PARTICULARLY in the land of
The Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology And Reality Mangling.
Which looks a lot like this:
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.
Good detective work by someone.
The one and only altar that Christ sacrifice could be offered on is in heaven and no where does Scripture say he is offered or present in a wafer and wine to be offered on an earthly altar. Quite the contrary
it’s a shame those Christians in the catacombs didn’t realize this, they wouldn’t have had to risk their lives by having “altars” in their worship service.
OK, we’ll go through this step by step.
iscool: “Jesus is NOT still offering Himself to God...Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God in a Glorified, Eternal Body...Jesus is done being sacrificed...God provided the Sacrifice...”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661138/posts?page=929#929
RobbyS: “He is sitting? You mean he is immobile? In a heaven that is far, far removed from our society? “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661138/posts?page=968#968
mm: “Are you really that appallingly ignorant of Scripture?
Hebrews 10:11-14 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
And honestly, the hyperbole that Catholics engage in when confronted with Scripture that contradicts Catholicism is worthy of an atheist.”
**********************************************************************************
First off, your reply to iscool was snarky in its own right, so you have little to complain about.
Second, the Scripture verse clearly says that CHRIST offered a sacrifice ONCE for all and is now SEATED at the right hand of the Father.
The verses to refer to priests who offer sacrifices over and over, and that was referring to OT priests.
So the question using the term *ignorant* is valid.
And the comments about Jesus being immobile and far, far removed form our society are definitely of the nature of those kinds of comments I’ve run into from atheists who are trying to ridicule Scripture with hyperbole.
Jesus died within time. The act is over and done. His blood was shed and the curtain was torn and forgiveness is offered.
He is NOT still dying off somewhere. Not here on earth, nor in heaven.
Therefore, the Catholic priests CANNOT be participating in a continuing sacrifice of Jesus. They must by default, be resacrificing Him each and every time they perform a mass.
thanks for posting quotes from the Fathers, especially St Augustine......hopefully people will become interested and research what these great men taught. Keep it up!
PARTICULARLY in the land of
The Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology And Reality Mangling.
Which looks a lot like this:
So, you going to opt for the RM to remove the posts instead of citing them yourself?
RM, I do know of several more which qualify to save you the work of cleaning up that mess.
It shouldn’t be all on your shoulders to do all that work yourself.
Read the verses I gave you from Mark 14. Jesus knows Judas will betray him and says so. And THEN Jesus breaks bread, saying “This is my body.”
It was Cronos’ contention that Christ making that statement drove Judas to betray Christ.
Which is idiocy.
i find it funny when Protestants try to take a Catholic Bishop and make him a Protestant.......you don’t see Catholics trying to make Calvin a Catholic do you? just saying.....
Can you respond without getting nasty
need you ask?????
don’t remember......your question is like asking what website is the source that Lincoln was the 16th President.
I find it funny that Rome believes Augustine was a Roman Catholic. He wasn’t. He was an early Christian.
Big difference.
The Clinton’s used that line, too.
You could look it up again. You found it the first time.
this is what happens when you point out what the Church believed for 1,500 years and that no one believed what these 16th century men taught before they came on the scene. it’s why Joseph Smith is a false prophet, the Church did not need to be re-established in the 16th or 19th centuries, the real Church has been here from 33ad til today.
Or, how about the VAWSTRM for short? ;o>
i’m partial to all of St Augustine, just suprised you are!! how do you like his teaching on Purgatory and Prayers to the saints? apostolic succession? baptismal regeneration? the Catholic Church? the canon of the OT? just to name a few!
“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?”
Uh... the author of the passage that was misquoted... Paul.
Try again.
Hoss
Works for me.
Sort of like Nostrum only different. LOL.
Augustine on the Catholic Church and on the Papacy
We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and the Creed10:21 [A.D. 393]).
“The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics” (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).
We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard” (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).
“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (ibid., 5:6).
“In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds its greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . .There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
“[On this matter of the Pelagians], two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See, and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
the above is from the website Catholic Answers.
Augustine identifies himself as a Catholic, who accepted the authority of the Pope. Please note the last statement concerning the Pope, you believe that, right?
“thank you for your concession, it took some time, but the above passage puts the issue to bed.”
{{{{{SNORT!!!!!}}}}}} Bwahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!
Wake it up, then because you FAILED TO QUOTE HIS STATEMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY:
“While the Catholic catechisms cite the passages that speak of Christ to die once, but they ALSO teach that the priest miraculously transforms the bread and wine into the body of Christ and that JESUS IS SACRIFICED AGAIN ,The blood is real blood.... (that seems to know wine and wine of the Mass, but is actually the blood of Christ.”
See where it says, “...but they ALSO teach....”?????
Fail.
Hoss
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.