The Eucharist: The Body of Christ? ("Respectful Dialogue" thread)

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.

Is there a Catholic who disagrees that the whole package would stink if The Holy Spirit were not a part of it?

As to the "most" I really wonder how and if we know that. I wouldn't even claim to know a representative sample of Catholics. AND I don't know everything about how everyone would manifest a life touched by the Spirit.

I do know one LOL (in church parlance, that's 'Little Old Lady') who, if the Spirit were only a tad less subtle, would hum like a Jedi light saber you you got close to her, but from 15 feet away just looks like another LOL. So I have more optimism than discernment when it comes to other peoples' walk with God.

But it's not the pearl's fault if swine trample it underfoot. (Not calling YOU a piggy, speaking about people who come to Mass every week, arrive late, leave before the final hymn, and generally seem to have no clue why they're there.) (But at least they're there, near the lightning.)

What can I say? If the choice really were "package or Spirit" the one who chose package would be in big trouble. I just don't think that that's the real choice AND I think further that St. Paul would agree. (But then you and I have already looked at I Cor 12, 13,14 together....)

Is there a Catholic who disagrees that the whole package would stink if The Holy Spirit were not a part of it?

Boy ain't that the cat's meow. Incredible.

That's an empirical issue.

Would you like to help pay for 3 atheist communications professors to analyze the thread regarding which side did what you said first, most often and most intensely?

Actually, the RM was rather graciously lenient.

Evidently you missed the point about post 263--an RC labeling a Protty a satanist without the protty TAKING OFFENSE.

That's typical around here . . . while RC's take offense over

EDIFICE!

Now REALLY--which is more personally offensive in any logical sense--calling someone a SATANIST or calling their religious organization an EDIFICE?

I'll try and watch the 7/11 sales for "a grip" and "thicker skin." Maybe we can take up a collection and buy such in bulk for the small percentage of RC's hereon who fail to 'get it.'

Sigh.

I’d rather have you explain why it’s evidently so difficult for you to accept what Christ said when he said:
THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE.

This isn't my theological problem, it's yours. You take this phrase to be all-inclusive and without exception. I point to Enoch as one example where the Grace of God was given and would also give Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as another (who was preserved without sin to be the Ark of the New Covenant). At such an assertion, I usually hear the citation you mentioned above... however, it isn't me who has the problem because I recognize the disconnect between its use a proof-text and Biblical reality.

From the Summa Theologica:

Article 3. Whether the New Law should have been given from the beginning of the world?

Objection 1. It would seem that the New Law should have been given from the beginning of the world. "For there is no respect of persons with God" (Romans 2:11). But "all" men "have sinned and do need the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Therefore the Law of the Gospel should have been given from the beginning of the world, in order that it might bring succor to all.

Objection 2. Further, as men dwell in various places, so do they live in various times. But God, "Who will have all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4), commanded the Gospel to be preached in all places, as may be seen in the last chapters of Matthew and Mark. Therefore the Law of the Gospel should have been at hand for all times, so as to be given from the beginning of the world.

Objection 3. Further, man needs to save his soul, which is for all eternity, more than to save his body, which is a temporal matter. But God provided man from the beginning of the world with things that are necessary for the health of his body, by subjecting to his power whatever was created for the sake of man (Genesis 1:26-29). Therefore the New Law also, which is very necessary for the health of the soul, should have been given to man from the beginning of the world.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 15:46): "That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural." But the New Law is highly spiritual. Therefore it was not fitting for it to be given from the beginning of the world.

I answer that, Three reasons may be assigned why it was not fitting for the New Law to be given from the beginning of the world. The first is because the New Law, as stated above (Article 1), consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost: which it behoved not to be given abundantly until sin, which is an obstacle to grace, had been cast out of man through the accomplishment of his redemption by Christ: wherefore it is written (John 7:39): "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." This reason the Apostle states clearly (Romans 8:2, seqq.) where, after speaking of "the Law of the Spirit of life," he adds: "God sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, of sin hath condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us."

A second reason may be taken from the perfection of the New Law. Because a thing is not brought to perfection at once from the outset, but through an orderly succession of time; thus one is at first a boy, and then a man. And this reason is stated by the Apostle (Galatians 3:24-25): "The Law was our pedagogue in Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue."

The third reason is found in the fact that the New Law is the law of grace: wherefore it behoved man first of all to be left to himself under the state of the Old Law, so that through falling into sin, he might realize his weakness, and acknowledge his need of grace. This reason is set down by the Apostle (Romans 5:20): "The Law entered in, that sin might abound: and when sin abounded grace did more abound."

Reply to Objection 1. Mankind on account of the sin of our first parents deserved to be deprived of the aid of grace: and so "from whom it is withheld it is justly withheld, and to whom it is given, it is mercifully given," as Augustine states (De Perfect. Justit. iv) [Cf. Ep. ccvii; De Pecc. Mer. et Rem. ii, 19. Consequently it does not follow that there is respect of persons with God, from the fact that He did not offer the Law of grace to all from the beginning of the world, which Law was to be published in due course of time, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2. The state of mankind does not vary according to diversity of place, but according to succession of time. Hence the New Law avails for all places, but not for all times: although at all times there have been some persons belonging to the New Testament, as stated above (1, ad 3). [Citation from Article 1: No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament.]

Reply to Objection 3. Things pertaining to the health of the body are of service to man as regards his nature, which sin does not destroy: whereas things pertaining to the health of the soul are ordained to grace, which is forfeit through sin. Consequently the comparison will not hold.

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.