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.
Originally, yes.
That's a Hebrew (Jewish) name...
Yes.
If Aramaic was their actual language, his name would already have been Cephas...
This claim does not follow or seem to be connected in any way with what you said before. Christ gave him that new name in John 1:42.
You're welcome.
Pray for the same guidance in reading Scripture that we Bible-believing Christians have received by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Christ came to change a lot of things set forth in the New Testament (FR Vanity threads notwithstanding).
As a Bible-believing Christian, I have already received the same guidance, praise God.
So you see original sin as a stain passed down? I find peoples' disparate views on this fascinating.
Likewise, Mary is not anyone's "co-redeemer" or "dispensatrix of all grace."
You don't understand the terms. This appears to have a fairly good description of the terms.
However in the very lengthy Apologetic link you gave me I found no good argument to explain Augustine's apparent "rethink" concerning Peter and the Rock.
For example:
Augustine was not steadfast in his interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Above, Augustine equated the rock with Peter's faith, Peter's successors, and Peter himself. It was during his controversies with the Manicheans, Donatists, and Pelagians that he emphasized the role of Christ and identified "this rock" with Christ. In his dealings with the Manicheans, the nature of God was in the forefront; with the Donatist, it was the nature of the Church and clergy; with the Pelagians, it was the nature of grace and its originator, Jesus Christ. Augustine equated "this rock" with Christ not to downplay Peter's primacy, rather to emphasize Jesus Christ. Against all these heresies, Augustine stressed that the Church's foundation and grace rested upon a divine and not a human person. Nevertheless, Augustine remained steadfast in his understanding of Peter's primacy and the primacy of the Roman See. Augustine did not reject the Petrine interpretation, in favor of which he cites Ambrose's hymn, but leaves it to the reader to choose. Simon remains a rock, a secondary rock dependent on the Rock-Christ, for Augustine writes, 'Peter having been named after this rock ' (Retractations 1:21).
I guess you must throw Augustine out with the bath water.
Good luck in finding a forum which is entirely unique and current in it's subject matter.
Since I doubt you agree with all of Augustine's conclusions in that passage you quoted, I suppose you do too:
Augustine remained steadfast in his understanding of Peter's primacy and the primacy of the Roman See.
Whether the "rock" is Peter or his confession of faith, St Augustine never raised a doubt regarding the primacy of Peter's office.
First time:
John 1:
[42] He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
Time goes by.....................................
John 21:
[15] When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
[16] A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
[17] He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Poor Simon - demoted.
Those verses say nothing about "changing his name back."
I've never seen any Catholic on FR claim this view before now. And yet, even if every Catholic and Protestant here agreed with this view, I'm certain that we Protestants would be told that no matter what meaning or message any of us comes up with for any given verse, it will be the wrong one...
Yes, and the Roman Catholic church thought so, too, for centuries.
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:12-19"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
I don't know how much clearer Paul could make it. All men's nature was corrupted by Adam's fall. By grace, those who are given faith in Christ have Christ's righteousness imputed to them.
And no man is without excuse because "the free gift" has appeared to all men. But not all men are born again by the Holy Spirit which is the only way for men to believe the truth and be saved.
Simon Peter is being confirmed in his role to stand for Christ as a temporal shepherd. Notice Jesus isn't talking to anyone but Peter here. There are no other Apostles around--we can't confuse this one as a collective mandate. This is Peter's role.
Some demotion!
Irrelevant.
I'm certain that we Protestants would be told that no matter what meaning or message any of us comes up with for any given verse, it will be the wrong one...
Insofar as it differs with the actual meaning, of course.
You introduced it.
See, you cited a passage from Augustine and suggested pgyanke was throwing out Augustine with the bathwater, yet it is YOU who (probably) does not agree with everything in that passage, not him.
It's called Typology.
And yet, even if every Catholic and Protestant here agreed with this view, I'm certain that we Protestants would be told that no matter what meaning or message any of us comes up with for any given verse, it will be the wrong one...
That's a very dim view to take. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not pre-disposed to disagree with someone on one issue because I disagree on another. I take issue where I find it and agree when in accord with Christ's Church.
We lost our kinship with God in our fall. We were restored to this kinship through the Marriage Feast of the Lamb (Jesus's Passion). This is the Catholic perspective.
Mary Magdalene had more interaction with Jesus hereon. Some promotion!
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.