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.
Alright.
To a degree . . . and as I remember that . . . I’ll try and comply.
When I find your posts particularly screaming for a response that burns in my spirit, I’ll still reply. Whether I leave your screen name in the addy list, or not, will depend on a number of factors.
Thanks. I attended parochial school since childhood, raised Lutheran and never knew Jesus until last Oct. when I asked Him for salvation. Hit me like a ton of bricks! I too have been living that “experiment” and it is as you say. I can be nothing less than a slave of Christ.
Well...I was hoping to have a civil discussion about the differences between various views of the Eucharist. The Protestant (to include Reformation Protestant, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Charismatic, Restorationist, and other derivative confessions) viewpoint of the Eucharist is hardly monolithic. As I stated in an earlier post, there is a range of views from the High Church Anglicans, who believe largely the same as the Catholics and Orthodox, to those who don't see any reason to have communion at all (but, in conformity with the Lord's commandment, they might have it once a year).
what’s the real issue here?
I think the deeper issue is the efficacy of the sacraments in the oikonomia (Economy) of Salvation.
I think you'd end up seeing the same distribution if you'd ask whether baptism actually does something, or whether new Christians simply do so as a public testimony in compliance with an ordinance of the Lord.
For me, the Eucharist provides a very real help in living a sanctified life. In participating in the Divine Liturgy (or, as we Latin Christians call it, the Mass), I am drawn into the heavenly worship described by St. John in his Apocalypse. In partaking in the Communion of the Lord, I literally and physically receive Christ, God the Son. I receive what was foretold figuratively through the gift of manna from heaven; I partake in the passover feast of heaven, receiving nourishment from the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
Do I think it's critical? yes.
Do I think it's important to distinguish? yes. Take a look at 1 Cor 11:29-30. That is a very, very serious business to me.
Can a person be saved and NOT believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ? Sure. But I can't imagine a person wanting to NOT believe it.
Like I said 100 posts or so ago, to me, a person practicing a "communion" ceremony without a belief in transubstantiation is a little like a Hebrew loudly proclaiming, "I'M A VEGAN" when standing at dinner on the night before their exodus from Egypt.
As a point of order, I have used RC and RCC to abbreviate, and was never accused of an offense. In what way is that disrespectful?
As Scripture indicates . . . once a root of bitterness has taken hold . . . all manner of . . . problems . . . grow therefrom. And, blame, is the least of them.
I enjoy the freedom of pasture (Psalms 23.) But the sheep pens (John 10) do not trouble me at all. Everything works together for the good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28.)
Some of my brothers and sisters in Christ are most strongly in awe of our God when they stand or kneel in a church or when they hear a particular hymn. And others arrive at that point when they hold a newborn baby or are in the silence of a night, alone. And so on.
With some, the liturgy, the history, the accoutrements of worship open their hearts to receive the words of God. And with others it is the fiery sermon of an evangelist or preacher. And with others, reading the words of God or a book or a discussion with family or friends. And so on.
One size does not fit all. God didn’t make us with a cookie cutter. Christ didn’t choose twelve Peters or twelve Johns. He chose twelve very unique apostles.
So I wouldn’t deign to insist that everyone must be as I am. I thank God for all my brothers and sisters in Christ – whether they are more comfortable in a pen or a pasture. As long as they follow the Good Shepherd, love God surpassingly above all else (Matthew 22) - that is what is matters. And, as John 10 assures us, Jesus' sheep will not follow strangers. So I have no reason to be troubled.
Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Mar 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples
Luk 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Joh 10:6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
It may be understandable to you if you correct your error...
Some people simply can't handle the concept of polite debate, based on facts fallacy.
Why??? The Mormans believe Joe Smith is THEIR pope...The muzlims believe they should kill you and whoever they can't convert (like your church did in the DARK ages)...Do you respect their beliefs???
Did Jesus respect the beliefs of the Pharisees???
You got it backwards...We may respect you, but I for one have no respect for your religion...
It is not with any rancor that I did so, but for the relief of my poor thumbs, which are daily made raw enough by my indelicate pounding upon this foul keyboard.
In as much as is evidenced by my shortening of Protestant churches as well, "Presbyterian PCA" becoming "PPCA" as soon as is possible within my post and still provide for clarity, I would hope that the same would not be the cause insult to our FRiends of other confessions.
Have you indeed heard that it is so? And if so, why?
It appears then that Catholics all have their home-brewed recipe for Christianity...
I hope you don't deny that numerous Catholics (and publications) claim that partaking in the Eucharist is a prerequisite for Salvation, as well as the other sacraments...
You have much wisdom...
It was a good and interesting experiment.
I appreciate it.
My two cents on the concept:
On open internet forums, you’re going to get bomb throwers, flame baiters, etc. You can also get interesting and courteous posters.
The problem is, of course, the former can overwhelm the thread.
The best, not perfect, solution I’ve seen is the “ignore” function on some sites. You can click “ignore” and you will no longer see that poster’s posts.
Those that want to discuss without disruption can have a self-cleaned thread.
Like I said, it’s not a perfect solution, but it’s the best one I’ve come across.
thanks again for the thread.
While your statement is true in fact, it is not precisely fair. The lion's share of Protestant denominations do treat the Communion as a sacrament, with all seriousness and sanctity, accomplished with some regularity- Some monthly, some bi-monthly, but on the whole it is much the same throughout. What a few do around the edges hardly accounts for the criticism that it is 'wide ranging'.
I am drawn into the heavenly worship described by St. John in his Apocalypse.
Yeah, catching a bit of the Ghost, eh? Getting 'plugged in'... It is the most awesome thing there is. I wouldn't trade it for anything.
Do I think it's critical? yes. Do I think it's important to distinguish? yes.
Forgive me brother, but it seems to be picking nits, for wont of a better phrase.
If one is experiencing the solemnity of the occasion, seeing before him the Body and the Blood, and being filled with the Spirit, isn't that the significance of it? Isn't it the Spirit that tells the tale?
What difference is it that one understand that which is impossible to understand, after all, if the submission and the Spirit allow?
It is much to me, like the understanding of Trinity. It is at best circular and impossible, and withstanding of any proofs. Is it important to impart? Sure it is, as is anything within one's understanding.
But to those who cannot fathom the unfathomable, it can easily become a stumbling block. Is it enough that they see the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, foregoing the concept of Trinity? Sure it is, as the Blood of the Lamb covers all.
In due time all will be revealed.
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.