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.
Okay, Cronos, whatever you say, Cronos. Hey, believe what you want, it's a free country. And just so you won't worry about the state of my soul, I have trusted in Jesus Christ as my Savior since I was sixteen years old. It has never stopped, and my love for him and my gratitude for his grace has only grown stronger. Good luck to you, too.
placemarker
Jesus Christ makes His point so clear on this -- He repeats it to the crowd TWICE. He doesn't say "oh, hold on there, that's just a metaphor like Matt 16:5-12This is what scripture is saying, not me. If you wish to dispute it, talk to the boss, Jesus Christ5 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.
This is reinforced in 1 Cor. 10:16-17,1 Cor. 11:26-27.
[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).
Thank you, Mad Dawg, it's nice to hear your reasoned and kind "voice" again. First of all, Jesus was observing the Passover feast with his disciples. Traditionally, the host did partake of the bread and wine after the others had. Jesus also said he would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until he did it with them in Heaven, so I read that he must have drank it with them, too.
Still, I don't really so much dispute the "Real Presence", as I do the doctrine that goes along with it that the way we receive "grace" is through the participation in the memorial. I believe all the grace we need to be redeemed, justified, sanctified and made righteous is given to us when we place our trust in Jesus Christ as savior. It is at that point that we are born again. All the other activities that are associated with the Christian life such as water baptism, meditation and study of the Scriptures, partaking of the elements in the observance called "communion", meeting together to praise and worship and pray together, and sharing our faith with others - evangelism - are what cause growth in faith and more deeply conform us into the image of Christ so that he is praised and glorified throughout the world. Thank you again for your grace.
in the Eucharist Christ is “present wholly and entirely, in his body and blood, under the signs of bread and wine.” This “presence” of Christ in the Eucharist is more than a commemoration, it is an “effective sign” which “communicates what it promises” (”Building Unity”: Ecumenical Series IV, editors Burges and Gros: Paulist Press, 1989).
Okay, one last post from me on this subject. Scripture "clearly" states no such thing. Why is it not obvious that the bread and wine are NOT LITERALLY changed, but only spiritually? No one is ever recorded as jumping back in horror as they see what they are eating is REAL flesh and blood. Not one time in Scripture is there any such admonition to pray a special prayer to mysteriously change the elements but only a spiritual connotation to "discern" what they truly represent. But like I said, believe what you want. Just don't try to convince me that I cannot be saved because I don't "interpret" it like you all do. I already am saved and neither you nor anyone else can pluck me out of God's hand.
Christ is indwelling each and every believer....
Matthew 18:20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
Christ is really present in every believer. He already lives in us. He doesn't inhabit a wheat wafer. He inhabits us. People. The ones he redeemed.
We don't need to eat Him to have Him indwell us. He indwells us by faith.
Colossians 1:27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Ephesians 3:14-19 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Romans 8:9-11 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Well said and Amen!
Hoss
Boat, I’m with you on this — wonderfully stated. The Roman Catholic Church has become such a blasphemous entity that it’s very easy to see Satan working within it. I pray for and pity those who are still under the spell of this Roman cult.
And, like you, I’m done here.
Hoss
It would be fun and helpful to all of us to sit down in a loving way and share our experiences of and thoughts about Grace and graces.
We have a wonderful new friar, Fr. Jacek Buda. He’s a “Polack” (he said in Poland that’s the correct term, shortly after I offered to bet him that I knew more jokes about Poles than he knows about Yankees.) (We were making merry last night because it was Thomas Aquinas Day — a big deal for Dominicans.)
I bring him up because his big deal is “Encounter with Christ.”. He pretty much ripped me on a paper I wrote about Truth because it was, so to speak, too “by the numbers.”
“It’s about who touches your life, about whom you know and yet hunger for. If you’re not writing about that then it’s all [a word a can’t use on this forum].”
I like to talk about “ big ‘S’ sin” and “little ‘s’ sins.” I need to start getting coherent about “big ‘G’ Grace” and “little ‘g’ graces.” I think somewhere in there might be a place where we could clasp hands.
