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'm sure that Jesus spoke in the language that the locals understood...Whether that was Aramaic or Greek or something else seems to be controversial, still...
Obviously the OT originated in a few different languages but God chose to have it translated and preserved in Hebrew...
I don't know enough about Hebrew or Greek to translate any of it...But I can and do read what the so-called 'experts' write...And in my view, there is far more evidence that Matt. 16:18 was written by the Apostle in the Greek language...
GAMECOCK: Ya know, I was a supporter of the entire respectful dialog thread idea, until I can across your post.
HOW are we Prods supposed to know that you would be offended, especially when countless Catholic churches use Roman as a descriptor, as do who know how many Catholic websites.
LOL. Post Tenebras Lux.
Two thoughts:
1. Police Rome before you become offended by someone from the outside using a term you find offensive,
2. Doc's tagline just may be right.
Yep, it's a tag that encompasses a veritable plethora of examples. 8~)
"And he (Paul) went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God." -- Acts 19:8
So we learn from Paul and Acts 19 that "disputing" seems to carry as much weight as "persuading" because we are called to discern truth from error.
Though you are unable, or unwilling, to show it here would you be willing to provide links and/or reference material?
I have this picture of you in my mind. I see a child with his fingers in his ears saying, “Blah, blah, blah... I’m not listening...”
That's been disputed on this thread where?
Misdirection doesn't become you.
AMEN!
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion." -- Proverbs 28:1
Misdirection?
LOL
That wasn’t even a REdirection.
It was an addition.
I don't know that ANY scholar has ever suggested that the entire New Testament was originally WRITTEN in anything other than Greek; however, that has NOTHING to do with what language Jesus spoke in.
Wagglebee, I don't care what you say, I'm going with the experts: The Great Gatsby was written in English!
Even though you agree with me, and have not disputed it, such a post leaves a distinctly different impression that would tend to make you look bad (if it were not an example).
You guys claim you have the 'original' Greek...If Aramaic was the original, you would not and do not have it...No one does...
Actually, you are 100% WRONG. We have no reason to believe that the Disciples would all speak any language other than Aramaic, no historian (Catholic, Protestant or Jewish) has EVER suggested that in regular conversation He spoke anything other than Aramaic.
C'mon now...You guys countless times have said that Jesus spoke Hebrew in the Synagogues...
Did the Romans and Greeks speak Greek or Aramaic???
Unless you were there, you have no idea what He spoke, except for what is recorded. In Jerusalem at that time, Hebrew, Roman, Greek, Aramaic, even Babylonian and a host of other languages were in use. Jerusalem was not a dusty backwater, it was a center of trade and sophistication.
So Peter listened to Jesus in Aramaic and then translated the Aramaic to Greek before he wrote it into scripture???
I'm NOT DISPUTING that the NT was WRITTEN in Greek, that still has NOTHING to do with what language the Lord spoke.
C'mon now...You guys countless times have said that Jesus spoke Hebrew in the Synagogues...
The phrase "regular conversation" was rather significant to my statement.
What a shell game. Sheesh. The original Greek is the original Greek in which the NT was written. That says NOTHING about the language spoken at the events described therein.
John Reed wrote "Ten Days that Shook the World" (about the Russian October Revolution) in English....the original is in English. By your logic, the events of the Russian Revolution transpired in English.
You describe it like Peter was taking dictation.
John 1:42 makes it clear that he called Peter Cephas which is Aramaic.
Actually, it makes reasonable sense to think that He spoke to his audiences in the languages that they most understood.
Every time one of you guys claims that Peter is the (huge) rock as opposed to a small rock; stone...
Read John 1:42 and get back to me on that.
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.