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.
Just an observation: for Catholics to take offense when their church is called Roman Catholic is their call. It should NOT be a reason for moderator action. It has been the Roman Catholic Church for eons. It is headquartered in Rome. If American Catholics don’t like the reference, that’s their call - but that doesn’t make the adjective pejorative.
Where is the Scripture for that opinion?
But then Paul muddies it up again. I think there are two different phenomena described in the NT. One is, as you say, the healing of the rift of Babel, when the Apostles speak and that whole catalogue of God-fearers understands them. (It's always fun on Pentecost to see if the reader can hack his or her way through the list without stumbling.)
But I think Paul in Corinthians is describing another kind of ecstatic utterance. But it seems even there that, by another spiritual gift, someone must be able to interpret.
I don't want to be disagreeable, but I do think there are two different types of glossolalia described. I'm open to correction.
Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him up from the dead. Col 2:12
That is not only untrue but the Catholic stand on other ecclesial assemblies has been discussed so many times that it is a remarkable untruth.
But the main thing is that it is not the teaching of the Church.
I agree that it seems there are two types; however, as you noted, even there the tongue is clearly understood by others. I believe that what others understand is not just a person's ecstasy, but their actual words.
Check Aquinas. First Part, Question 1, Article 10. And he quotes Augustine. We've been saying it for around 1,500 years.
Perhaps you need to educate a few Bishops:
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix
http://www.diocesephoenix.org/main.html
Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland
http://www.portlanddiocese.net/info.php?info_id=205
Etc.
Until then, keep your chip on your shoulder.
Those verses say nothing about baptism being the cause of our salvation or the reason why we are forgiven.
Where do you get there were no other Apostles around?
John 21:2, “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples”
As to confirming Peter “in his role to stand for Christ as a temporal shepherd” when did Peter take over this role?
When Jesus told Peter to mind his own business?
When he doubted God's command to go to Cornelius?
Perhaps it was when he acted the hypocrite at the church at Galatia around 49 A.D. some 20 years after the ascension. At the Galatians church Paul confronted Peter in front of the church for his hypocrisy. This confrontation was contrary to the etiquette for confronting Elders, yet Paul did not hesitate.
Paul was not impressed with Peter's position and didn't see Peter as head of any church. When he was converted, about 37 A.D., he says he didn't bother with the Apostles but went off by himself to study. He later went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and James, Jesus’ brother, the head of the Jerusalem church. 14 years later (50 A.D.), Paul would say, “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:” and that included Peter. Paul put his ministry on a par with Peter's.
The church at Corinth didn't see Peter as head of the church when Paul wrote to them around 58 A.D. for they were divided among the followers of Apollos, Peter and Paul.
He wasn't at Rome in 58 A.D. when Paul wrote to the church at Rome. He wasn't in Rome when Paul was first imprisoned there in 61 A.D nor in his last imprisonment in 67 A.D. for there is no mention of him in Paul's letters. He specifically states in his last latter to Timothy all had forsaken him and none stood with him. The only one with him at the time of the writing was Luke.
So when was Peter supposed to take “his role to stand for Christ as a temporal shepherd”?
"The cult rots from the hat on down.." -Pope Pipus I
"The cult rots from the hat on down.." -Pope Pipus I
(you can quote me)...
I believe that as imposters arise who call themselves "Catholic" (an "old Catholic" preist, with malice aforethought tried to get me to come to a Mass he was celebrating, and called himself "Catholic" to me, knowing that I am a member of the Latin Rite) some official bodies have taken up the use of "Roman Catholic" to guard against imposters and as a concession to what in some cases is the quite innocent ignorance of some Protestants.
If you read Kipling's Kim, which in any event is a lot of fun, you will see a fictional incident of a Catholic Priest adopting the use "Roman Catholic" (complaining all the while) because he fears that some High Church Anglicans will "misunderstand" the use of "Catholic" all by itself.
Personally I don't find it very offensive. I do find willful persistence in ignorance remarkable, and willful persistence in prejudicial and offensive language after it is known to be imprecise and to give offense pathetic (in the strict sense, I don't mean it contemptuously), at least.
Christ the only head of His church on earth.
LoL... So you CAN be funny...
Calvin has poisoned your ability to see truth. You cling to his formulas rather than Christ.
NO... It removes body odor.. if the odor is not internal..
It is a ceremonial object lesson..
How childish.
Is that your goal?
(Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.) “
Is your tag line sarcasm or do you believe it, because no where in the Bible will you find it, but you can find
1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
Baptising infants is childish.. i.e. play acting baptism..
Baptism is a serious lesson to adults, personally..
Baptising babies MOCKS baptism.. and is meaningless..
Except for the MOCKING sacreligious nature of it..
Baptising babies MOCKS Jesus sacrifice..
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.