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.
If the wine is in deed wine and a fitting representation of Christ’s blood and the bread his flesh then no special words or hand movements and prayers are required to change it into anything else and any minister, elder, overseer could lead the ceremony and no priest needed.
But if only a priest who knows just how high to raise the cup and just the right words, just the right hand movements, etc. is required then the priest is of a different class then the the laity and since he’s undergone an ontological transformation, once a priest always a priest and no one else will do.
The wine is actual blood and bread is actual flesh doctrine must be protected lest all it supports falls with it.
Job security.
Actually your story contains certain elements of fact that I have always wondered about until coming across Augustine's understanding of predestination.
2) God created the conditions of the fall of Adam - Like it or not, God put the tree of knowledge in the garden. God then stepped aside. He never prevent Adam nor did He rush to Adam's side to say not to take it or remind him of His word. Eve, fair far worst in that there is no evidence God told her anything and it is indicated that she received misguided instructions from Adam. Through her incomplete knowledge of God's word, she was deceived into taking the fruit. (Paul reminds us not to be deceived.)
3) God knew the punishment - Before Adam was even created God knew the punishment for disobedience would be eternal damnation in the lake of fire. This to some may sound extremely harsh for a loving God. The problem is they don't understand the purity of God. God protects his glory simply because he is pure-pure love, pure joy, pure bliss. Any compromise diminishes who God is. God never comes down to our level. God's desire is to raise us up to His level.
There is another explanation that Augustine rightfully concluded, that God wanted and purposely planned for the fall to happen. God knew that it would create two classes of people, the righteous and the wicked. Augustine called this the Two Cities and it is a theme carried throughout scripture. To the righteous God would extend his mercy and grace even though they do not deserve God's kindness. This is how we come to recognized how much we fall short of God's glory and how merciful He is to even consider us for His kingdom. To the wicked God would give them the justice that they want so that we may know that God is just. He will render to every man his reward.
The problem I often have is that people believe that everyone wants to go to heaven if they just thought about it. Well, no-none of us before we were saved wanted to go to the type of heaven that is scripture based. Heaven isn't floating on a cloud eating dark chocolates all day; it's worshiping God 24/7.
But the truth is that people do not love God and really and truly want to be anywhere other than where the light is. We do not like the light. The first thing Adam and Eve did was to hide from the light. It is part of our nature to lie, cheat and everything else that would break the purity of God. God's mission is to change this nature of ours and to redeem a people in bondage. It is only by God opening our eyes and ears to the truth that we come to the understanding of our fallen nature. And, like Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Peter, John, Paul and every other believer; it is always Christ that calls, "Come, follow me."
People who find this appalling should reflect upon the grace that God has given them and not be so reflective about the justice that God will give others.
Actually, no, dear Cronos, I am not denying Scripture at all. I am denying what you "say" Scripture means.
Think of it this way: When Jesus instituted the commemoration of his sacrifice for us, he took, what had ever since it was first performed at the Passover Feast, and revealed the true meaning. The unleavened bread - leaven being equated with sin - that the Jews hurriedly took with them when leaving Egypt - to the manna miraculously provided in the desert, to the shewbread kept in the tabernacle and the unleavened bread (matzos) that observant Jews continued to share in every Passover since, were ALL designed to be signs of the Messiah who would come and provide the "bread of life" - his own body, broken, for the sins of the people.
Now, I do not recall the Jews EVER imagining that the bread was the actual flesh and blood of the Messiah. Not once! Even those disciples present at that last meal with Jesus NEVER actually thought they were physically consuming the body of Jesus - remember Jesus also ate and drank the bread and wine with them. Was he eating himself? Drinking his own blood?
So, nowhere in Scripture is the concept that the bread and wine were changed into physical flesh and blood - NO WHERE. We should conclude then that the eating and drinking of the elements "unworthily" must have meant anyone who participated in the commemoration doing so to feed their bodies and not their souls. To eat the bread without believing in Christ whose body was broken for our sins, to drink the wine without believing his blood was shed as the propitiation for our sins, is to profane him because of unbelief in him as Savior - NOT because of unbelief in the simple bread and wine BECOMING literal flesh and blood. When we partake of these at the observance of communion, we are reminded of what he did for us. Those who have already trusted in Jesus Christ as Savior HAVE received him, they do not need to eat and drink him continuously in order to be saved, they already have been.