BTW, if you would like to read ten pages on “Truth”, very catholic pages, complete with prayer to Mary (!) FRMail me your email. Quix was generous in saying he liked it.
And thank you for your love and generosity. You are proof that God is lavish in His kindness.
Start the thread on GRACE . . .
I’ll be good . . . at least for the first 100 posts. LOL.
Sounds like a great topic.
Yeah, I liked your paper on truth.
D00d, if that is the worst thing you do all day, then you are like a favored city on a hill! Much more than I! Think nothing of it, please.
May you enjoy great “consolations” (as we Cat’licks say) tomorrow, well and, why not, every day!
LOL and Thanks! You know, I had a thought (say, what’s IN this drink?): I would ask our “chapter president” to let me do the “Formation” on something like “Grace and graces — Our life in Christ” next November. Then I could post it and we could look at it. How would that be?
And, maybe as some kind of evidence that the Living God is holding my stony heart in his hands, let me just say:
God is AWESOME in his love! Just sayin’.
Ephesians 4:4-5 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all”
The NT Church knows of just one baptism, commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28. John’s baptism was not NT baptism.
Nov is a lot later than I had in mind. I was hoping a week or 3.
In describing the liturgical and sacrifical institutions of the Church Clement uses, as we have seen, the terminology of the Greek Bible, which translated as best it could the Hebrew words for the various categories of sacrifice. He speaks of thusiai, leitourgiai, prosphorai, euchai, and sacrifices for sin that were offered on the altar (40-41). In 44.4, he grieves that men who had presented the gifts (ta dora) in a holy manner were deposed from their overseership. In 35, 12, and 52, 3, he speaks of the sacrifice of praise (thusia aineseos) with explicit reference to Psalm 49 (50): 19. We may be tempted to see in this last phrase a simple reference to the public prayer that had the psalms for its center. But the Septuagint uses the phrase to translate the Hebrew todah, which, according to 2 Chronicles 29:31; 33:16, and Leviticus 7:14; 22:29, meant an offering of victims, accompanied by a presentation of unleavened bread (cf. Leviticus 7:11; Amos 4:5).
In Clement’s view, then, the various types of Old Testament sacrifice are summed up in the unique sacrificial act that is the celebration of the eucharist. This celebration was established and regulated by Christ, while the apostles added further details. In it, the overseers and presbyters act as high priests (archihiereus) and present the prosphorai and dora to God. In point of fact, the action of the overseers and presbyters is ministerial, since it is Jesus Christ who is “the high priest of our offerings” (36, 1). Clement nowhere sets down a theory of the Christian sacrifice; he uses ideas well known in the Roman Church in whose name he speaks, and in the Church of Corinth, which he is addressing. His readers were familiar with the teaching on sacrifice of the author of the Letter to the Hebrews and by St. Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians (11:23-29).
this posting is from a book “The Eucharist in the early Church” by William Rordorf.
Clement was the Bishop of Rome, a disciple of St Peter, and he wrote the Corinthians to deal with schismatics in the Church around the year 95ad. The Corinthians read the letter at Mass as Scripture for 100 years afterward.
I want you to notice the Sacrifice of the Mass is well established, even before the end of the first century. You should read the whole letter, it will be an eye opening experience for you. Remember, this was a man taught personally by St Peter, just as St Ignatius was taught by St John. Is it coincidence that leaders of the early Church, who personally spoke to the Apostles, teach the Catholic understanding of the Mass? I think not.
The act of water baptism after they make this decision is in obedience to Christ to make an outward confession of faith to others and to indicate a commitment to walking in newness of life - just like it was done in the very beginning. Pigeonholing is not a smart practice and shows a lack of thinking about what we say before we say it and also to not just spout off what someone else says without being able to defend it yourself.
Scripture for this? You won’t find anywhere in the NT someone was told to be baptized as an act of obedience.
you will find Acts 22:16, however.
your attempt to make St Augustine a Calvinist is about as believeable as Obama trying to make himself Reagan.
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.