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.
Exactely... The Holy Spirit IS the package.. Without him you have the dead letter.. Merely consonants and grunts.. Like a ceremony, tradition or Amulet/Talisman/Totem masked as rote prayer..
That’s rich.
Silly and transparent . . . but rich.
So nice to see folks with eyes to see and ears to hear posting.
Glad you noticed.
LUB
Also - in reply to the exchange between wagglebee, Quix and Petronski on a related matter - we should not be concerned with the percentage who believe a certain doctrine or tradition of men.
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matthew 22:35-40
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
True, but some keep upping their vitriol until they get a response. That's their main purpose anyway, not discussion. An ignore feature tends to make them more likely to leave when they learn there's little chance of success.
Again, not perfect, but the only I've seen that's helpful, short of admin booting. Used properly a thread can self-admin.
LOL!
ACTUALLY, NO.
It’s not the equal reverse.
1. FOR SOME interesting reason, MORE RC’s seem to have a MUCH MORE TERMINALLY DIFFICULT time of even fairly considering the facts than do most Prottys.
2. And, if they manage to survive that hurdle with their wits intact, and choose to leave the RC edifice, THEN the wailing and dust throwing on the part of relatives is really rather exaggeratedly dramatic. One would think they’d become a Jihadi.
3. No, there’s some very entrenched spiritual forces cultivating some very entrenched idolatry. That’s the only explanation I can come up with for the OBSERVED spiritual and intellectual utter blindness to basic historical facts.
4. Prottys can have similar things—and, I think it’s worse amongst the MORE traditional Protty clubs . . . but it’s still TYPICALLY NOT AS FIERCE and as unalterably set in concrete.
If you want to ignore what I post, then you make perfect sense. Keep it up, you are doing fine without me.
I don’t have your favorite doggie at the college . . .
but you can pretend it’s posted here.
ROTFLOL!
AMEN!
AGAIN,
THE MARCH OF FAITH
—biography of Samuel Morris sp? . . . tribal chief’s son in Africa . . . is most illustrative of that fact, truth, principle, reality.
I’ve long felt that way.
And, to make a vivid object lesson about
IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP SPIRITUAL/RELIGIOUS PRIDE issues.
Given that pride is such a root of so much evil.
Definitely. I've seen it myself. Passion is allowed, disagreement is allowed. It is, as they say, possible to disagree without being disagreeable. You can have a passionate disagreement and still be courteous and respectful.
We should be able as Christians to do this. And the side benefit is it makes your position or argument more effective.
Please ask hubby to excuse me for saying so . . .
but I just love it
WHEN
you TALK ANOINTED!
I GREATLY enjoy the free for all—or as close as fitting and allowed!
It did take me a while in my life to get there, though. I was such a scared rabbit for so many years. And, so easily offended.
I think when I say that I could cry from someone looking at me strangely—in Univ and later even in the Navy that folks think I’m exaggerating. But I’m not! LOL.
Thankfully, those days are OVER!
In case no one’s noticed! LOL.
2. And, if they manage to survive that hurdle with their wits intact, and choose to join the Family of God, then the wailing and dust throwing on the part of relatives is really rather exaggeratedly dramatic. One would think they’d become a Jihadi.
3. No, there’s some very entrenched spiritual forces cultivating some very entrenched idolatry to one's own opinion. That’s the only explanation I can come up with for the Observed spiritual and intellectual utter blindness to basic historical facts.
See? We can both make baseless observations of the other.
The Lord DID mean exactly what He said...That's why we know Jesus is the Rock and Peter is the stone...
It's not a parable like John 6...
You are Peter; upon this rock...
If that's the way Jesus spoke to refer to Peter, He would have flunked 6th grade Greek...
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.