I’ve given you adequate scripture — however, if you still wish to deny scripture, that’s your own choice.
Matthew 1:23 :“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[a] (which means “God with us”).We Christians profess Jesus to be the only Son of God, the Lord and the eternal Word of God.
John 20:28
Acts 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Hebrews 1:8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture?
Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies?
What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.
Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity:
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.
He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.
Now one can only ask a fellow-Christian like boatbums if her group follows the practises and beliefs of the Early Christians (which is the Catholic faith) -- I can't ask a non-Christian that question
On the Road to Emmaus
13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”
They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
19 “What things?” he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”
25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23 explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body.If someone wishes to keep denying scripture by denying the Eucharist, they will deny everything..
1 Cor. 10:16-17, Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."
1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here that when we receive the Lord's Supper we are "eating bread" and "drinking the cup" (wine), but he goes on to say that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ
In fact, Paul goes on to say that those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).
Here’s the scripture, Christ’s own words:
John 4, 47 ff
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
And here on the RF we see many who CLAIM to be His disciples turning back, no longer following Him.
[35] And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.Now these people, just like the folks who deny the Eucharist today despite scripture to the contrary, to these and to all deniers of the Eucharist, Christ repeated
[41] The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven
[48] I am the bread of life.And, just like the deniers of the Eucharist today,
[49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.
[50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
[52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
[53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," as this was no misunderstanding -- He clearly stated it and repeated it at other times when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12), but this time He clearly stated.
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
[57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me
1 Cor. 10:16-17, Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."Now, anyone who still wishes to deny scripture which states this utterly clearly, unambiguously that what is in the Eucharist REALLY IS the Body and Blood of Christ -- no wonder they can then deny other truths.
1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here that when we receive the Lord's Supper we are "eating bread" and "drinking the cup" (wine), but he goes on to say that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ
and those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).
Cool question. I don't know whether those who argue for that view DO pray for souls in purgatory. I would think like this: Pain has two elements (if not more): intensity and duration. In other words, I suppose it COULD be a heck of an instant, but one whose intensity might be mitigated by prayer, etc.
I don't get why after refer to an event in John's Gospel you say Uh... No. Scriptural proof?? John's Gospel is Scripture. Maybe it would help if you were to say what you think indulgences are? (Not that I know much about them myself.)
... saying that I deny something is mind reading.
Did I say you denied something? I thought I addressed personal remarks, not mind reading. Further, If you had denied something in a post, then it would not be mind reading to say you'd denied it. And I suppose if you said something which logically implied a denial of something I'm not sure it would be mind reading.
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.” 8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.IN CONTRAST, Christ REPEATS TWICE that He is the living bread. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh --> and He does not stop and clear things up for the disciples who went away.
No agenda,just wondering what the thinking is.
Certainly, you would want to have your words quoted in context, right? Then you should note that Ignatius was addressing heresies like Gnosticism that denied Jesus came in the flesh. Hence, his stressing the importance of recognizing the humanity of Christ as well as his deity in the celebration of the "Eucharist", which is thanksgiving for the gift of God's grace in becoming man, taking on flesh, and dying in our place to pay for our sins.
I find it curious that you assume I am denying Scripture, since in no place have I done so. I DO understand why you seem to want everyone to perhaps think I do, but it won't work. Anyone who reads my posts, knows my love for the Word of God and I will defend it against anybody who would subvert it for evil purposes.
Just another note, when Ignatius says, "They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.", do you possibly think he could be speaking of those who deny that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ? It is ironic that there are some people on this thread who insist that only their religion is the the true "church/body of Christ", yet they teach that men must do good works in order to be saved. They add to the Scriptures, which is condemned by God, by creating doctrine that is in direct opposition to God's word. You say you believe we are saved by grace, yet then turn around and add that it is by faith AND works that we can be saved. Who is really denying Scripture?
they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father,I say that one would be denying scripture which is clearly indicating the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
While I enjoy the use of Luther’s words by you in defense of the Real Presence which is Scriptural; it is somewhat disingenuous to do so on a thread about ‘transubstantiation’ which Luther and Confessional Lutherans reject as un-Scriptural.
Probably my bad on mind reading — might have confused the post/poster sequence; if so, my humble apologies.
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.