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.
At any moment, I'm sure any of you could have dropped in the middle of a sentence a few choice words known to offend and thus poisoned the entire discourse, slamming the door on both "politely" and "profitably."
You went to St. John's? Cool! I live right outside Annapolis, and gave thought to going there when I was young (lo these many years ago). Cool school.
“We did not knowingly avoid any hard questions. And yet we were able to discuss things politely and profitably.”
That this is actually possible appears to be lost on some number of posters herein. Not just on Religion threads. Kind of a shame. The really worthwhile discussions can only happen when folks can let their guard down a bit. And that isn't going to happen in the food fight mode that is so frequently the default mode here, especially in the Religion Forum.
sitetest
Is this now the Catholic Channel?
Is this now the Catholic Channel?
= = =
The persistent efforts to make it so are tenacious; too often shrill and haughty; too ofteh sanctimonious; too often grossly hypocritical.
Some of us, however, are fairly persistent, as well, in vigorous, fierce protest against the authoritarian RC edifice tide.
IMHO what the majority think ain't the question. We have a not infallible but nonetheless official and pretty reliable compendium of our teaching. And the distinction between ordinarily necessary and absolutely necessary is in there, at least implicitly.
Let's work an example:
As to the perpetual Virginity of Mary, if you were a catechized Catholic and did not believe that, that would be way more serious than if you were not a catechized Catholic.
Sins can be thought of as having two aspects: the intention and the act itself. A child-warrior in some parts of Africa is terrorized, wrenched from his family whom he sees tortured and killed, then fed, sheltered, propagandized, and drugged by his captors. He then fights and kills on the side of his captors. His intention and personal culpability are hard to assess. But I think we can agree that his culpability is not the same as that of a coldblooded killer brought up in a decent situation who decides that, say, playing the Double Indemnity (with Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson) game is a nice way to get your ashes hauled while enhancing the bank account.
But, objectively, Divine justice has been outraged by the killing of innocents in either case. And, personally, the soul of the child warrior has formed vicious habits and has gravely interfered with the development of virtue. Not to mention the nightmares.
Speaking of getting your ashes hauled ....
Similarly, but maybe less clearly, from our POV, understanding the role of chastity in the spiritual life and in the fostering of the infused virtue of charity is not child's play. Someone who had never been given the opportunity to consider thoughtfully how consecrating one's virginity to God might be a special vocation and grace which would work into one's commitment to and walk with God has less culpability in rejecting the doctrine of Mary's virginity than someone who had understood the apostolic authority of the Church and been given at least the opportunity to consider the graces (and challenges — sometimes hard to tell apart) of life-long virginity offered to God.
But the first person still does not experience the graces which follow on the doctrine, which might include the challenge of remembering that our natural life is short and that the bliss offered to us in Christ is to the joy of sex as Niagara Falls is to a drop of rain. The objective loss of the challenge to foster the (again divinely infused) virtue of hope remains, while the culpability of rejecting a doctrine of the Church (as we would say) is greatly mitigated. Both people miss out on the objective good of a deepening and more nuanced hope. But the second person has more blame than the first.
So we think there are real, objective, important, spiritual benefits in believing what we teach, and real losses for those who, for whatever reason and degree of culpability, do not believe what we teach. But even we balk at saying that God will not bring people who disagree with us into the fullness of his Love.
Oh my! There's a day going on outside, and I have things I must do!
Graduates of SJC have the most interesting conversations when they’re not interrupted by having to say, “Would you like fries with that?”
As Scripture declares, NONE IS RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE.
You take this out of context, as do most Protestants I know. How can I be so bold? Because, in the way that you use it, how do you explain Enoch?
NO ONE INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP HAS IT ALL 100% CORRECT ABOUT MUCH OF ANYTHING... And ANYONE who thinks they do or that their group does is very seriously deluded, mistaken, WRONG.
God has been faithful to insure that no one has grounds to be that haughty.
This is a very unbiblical comment. Who were the Apostles? At the time, they were the ones with the truth to give to the world. By your reasoning, even among them, they should have had no special authority to the truth. Protestants like to hit Catholics over the head over Sola Scriptura... however, if you look at it logically you will find the authority of God presented through men in the Epistles. If no man or group has the fullness of truth then by what authority did Peter, Paul, James and John write to (and reprove) the Church?
What is the "pillar and ground of the truth"? My Protestant friends tell me it is only Scripture. However, when I appeal to Scripture, I find this...
