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.
[snip] That leaves us very frightened scared rabbits on the high trapeeze. We have to turn loose of the former—the UNsacred cows to truly grab and be grabbed lastingly by the authentic SACRED. But fears prevent such loosening from the UNSACRED cows. And the fingernails dig deeper into the trapeeze bar rather than letting go.
All we can imagine is falling into the horrid endless terminal abyss.
We can’t imagine standing naked alone before God without obliteration. We have to wrap our UNsacred cows and self-righteousness around us to feel safe.
Though those are actually the very things that make us MOST UNSAFE before God. [end snip]
Quix, this is some of your best writing. Thank *you* for modeling Christian Charity, also for not being weary in well doing.
LUB,
Oh, LORD, I wish Free Republic had an “Ignore” button...
OTOH, my eyes should be the “ignore” function.
We've sure got a lot of work to do. If we get it, why don't the bishops?
Naw, at most the debate has been going on about 550-600 years. Luther believed in the Real Presence. Zwingli's folks were the first (to my knowledge) to really reject it...
Every year my class puts Christ on trial. (Right before Holy Week!) We don't have anyone play Jesus, but we do have witnesses for the defense and prosecution. We set up a team of lawyers for both sides.
Our director for religious education plays the role of the judge, and we bring in another class to act as jury.
The students take it seriously and have learned so much.
Every year I become more and more impressed with the way they handle their roles.
Personally, I like ‘mother of harlots’ myself.
That’s really very helpful, thanks for identifying yourself.
How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. (1Ki.18)
You left us. Think about it.
Vice versa? An individual-filled hate?Seriously, I feel like we started off badly but have worked out okay. I can't remember the badly part though.
While you and I may not need a thread nanny, I'd definitely say a thread nanny is needed.
Acts 2[13] Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
The truth is often mocked.
Thank you for the explanation. I had not heard of transubstantiation prior to this thread (obviously I’m not Catholic :-) ). It seems we agree that you can be saved regardless of whether you believe (or know) that transubstantiation occurs during Communion. I guess it is the degree of faithfulness, knowledge, or compliance with God’s word, that is being discussed in this thread.
Since I believe any and all things are possible through God, who am I to say it does or does not happen? God knows what’s in all of our hearts when we commune with him.
In what I call "High Receptionism" (which I take to be Hooker's view) Christ may be said to be "really present" in the believer -- for his salvation or his judgment (as Paul says). I think if you read the traditional prayer of Consecration in TEC you will see that it asserts the presence but is dodgy on where exactly IHS is present.
Other "lower" views seem to suggest that Christ's presence in the sacrament is dependent on the disposition and state of grace of the recipient. Among these views, as liberal theology grew in influence, the opinion that a person not rightly disposed (whether by his own act or by grace) ate and drank judgment was accompanied by a "kinder, gentler" thought that for the person who not rightly disposed nothing much happened.
Somewhere in here there is the "Who knows?" view. This has led to open communion and, IMHO, the trivialization of the sacramental act.
The higher views rightly (again IMHO) think the presence of Christ is dependent on the Trinity alone and not on the act of the believer. But the state and disposition of the believer (a function of grace, of course) affects the "spin" of the presence - in terms of Christ coming in judgment or as deliverer.
(Personally, I work on integrating, not opposing, deliverance and judgment, but I'm not sure I'm right to do so and I am sure I haven't completed my work.)
You can see the ambivalence of Anglican thought in the old words of Administration which seem (but just barely duck actually doing so) in their first sentence to call the bread and the wine the body and blood of Christ. In the second sense they express a precatory hope and explicitly mention receiving and feeding "By faith". Cranmer and the articles of Religion refer the "wicked" as only eating a sign of a great thing.
So, we can venture to say t hat between "High Receptionists" and "Real Presence IN the consecrated gifts"-ists, the disagreement is on the locus of Christ's presence. As Dearmer and Pocknee suggest (Can't think of the title) Anglican opinion would preclude or make inappropriate Eucharistic Devotion, while Catholics think of Christ as being "there - in the tabernacle (or whatever)" in such a way that, while in any place we could rightly fall on our faces and understand that to be falling before Him, yet before the tabernacle we are "in a special way" (notorious Catholic waffle words) in His presence and our devotions are for and to Him.
Finally, the question arises of "What to do with the leftovers?" The Anglican solution prescribes behavior, generally ignored especially by low church types, limiting what's legit to consumption or reservation. Lower doctrines tend to act in such a way as to imply that once the service is over the "elements" revert to just bread and wine, and MAY be treated with respect (tossed down the piscina) or not (fed to dogs - this happens in a nearby Episcopal parish).
An interesting aspect of this is that for some non-Catholics, the sacramental mojo persists (or returns) if the intention is to 'take the sacrament" to, say, the sick. This reminds me of people who say a wanted fetus is a baby, while an unwanted fetus isn't.
Aquinas (to the best of my recollection) says that as long as the accidents of bread and wine remain, the substance of Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity remain and the utmost reverence and care must be used.
End of blather.
Apparently the word “edifice” is offensive.
You might reconsider whether or not you’re going to have to keep a list of banned words.
“Respectful” is in the eye of the beholder, and it not only boils down to whose ox is being gored, it boils down to whether one believes his ox is being gored.
It cuts the heart out of conversation and turns the thread into something straight out of those nuanced speeches so famous at the United Nations or the hallowed halls of the US Congress.
Instead of “respectful dialogue” lets call it “Politically Correct Diaglogue Only Please.”
These things are going to continue, I can see it now,so as Christians, when you participate, discern whether it really is theology that is being discussed or are you sport for the addicted. As Dr. Eckleburg's tag says, do they want your respect or your submission.
It is not offensive to me (or most Catholics). I certainly don’t expect folks to say “The Catholic Church (Latin Rite)” when RCC is the common vernacular in American English.
I have an advantage in this conversation: I went to St John's College (NOT a church school) in Maryland. (They have another campus in New Mexico)
At SJC in 4 years we read a BUNCH o' books, starting with the Iliad and ending somewhere around Tolstoy and Nietzsche. Some students are left-wingers, some right-wingers. Faculty and Students ranged over non-religious, anti-religious, Hindus and Buddhists (not a lot of those) Jews of varying shades of Orthodoxy, and Christians of all species and varieties.
Among the Books we read are great huge chunks of the Bible, Augustine Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Plato, Aristotle, Marx, Gibbon, etc.
We did not knowingly avoid any hard questions. And yet we were able to discuss things politely and profitably. A Jew, a Buddhist, and a Presbyterian walked into a bar -- no wait, I mean they could discuss Dante's Comedia or Job, when the arguing got very demanding, but without giving or taking offense.
So I know it can be done and does not need to descend into the slough you describe. But people do have to intend to avoid giving offense, if it's going to work. Here that is a price some do not want to pay. They are here, I think, to lambaste those with whom they disagree, not to discuss, or to use participants in a thread as a kind of back-drop or straight-man to their playing to the lurkers.
But there is a middle ground between words nuanced to the point of vapidity and the exchange of insults. I know. I've seen it.
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.