enough to conclude
accurately
that
my statements/terms were
a factual observation
of disrespect.
Actually, from where I sit, your assertions were the opposite of factual.
And, of the two of us, I think I’m much more of an expert on
me
than you are.
You asked: Do all the rites consider themselves the same church?
Yes, they consider themselves part of the Catholic Church and recognize papal authority over the Church. For instance, you may notice that one of the many Catholic posters on FR is NYer. NYer does not attend Latin (or Roman) Rite church.
And yes, Latin Rite of the Catholic Church would be correct. Armenian Rite of the Catholic Church would be correct for the Armenian Rite etc... Roman Catholic Church is not correct.
I know what you mean. I wonder why the parents bother. That’s why we have so many Catholics that are clueless.
Thanks....
Well I’m one weird Protestant here, as I accept the Real Presence of Christ—body blood & soul complete—in holy Communion. Probably my view may be like the Orthodox or Lutheran, as I do not see a necessity to accept notion of Transubstantiation, since, in order to believe that, one must accept Aristotle’s philosophical categories of substance and accidents.
(since Aristotle’s philosophy was not widely known until most of his work was introduced to Europe after the 1st Crusade, arguably no one in the West believed in the substance/accidents division, hence in transubstantiation as it is defined now, until then...)
I like what Queen Elizabeth I allegedly said of holy Communion in the 1500s:
‘Twas God the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what the Word did make it,
That I believe and take it.
As an evangelical, I simply cannot get around what Jesus said, that yes, it is His body and blood.
Why does the Catholic Church have different rites, and what are the differences between them, in a general sense, not the in depth particulars as that may take more than a few sentences in a reply. :-)
I’ve never been to St. Peter’s - but I’d love to see it. It was quite an honor to grow up in San Antonio and be able to visit all the missions in that area and to visit San Fernando Cathedral and attend services all around. I reckon my appreciation for the “large structure” is more because of its reach than its center.
= =
I quite agree and I do consciously include that meaning in most of my uses of the term.
St Peter’s was awesome in a lot of respects. I think folks see pics and fail to understand that IIRC in the main sanctuary part alone, a whole American football field would fit.
And that the gold leaf lettering around the base of the dome is more than 6 feet tall.
One could almost feel the ages and cross currents of the centuries.
I loved the dove behind the altar. However, the altar itself, I thought more ugly and beautiful. It was certainly artistic and creative, though.
IIRC, there may have been pigeons inside when I was there.
Certainly the place fairly oooozed pomp and circumstance. FWIW.
Good post, I agree! Call this Reformed guy Lutheran on this point.
I can certainly identify with those feelings and perceptions.
Went to church this morning. Sat through the whole service.
Had to put my industrial strength ear plugs in to avoid pain during the worship service—sitting in back. And had to leave them in during the preaching.
Pastor has an anointing and God was clearly there at least at the start of the service.
Alas, didn’t feel that much like HOME. I think I’m still waiting for THE NEW JERUSALEM. LOL.
AMEN! Well put, imho.
Indeed Christ is the “door” John ch 10..
The door to the sheep pens.. (all of them)..
= =
INDEED!
So, tell me . . . if the RC edifice construction on reality is remotely correct, why aren’t Protty’s and RC’s getting up from prayer full of splinters?
God is prejudiced toward bread and wine vs wood???
I find those assertions
UNMITIGATED PREJUDICIAL DISRESPECTFUL HOGWASH.
However, I think you ought to be free to espress such—though probably on a normal thread instead of on one of this type.
Neither Scripture or the Catholic Church teaches that the Church was built on Peter.
Matthew 16:
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Clearly Peter was not the rock on which Jesus would build His church. Who or what then was Jesus saying His church would be built upon?
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.