1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. You took me to task early on for bringing up the fractalization of the Protestant denominations as being out of context and an attack. No, it is not. You appeal to the unambiguity of Scripture as a rallying point for all Christianity. My point to you is that this has brought disunity for those who have tried it.
Outside of the Church and Liturgy, the Bible is out of context.
I have been involved in on-line discussion, to one extent or another and in one form or another, since the early 1980s. There is absolutely NOTHING on FR that surprises me. NOTHING AT ALL. Flame wars? BTDT. Smarmy "help"? BTDT. Misrepresentation of other folks' beliefs? BTDT. Innuendo? BTDT.
It's not just FR. It's the nature of the beast.
You can say and do almost anything in on-line discussion, without repercussions. If anyone desires proof of the doctrine of "original sin" ... I might refer them to certain USENET discussions from the early 1990s. Freed from restraints, many folks quickly devolve to the basest behaviour ... and simultaneously profess (with great indignation) that they are above reproach.
RM has an impossible task ... if folks wish to behave badly, they will do so.
USENET readers had a killfile. It helped. A little.
Use of real names helps, as well. For a wide variety of reasons, I don't want to go there.
Real face-to-face discussion (as you had at St. Johns) helps a lot. In the real world, there are consequences for misbehaviour.
“Graduates of SJC have the most interesting conversations when they’re not interrupted by having to say, ‘Would you like fries with that?’”
LOL.
You obviously graduated a verrry long time ago. More recent graduates are more inclined to say, “Is that whole, low-fat, or skim in your latte?”
;-)
sitetest
That says it all, to me.
I've NEVER found written Scripture out of context in any way, shape or form in any context. Holy Spirit breathed Scripture and particularly the enlivened Word in my heart have been equal to every situation and context.
The best any human hierarchical edifice has ever done vis a vis Scripture is to present it as authentically as manageable; to model it as purely as possible; to faciliate the study of it diligently and tenaciously as possible . . . and to encourage it's members to do the same.
Most of the time, vain glorious priorities and activities set in so early and with such a death grip on the edifice and the leadership that the above priorities fall by the wayside in favor of a list of idolatries and blasphemies. The RC edifice has NO monopoly on such hideousness--as I've repeatedly said.
However, the RC edifice is a huge and glaringly egregious example of such.
CHRIST'S none righteous, no, not one stands as an indictment against all who would pretend otherwise.
I do not advise at the judgment that anyone sputter . . . bbbbuuutttt the RC magicsterical said . . . And the edifice taught that Mother Mary said . . . And our HOLY TRADITIONS TAUGHT . . .
Nothing but The Blood of Jesus, thank you.
Excellent narrative and examples.
Yet again, I agree wholesale.
TRUE. TRUE. TRUE.
Interestingly, men’s minds—vs women’s—are uniquely designed to receive and remember info delivered in parables, stories.
Interestingly, men’s minds—vs women’s—are uniquely designed to receive and remember info delivered in parables, stories.
Actually, so much so, that if a woman [or propagandist, for that matter]
will construct a story using that particular man’s passionate priorities, phrases, images, . . . in such a way as to convey her message, needs, concerns, desires . . . skillfully enough . . . her man will have little to no defense against it.
Tooo true, toooo often.
OR... a forum(thread) has been provided to vet serious christian error... "to the lurkers".. and maybe to non lurkers.. After all what indeed "IS" a "christian".. How do you define that word?.. Not only is attitude and demeanor displayed but so is the logic and theology(opinion) of the poster..
The battle of multi century's continues before some who never knew battle even/ever existed.. It is like a christian history lesson.. Much to be gained, by some, others would be bored to death.. The qualities of the post'er soon present themselves.. There are some lurkers, bo doubt, that think the apostles were Roman Catholics or something resembling one.. I suggest there is much to be gained, by some..
I don’t know . . . some PCA folks I’ve known can get awfully exorcised over some pretty chaffy stuff. LOL.
has an ignore button.
They also have a fierce BRITISH CIVILITY mandate, cultural expectation . . . which . . . usually translates into avoiding saying clearly offensive things to other groups and individuals . . .
Trouble is, offensive is so much in the eye of the beholder . . . but somehow, they make it mostly stick with frequent ‘point fines’ and time outs and bannings.
I’ve rarely used the ignore button there. Seems like a coward’s way out, to me.
I just skip over folks who are toooo anti-Christian to bother with.
IIRC, RC’s there with the rest of the few of us Christians who stand against the atheist liberal idiot tide there . . . are rather collegial and warmly friendly to one another. I can’t recall a single RC/Protty flame war there. I just realized that. Fascinating.
Thanks for your kind words, Dear Heart.
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.