Posted on 01/21/2011 12:26:40 PM PST by marshmallow
The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is a real stumbling block to some Protestants who are seriously considering Catholicism. It was for me too, until I explored the subject, historically and scripturally. What follows is a summary of my deliberations.
Catholicism holds that bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ when they are consecrated by the priest celebrating the Mass. Oftentimes non-Catholics get hung up on the term transubstantiation, the name for the philosophical theory that the Church maintains best accounts for the change at consecration. The Church’s explanation of transubstantiation was influenced by Aristotle’s distinction between substance and accident.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), like most philosophers of his time, wanted to account for how things change and yet remain the same. So, for example, a “substance” like an oak tree remains the same while undergoing “accidental” changes. It begins as an acorn and eventually develops roots, a trunk, branches, and leaves. During all these changes, the oak tree remains identical to itself. Its leaves change from green to red and brown, and eventually fall off. But these accidental changes occur while the substance of the tree remains.
On the other hand, if we chopped down the tree and turned into a desk, that would be a substantial change, since the tree would literally cease to be and its parts would be turned into something else, a desk. According to the Church, when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but the substance of each changes. So, it looks, tastes, feels, and smells like bread and wine, but it literally has been changed into the body and blood of Christ. That’s transubstantiation.
There are several reasons why it would be a mistake to dismiss transubstantiation simply because of the influence of Aristotle on its formulation. First, Eastern Churches in communion with the Catholic Church rarely employ this Aristotelian language, and yet the Church considers their celebration of the Eucharist perfectly valid. Second, the Catholic Church maintains that the divine liturgies celebrated in the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome (commonly called “Eastern Orthodoxy”) are perfectly valid as well, even though the Eastern Orthodox rarely employ the term transubstantiation. Third, the belief that the bread and wine are literally transformed into Christ’s body and blood predates Aristotle’s influence on the Church’s theology by over 1000 years. For it was not until the thirteenth century, and the ascendancy of St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought, that Aristotle’s categories were employed by the Church in its account of the Eucharist. In fact, when the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) employed the language of substantial change, St. Thomas had not even been born!
It was that third point that I found so compelling and convinced me that the Catholic view of the Eucharist was correct. It did not take long for me to see that Eucharistic realism (as I like to call it) had been uncontroversially embraced deep in Christian history. This is why Protestant historian, J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.” I found it in many of the works of the Early Church Fathers, including St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110), St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 151), St. Cyprian of Carthage, (A. D. 251), First Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 350), and St. Augustine of Hippo (A. D. 411) . These are, of course, not the only Early Church writings that address the nature of the Eucharist. But they are representative.
This should, however, not surprise us, given what the Bible says about the Lord’s Supper. When Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples (Mt. 26:17-30; Mk. 14:12-25; Lk. 22:7-23), which we commemorate at Holy Communion, he referred to it as a Passover meal. He called the bread and wine his body and blood. In several places, Jesus is called the Lamb of God (John 1: 29, 36; I Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:12). Remember, when the lamb is killed for Passover, the meal participants ingest the lamb. Consequently, St. Paul’s severe warnings about partaking in Holy Communion unworthily only make sense in light of Eucharistic realism (I Cor. 10:14-22; I Cor. 11:17-34). He writes: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? . . . Whoever, therefore eats and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (I Cor. 10:16; 11:27)
In light of all these passages and the fact that Jesus called himself the bread of life (John 6:41-51) and that he said that his followers must “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” (John 6:53), the Eucharistic realism of the Early Church, the Eastern Churches (both in and out of communion with Rome), and the pre-Reformation medieval Church (fifth to sixteenth centuries) seems almost unremarkable. So, what first appeared to be a stumbling block was transformed into a cornerstone.
Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University. He tells the story of his journey from Catholicism to Protestantism and back again in his book, Return to Rome: Confessions of An Evangelical Catholic. He blogs at Return to Rome.
“Judas’ falling away happened PRECISELY because Christ said “this is my body... If anything, Judas’ story holds as an example of those who deny the Eucharist.”
Astounding is right.. what about from Jesus himself?
John 17:12
“12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”
Hmmm.... fulfilled scripture. Nothing there about the eucharist.
Stretched so thin it’s transparent.
Hoss
"Facts are for people who can't create their own truth. Fact."
Sometimes I get the feeling there are many out there who actually believe it works like that.
LOL! talk about plucking a line or two. Augustine was a Catholic priest who offered the Sacrifice of the Mass, do you deny that?
While the Catholic catechisms cite the passages that speak of Christ to die once
thank you for your concession, it took some time, but the above passage puts the issue to bed.
perfect, thanks.
It really always goes back to the one source the RC’s don’t want to stand on, Scripture
ummm...............”This is My Body”
Who isn’t standing on Scripture??
Just goes to show the “sola scriptura” crowd doesn’t always stand on Scripture, but on 16th century tradition of men.
I certainly deny your understanding of Augustine and what the “mass” and the Lord’s Supper entailed during his life.
“but it makes Christ a liar”
umm..........”This is My Body”
who is calling Christ a liar?
Hmmm.... fulfilled scripture. Nothing there about the eucharist.
Stretched so thin it’s transparent.
AMEN!
A rational person would ask themselves why they're being lied to about something so clearly contradicted in Scripture.
In fact, if they actually read the Bible they'd know that FIRST Jesus denounced Judas as the betrayer, and THEN offered the bread and wine. So the RC fantasy that the Lord's Supper proved too difficult for Judas is impossible and happened exactly the opposite from the way they imagine.
And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body..." -- Mark 14:17-22 "And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
ummm.....you might want to research that statement. no credible historian doubts the authenticity of the seven letters St Ignatius wrote. It is funny that those who teach 100% opposite of what a disciple of St John and martyr taught have to accuse the letters of being forged. They blow the 16th century heresies right out of the water.
Can you respond without getting nasty? First of all, you are interpreting words in a self-serving way: The priests that “Hebrews” is talking about are priests in the temple, who are offering sacrifice in accordance with the prescriptions of the Law. Christian priests on the other hand are offering the sacrifice that Christ offered, that single sacrifice. The two offices, the two commissions are different because they are based on different authority. The authority of Moses on the one hand; the authority of Christ on the other. The priest who stands before the altar offers sacrifice in the same way all must, which is to offer up acts of faith, hope and charity while identifying with jesus as our Lord and brother.
Baptist churches deny baptismal regeneration, this concept of baptism as merely symbolic empty gesture done to be “obediant” was a 16th century invention that became a tradition of these men til today.
Look again.
What web site was the source of your post #818 concerning Ignatius being “a disciple of St John”?
by their fruits you will know them.
Judas betrayed Jesus.
St Ignatius was faithful to be being ripped apart by lions for his faith.
I would say there is a difference between the two, correct?
Make up you mind. Why dismiss the testimony of one of John’s disciples when you swallow whole a book that is not actually signed by John?
On the other hand. Judas was excluded by the Lord, was he not?
if you are correct, we must be able to find in history groups of Christians in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries that believe what you believe, right? if so, who believed this?
What you will see happen also is that they will use quotations from these "Early Church Fathers (ECF)" to prove what they decree and then you find later that some of those very same ECFs have been found to commit heresy - some after they have been dead for some time. So, not only do they pick and choose which ECFs they quote, but they will also pick and choose only those things they have said with which they agree - at this point. Who knows, some time in the future some later "Infallible" Magesterium may come along and toss out everything stated in Vatican II as heresy, yet they will continue to hold to their dogma of infallibility by redefining terms and some such other spin. It's happened before, I have no doubt it will again.
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.