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.
“RM has an impossible task ... if folks wish to behave badly, they will do so.”
I disagree strongly, on both assertions.
I've participated on-line where folks were much better behaved. But the moderation was MUCH better. The use of respectful language was mandated and enforced. Folks were reminded that “scoring points” by mocking the beliefs of others wasn't the purpose of the dialog.
Yet, robust debate occurred. Indeed, the conversations were far more robust, much deeper, much more insightful, because posters were not permitted to throw demonic... trash on what was sacred to others. And the posters who might otherwise be inclined to throw trash wound up being more respected by those disinclined, as a result.
Frankly, there is a large set of posters here whose substantive arguments I ignore entirely, because, let's face it, it's tough to take someone seriously who is little more than someone who thinks that “evangelizing” comprises insulting what others hold holy.
It may be, the culture of ugliness having already been established prior to serious efforts to moderate and reinforced by the moderation received over a long period, that FR's Religion Forum will never be much more than a place in which posters can take potshots at each others' beliefs. But I don't think it would be fair to say that this is the inevitable state of affairs generally.
sitetest
LOL.
It is kind of interesting that ‘some of my best writing’ received so little response! LOL.
Do you understand the purpose of the Epistles? They were to promote uniformity in the Church. If each locality was stand-alone, we would have no Epistles... and a very abbreviated New Testament.
Are you insisting that NO, absolutely NO reputable early Christians believed otherwise?
I’m not that much of an early church expert to assert otherwise emphatically but I do believe that there were plenty of early Christians who believed otherwise.
Perhaps the better scholars will speak up on that score.
At some point, on the issue, I’m somewhat comfortable saying ACCORDING TO YOUR FAITH, SO BE IT UNTO YOU and letting it be.
However, I deplore the ‘exclusivity’ aspect the RC edifice seems to so often ‘glory in’ vis a vis it’s ‘distinctives.’
Glory in Christ alone.
Hmmmmm I have come across that label from time to time.
I find it too harsh and often enough, of questionable accuracy. On the other hand . . . if, as too often seems to be the case, a Jezebel spirit is masquerading as . . . then . . .
How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. (1Ki.18)
= =
INDEED.
Equating
leaving the RC edifice
with leaving Truth, Righteousness and God
is arrogance and fallacy to the max.
(AAFTTM)
My comment wasn’t snarky... when read in context. I was told that Scripture is unambiguous or, if not, God is a poor writer/editor. I pointed out to our friend that if Scripture is unambiguous, then why is there no agreement among those who profess Sola Scriptura?
That is the context and meaning of my post. Sorry you thought it was snarky.
What distresses and interests me is that there are some who think they have a duty to misbehave.
You have effectively cut the Holy Spirit right out of the loop.. For the Bible(either part) without the Holy Spirit's help to discern it is the "dead letter".. Not the clergy's help but the Holy Spirits help.. Same thing happened to the Jews.. with their clergy.. dead tradition and religious dogma..
On the otherhand, You have displayed the main error of the RCC/EO and many/most Protestant "churchs".. by ignoring or occluding the Holy Spirits real function..
...it's tough to take someone seriously who is little more than someone who thinks that “evangelizing” comprises insulting what others hold holy.
Ah yes. Those evil traditions... 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
Once again, you hold to modern traditions of Biblical interpretation and foresake those taught by the Apostles themselves.
You often get a lot of things right, imho. And well said.
Yet, on this score, regardless of the fairly plain written meanings, you persistently get it wholesale wrong.
And, somehow, the wrong very skillfully hides between the words.
And I know of no way to communicate the righteous truth to you. I suspect that either God will have to uniquely do it in some special experience . . . or it won’t be done in this life.
That’s kind of sad, to me. You have so much on the ball with a lot of good spiritual attitude in a lot of respects.
However, there does seem to be a root of bitterness and angst that no amount or accuracy of words ever seems to lance or relieve or set to right. That’s even sadder.
Nevertheless, I still care and pray for you.
One thing I’ve truly enjoyed over the last couple years is the willingness of posters, such as yourselves, to explain what you believe, why you believe it and support it from Scripture. I haven’t seen any desire to limit free and often heated discussion from any of you, especially when we don’t agree. I much rather put up with the jabs and snippy comments than see open honest discussion limited with “political correctness”.
WHY one up a good response.. No response can be a good thing.. Like a, "you done good".. i.e. you said it all basically..
Good points.
However, I wouldn’t even want to think about laying such a burden on our beleagured RM.
Thankfully, I don’t think he’ll remotely consider taking up such an unworkable chore.
I think all Christians are Biblically exhorted to avoid TAKING UP OFFENSE—particularly needlessly.
We are exhorted to be angry yet sin not.
We are exhorted to avoid letting the sun go down on our wrath—boy is that one routinely violated hereon by all evidence! LOL. Sigh.
We are exhorted to keep our relationships clear of lingering offense.
Yet, hereon, offense has become a major generator of beads on a kind of rosary of offense . . . with folks fingering the particular triggers repeatedly and venting spleens accordingly.
So much so that I sometimes have to slap myself to remember that such is NOT (yet) an entrenched dogma of the RC edifice.
Far too horribly true far too often:
This thread really does remind me of the kind of thread the evolutionists would post around here a couple of years ago. They would post a thread, ostensibly to discuss “science”, but in reality they were only trolling for Christians to bash, a sport that they had become addicted to.
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.
FR is a concepts best place to land for a fair discussion.. The "cats" will tear it to shreds.. (hopefully).. Things you never even thought of will be presented for your purview..
BTW, where’s the chip on my shoulder?
I took no personal offense at anything!
LOL.
Very well put, as usual:
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..
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.