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.
I don't doubt it ... I'm curious as to how it was managed.
I'll note that I've participated in USENET groups that were very useful and informative ... because the moderator was an active participant and (apparently) able to monitor every post.
Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.
Note that it doesn't say in "reading". At the time of Christ and for a millenium afterward, Bibles were not widely available. One went to Church to "hear" the word of God. Interestingly, there was one universal Church at this time... before people began to make their own personal (and oftentimes self-serving) interpretations.
Hubris is as old as Eden.
Yes and no.
Mostly no, I think.
The Epistles were . . . exhortive . . . in terms of faith and practice . . . not, per se in terms of organized hierarchical leadership issues.
“I'm curious as to how it was managed.”
Fairly aggressively, LOL!
“...because the moderator was an active participant...”
That can help.
“...and (apparently) able to monitor every post.”
That can help, too, although I don't think that was the case in my own previous experience.
sitetest
Twisting things is not a hallmark of accuracy.
INDEED you are exceedingly accurate yet again, here:
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..
Well, if the eucharist truly is the body and blood of Christ (which I do not believe), then why aren’t more Catholics truly transformed? Why do they sin? They shouldn’t have any sin if they have the blood and body of Christ in them.
In particular, whether a word offends is a very personal thing. On this thread, offense was taken at 249 by the word "Roman" being used with the word "Catholic" and yet no offense was taken by the target of the word "satanist" at 263.
Moderators may also understand words differently. For instance, some moderators might see the word "cult" as offensive. I do not - for me, it is a matter of usage. If the word was applied to a Freeper, i.e. "you are a cultist" - it would be disallowed. If it were used in a hateful (my call) manner or from a hateful source - it would be disallowed. But if it were used academically, I would allow it.
But I am not online 24/7 - so other moderators make judgment calls on the Religion Forum in my absence. It would be asking too much of them to have a glossary of terms.
So let's keep it simple. Profanity is not allowed. Potty language and references to potty language are inappropriate in religious debate. Hate mongering (my call) is not allowed. Other than that, discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Also, if a poster used a word like "cult" he should not complain if his post was removed. Like I said, the moderators themselves may take some words as offensive. And we do not override each other's decisions.
As soon as the decision is made to permit posts that mock and trash the faith that others hold sacred...not question or criticize, mind you, but mock and deride like a child...the hopes for respect are dashed.
And on that one phrase in that one verse the RC edifice has constructed vast skyscrapers of hogwash claiming that verse as foundation.
Nonsense.
That’s about as valid as saying Mary’s ‘full of grace’ phrase justifies all the Marion skyscrapers build on toothpick foundations.
Unmitigated nonsense.
Evidently y’all really believe that Christ who so railed AGAINST the TRADITIONS even God began with the Jews—as practiced and levied against the people by the RELIGIOUS hierarchical rulers 2000 years ago—evidently y’all really believe His main desire was to
set up ANOTHER tradition bound, letter of the law bound, political, vain-glorying bunch of power mongers?
Hint. Christ was no idiot!
Christ is always with the born again believer through the indwelling Holy Spirit. You should be able to feel His presence in your daily life, even without the Eucharist.
You bet!
The openness of discussion is what leads to all kinds of ideas being expressed. In a lot of cases it has excited me to read Scripture with a different thought process to see if the ideas expressed were consistent with God's Word.
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”.
= = =
Thanks tons for including me in that august group.
I feel entirely the same. Thanks for putting it so masterfully.
Amen, overtaxt.
Wow. The arrogance of those Apostles, then, to think they had any standing to "exhort" other churches in their devotions!
There is that, I suppose.
Thanks for saying so. You are a treasure.
I feel the same as you.. What are we not all adults?.. or posing as adults(snark).. LoL.. FR is best place for any subject to get itself “vetted”.. political OR religious..
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..
= =
I WHOLESALE AND VIGOROUSLY AGREE.
Thanks.
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.