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.
poppycock - to put it nicely.
Without he Bible, you'd still have your church.
Keep it.
I had to look that one up. I think it's a GREAT metaphor for what is being said. King Sisyphus was punished in the underworld by being compelled to roll a gigantic boulder up a hill, only to watch helplessly while it rolled back down, and then to repeat this throughout eternity. A Sisyphean task is then a pointless or interminable activity.
How better to describe this rite that is performed millions of times every day in the world to millions of people? Numbering in the billions or trillions by now. People trying to have their sins expiated only to have to return and participate in the same ritual again and again throughout their lives - and this is only if they are to be considered "faithful".
How much more true to Scripture is the belief that the Lord's Supper is a commemoration and remembrance of what Jesus did for us and to remind ourselves of our own bodies that we offer as living sacrifices to God to serve him and each other in love and truth?
The argument just doesn't work - it is too easy to play back.
the only reason that we can offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God, is we first must be in Christ and united with Him in His Body, the Church. If we are in rebellion to the Body of Christ, God will reject your “living sacrifice”.
“i believe that as well! we agree!”
Really? Then you must not really be a Roman Catholic ( or at least you’re posing as an agit prop?)
“, so we also agree on Catholic Sacred Tradition!”
So no we don’t!!!! How can you not read what I wrote???
“Without the Church, you wouldn’t have the Word of God!”
What balderdash!!! The Roman Catholic Church should spend more time reading GOD’S WORD instead of trying to falsely (and blasphemously) attempting to claim ‘ownership’ or ‘authorship.’
What’s the matter? Still no response on obfuscating caww’s post??
Nice try to shift focus.
Again you fail.
Hoss
i hear what you are saying, but the difference is one rejected new Divine Revelation which was true and it was God’s will that they believe it, as opposed to new doctrines that were not a result of any new Divine Revelation given in the 16th century, but rather, privately interpreting the Catholic Scriptures differently than what the Church taught and believed from the Apostolic Age. for example, baptism became merely symbolic, done after one was “saved” as an act of obedience. Scripture doesn’t teach this and no one believed it until the 16th century. remember, the Holy Spirit will not lead you to believe one thing in the 1st and 2nd centuries and something 100% opposite in the 16th.
oh Dear sister-in-Christ....how my heart and mind is blessed from His word your post presented. Truth always sets well within us and reminds us once again that Gods word clairifies all which we need to know... and we can trust it as the authority by which we can try and test mans words. Thank you....and thank you for the time you gave to present this...which itself is a true sacrifice for any of us in the busy life.
no obfuscating! i was merely highlighting he was conceding what i was trying to get him to concede.
you don’t accept Catholic Sacred Tradition? ok, what is the basis you have for accepting the 27 book NT canon? you are up.
Thank you oh so very much for your testimony, dear sister in Christ, and thank you for your encouragement!
Nice to see you starting sentences with a capital for a change. :o)
No, I was not attacking anyone. And regardless of what a first or even fourth century person writes or is thought to have written, it is still NOT Scripture. Do we have agreement on that point?
I'm seeing this pattern you have where you seem to state that anything "Protestant" is heresy and anything attributed to "Catholic" is truth. Am I understanding you clearly here?
My belief and faith is based upon what the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, state and also what I have experienced when I placed my trust and faith in who those Scriptures spoke of. Jesus Christ, God Almighty incarnate, came to earth in the form of a man and lived a perfect, sinless life. He then gave that life to die in my place as payment for all my sins - the payment I could never have made with any hope of ever seeing God for all eternity. He did that because he loved me and he did that for everyone else that ever lived or ever will live. He did that out of love and pure grace and grace means no one deserves or ever can earn it. In fact, it HAD to be by grace, because there was no other way.
When through faith we accept God's gift of grace, we are adopted into his eternal family, made joint-heirs with Christ, indwelt with his Holy Spirit as a guarantee that we will be with him forever when we die. When we sin, he is ever ready to draw us back into fellowship and will always forgive us when we "come clean" to him. God is our Father and he remakes us into the image of Christ when we first put our faith in him. He never stops working in us to develop us into holy people, called out from the world, in the world but not of the world any longer.
