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.
“Which is idiocy.”
Doc, you’re being too kind.
Hoss
It’s actually rather Sisyphean, isn’t it? Sacrificed over and over and over again.
i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, you may not realize what i am referring to. the charge was made that the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is killed again at each Mass. Cronos has done terrific work showing this is FALSE, that the Church teaches Jesus died ONCE. Hebrews would not have been accepted as canonical if the Church taught differently. his post agreed the Catechism teaches Jesus died Once, so that ends it. the False charge was exposed as a lie.
Wonderfully succinct.
And sadly wrong, isn’t it?
Hoss
wrong again, sacrificed once in 33ad. the sacrifice is re-presented over again Please read Micah 1:11.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. – Matt 16:23-25
“i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, you may not realize what i am referring to. the charge was made that the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is killed again at each Mass. Cronos has done terrific work showing this is FALSE, that the Church teaches Jesus died ONCE. Hebrews would not have been accepted as canonical if the Church taught differently. his post agreed the Catechism teaches Jesus died Once, so that ends it. the False charge was exposed as a lie.”
No need to do that; my response was to point out that you were not quoting caww’s statement in its entirety and trying to make a “QED” statement. Your statement above makes no sense. Go back and read what caww said; look at what you quoted and the false conclusion that is drawn. Then re-read my post. It has nothing to do with a “false charge.” It has to do with the need to quote people’s statements completely.
But, since you raise it, the whole false doctrine of the Mass has been debunked here quite thoroughly by many wonderful, ACCURATE appeals to SCRIPTURE, not the false doctrines of “tradition.”
Thanks anyway.
Hoss
Small "c."
All Christians who believe the Apostle's Creed refer to themselves as "catholic."
Small "c."
The Roman church has tried to usurp the word. Again, it fails.
Anything done in a catacomb has to absolutely correct? I didn’t know.....
i’ll follow 1st century tradition, believed for 2,000 years. you go ahead and follow 16th century tradition, believed for almost 500 years.
hmmm..... another 16th century invention small c, capital c. i thought only “roman catholics” believed in the papacy, now small “c” catholics do as well?? i’m glad you believe the Catholic Apostles Creed. ( that’s a start, i guess )
just showing they had “altars”, you draw your own conclusions.
No it’s not. It asking adherence to posting rules. It’s not that hard.
Ah, shouldn't that be, "Make uppa you mind."? :o)
I haven't done that. It was meant as a joke. However, what evidence do we really have that Ignatius both was a disciple of John or that John approved of everything Ignatius spoke? You also must realize that there are fraudulent works all over the place and not everything from that time is exactly as it is said to be. There has been much conjecture and wishful thinking on a lot of this. That is why I am convinced God gave us the Holy Bible as our authority. It is to the Scriptures that we must always go to ensure what we preach and believe is true.
lol. Rome claims all things for itself. No surprise its delusions continue far and wide.
Cronos copied and pasted and didn't attribute. It was not terrific and not much work.
As a matter of fact, such action could easily be construed as plagiarism, since with no cite he left us to conclude that that was his own work. It effectively destroys any credibility that he may have had left.
I’ll take that #818 for what it’s worth.
read what Augustine said about the Catholic Church.
St Ignatius letters must be attacked, because if they are true, Protestantism must be false. Of course, the fact that when St Ignatius wrote these letters, as attested to and quoted by other Fathers, he could not have known of the 16th century rebels, could he?
But the issue was the *don’t remember* line.
Even if he don’t remember, he could find it again, since he found it the first time.
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.