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.
Did the Apostles truly eat Christ's Body and Blood? After all, the one through whom all things were made (John 1) said, "This is My Body... This is My Blood...". Was it?
If not, then you try to look behind the words, not trusting that what Jesus said was true and real.
If so, why did the Apostles sin afterward?
Anything anyone says that you disagree with is disrespectful?
Sadly, either one of those responses would be immediately pounced upon by the "disrespect" police. (It might take the policeman a little longer to see "disrespect" in the second response though.) :)
Interesting.
That was nothing personal, at all.
That was a fierce declaration of a core Biblical principle in my undestanding and construction on spiritual reality.
I was ALL INCLUSIVE in that statement, as I believe SCRIPTURE IS.
I included myself and each and every religious group I’d ever been a part of.
Given the ALL INCLUSIVENESS of the statement . . . it boggles my mind that anyone could construe it as a personal chip on the shoulder.
And I can’t imagine any chip on the shoulder being anything but personal—even if in the ‘name’ of someone else, an institution or idea. When someone takes it personally in a personal chip sort of way . . . the ‘other’ aspect has been left in the dust.
1) the word church means called out ones, not a building or earthly organization..
2) Most of the epistles were written by Paul.. not to organize a cabal of clergy but to aid in empowering the Holy Spirits ministry.. As he well said multiple times.. Paul just shared what the Holy Spirit taught him.. on the road Damascus and after.. And he shared with others they needed the same "help" as he.. Paul lead others to seek the Holy Spirit(paraclete).. If ANYONE knew that mans teaching (tradition) could be corrupted it was Paul(Jew of the 1st order).. AND the Holy Spirit was needed to descern spiritual and other error..
3) Some of Paul's teaching was to debunk the teaching of the Judaizers who were Jews seeking to encourge development of Jewish tradition.. both new and old ones.. The poor gentiles sometimes had difficulty separating the good Jews from the Bad Jews.. Posing as chrisitans for various reasons.. The Galatians were a perfect test case for that... although the same thing happened in other localities.. i.e. Corinth.. "Are you from Paul, or from Apollos?".. Paul effective dismissed the idea of Popedom there..
Nothing to forgive, imho. But forgiveness is automatic with me anyway.
No sweat.
I clearly failed at that communications effort.
I’m curious. What is Penn and Teller christianity?
No, no, no, Dear heart . . .
anything some specific prottys say that is disagree with is automatically disrespectful.
Gotta get these idiocies correct, Dear Heart.
Hubby was a penned up RC sheep as well. He said it was such a relief to know that when he sinned, God’s grace didn’t disappear but all he had to do was confess his sin and he was forgiven. He has changed SO MUCH since he left the RCC. And ALL for the good.
No. Who said that?
2 Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.
What you fail to discern is that man needs a Pope. When the one given by Christ is disgarded, man finds another. Whether it's Billy Graham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prelate of the EO, or the local pastor, man seeks an authority to follow in the faith. Christ has given us a Prime Minister among His Royal Court to hold the ship of state secure as a rock of mooring. The wisdom of this has been shown innumerable times in history.
As you said, Christ is no idiot.
Then, once again, I ask for your essay on Enoch.
Get off the disrespectful kick, Petronski. It’s beginning to sound like whining and I’m sure that’s not your intention.
Not to mention, most, could not read anyway if they even had Bibles..
Then as Now, some, depended on the Sheep Pen(John ch 10) for seeking God.. And others followed the Holy Spirit "OUT" of the sheep pen to the shepherd out in the pasture(Ps 23).. And were taugh by the Holy Spirit all things that were needed to be taught..
In those days it was like in China today.. Many has scraps of parchment with some scripture on it.. or memorized scripture.. But with the Holy Spirit to aid.. all was just grooovey.. At least as groovey as it is FOR US.. For we too have our spiritual problems..
Pity, that those that depend onm tradition know nothing of this.. You know this experience..
Amen, Dr. E. Our good works will never be enough to save us. Our own righteousness is like filthy rags to our Lord.
Kick?
This thread was designated and designed to be a “respectful dialogue.” That was the purpose: civil, respectful discussion.
Mary,
With all due respect, you ought to get caught up on a thread before you start throwing arguments that have already been done. So far, you are up to Post 108... keep reading. Check the replies button to see what’s already been said. Deal with issues you think haven’t been dealt with yet. It’s a bit annoying to see old issues rehashed.
I mean you no disrespect with this post... just a suggestion I try to follow myself.
Christ himself was the rock that our church was built upon. Peter was a pebble...
And God forbid we should disgree with any of you.
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.