Now this is only a small part of what I believe, anything strike you as "out-there" and heretical?
i love that statement, because that is what has happened to the Church for 2,000 years. Jesus breathed on the Apostles and they received the Holy Spirit, the Apostles baptized Ignatius, Ignatius baptized others, who baptized others, and so until the present day. Jesus’s Body, the Church has been here for 2,000 years just as He promised and He has been with it the whole time, just as He promised. God bless, i appreciate your heart, you are a sister in Christ.
Having read your responses it’s obvious you will see only what your want to see. Further you then make comments that have nothing to do with what’s being discussed, (which this we know well and seen often), as another ploy to continue in the state of denial.
Quix.....when one is in such a deep state of denial, even after facts, evidence etc. has been presented. How then do they finally accept the evidence.....such as with an alcoholic. Some do finally see....so what is it that ultimately breaks thru the denial?
There's certainly a lot of that going around,amongst much of christendom.
I've posted before that simply getting the FACT of your salvation through Jesus Christ to 'sink in' (which is THE work of God!) is enough to make the entire universe explode in your face!
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
The above verse seems to be saying you need to KNOW you are saved in order to do the very work of God!
Going to a church that doesn't even know wether they are saved and/or has little more than "a feminized, feel-good emotion" opinion of salvation is more like visiting an orphanage than a family gathering.
Children preening themselves in order to attract favour from a prospective parent,which is beyond sad.
Welcome home...to a place where you might end up being accepted?
Where have I been? You know no such thing about me, so do not think you have any power to read my mind concerning my like or dislike of "history", thank you very much!
You seem to believe "your" church is different from "my" church as far as history goes. To think this way is quite close-minded and bigoted, if you ask me. My faith goes back to the garden of Eden, when God clothed Adam and Eve with the skins of just-slain animals demonstrating, for the very first time, his plan for a redeemer. They trusted in the future one, I in the past one, but he is the one and the same, Jesus Christ. If you can claim the same, then our faiths are not that different at all.
That’s a keeper! But when I saved the picture, for some reason it has a title of “A Woman’s Mind”. Was that an accident? Hmm...;o)
yes, we agree it’s not Scripture. we both agree on the Catholic 27 book NT. where the Protestant agrees with the Catholic Church, they teach truth ( trinity, divinity of Jesus, his sacrificial death, salavation by grace alone, 27 book NT, virgin birth, performing good works because of faith ) the problem i have is the concious attacking the Church with false accusations, i can’t judge your soul, but anyone truly touched by the Holy SPIRIT and is a believer in Jesus, would not be involved in such activity. Rev 12:10 “and i heard a loud voice saying in heaven, now is come salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethern is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.”
yes, there are several points where your belief is not correct, namely you reject baptismal regeneration. The Bible and Church have always taught we have our sins washed away, receive the Holy Spirit and are placed “in Christ” by baptism. it is not symbolic. there is a lot of truth what you said, especially your definition of grace, it’s beautiful. the other problem you have is Jesus prayed in John 17 that we all be One, Paul says there is one bread, one baptism, one Lord, one faith. by breaking fellowship with the Church, you are violating John 17 and 1 Corinthians 1.
You are putting words in peoples mouths they never state. Further the catholic church today hardly resembles the church as Jesus intended it be. ..and because the church refused to do as Christ intended...the reformation and all which followed to this day...the catholic church you lay claim to was left in the dust of history. The institute which resides in Rome today is just that...an institute.
so you say, but then again, you also said the Church teaches Jesus is killed again at every Mass, so your track record leaves something to be desired!
i know you don’t want to believe it, but the Church set the 27 book canon based on those books it’s Tradition said were Scripture and which agreed with the Apostolic teaching it recieved and kept. if that isn’t true, tell me who wrote the book of Hebrews and why, if you don’t know who wrote it, why you accept it as part of the NT?
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.