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.
St Augustine believed the Church received the power to forgive sins from Christ, do you agree?
The Church teaches we are saved by Grace alone, not good works.
amen!!
Jesus said “This is MY Body” If you don’t accept the words of Jesus ( and they are in your canon, correct? ),why would you believe the words of St Justin, even if they were in the canon?!?!
NO WHERE - really?? “This is My Body”
The APOSTLES taught it, the Church was unanimous for 1,500 years in believing it!!!
None is so blind as those that will not see.
NO WHERE - really?? “This is My Body”
The APOSTLES taught it, the Church was unanimous for 1,500 years in believing it!!!
None is so blind as those that will not see.
Say it with me...
M-E-T-A-P-H-O-R...
Slowly... breathe in.. breathe out...
M-E-T-A-P-H-O-R
Lather, rinse, repeat. And,
C-O-N-T-E-X-T
One again....
C-O-N-T-E-X-T
finally
C-O-N-T-E-X-T.
Repetition may help. It’s very similar to the posts I’ve seen here, but maybe THIS repetition will break the mindlock that seems so widespread among Roman Catholics. Read God’s Word. Learn exegesis. Use it. Seek God’s direction and discernment through the Holy Spirit (instead of Rome), and see the TRUTH — and I guarantee you: the truth that is is NOT the mess that Rome has fed all of these years.
Take care.
Hoss
Thanky, MD — you’re truly a breath of fresh air.
Have a blessed day!
Hoss
I like how The Message puts this:
Ephesians 4:4-6 You were all called to travel on the same road and in the same direction, so stay together, both outwardly and inwardly. You have one Master, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who rules over all, works through all, and is present in all. Everything you are and think and do is permeated with Oneness.
When Paul told the Ephesians about there being one faith it is obvious he was speaking of the faith in Jesus Christ - not a specific religious organization. When he spoke of one Lord, it's easy to know he was speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ - for there are no others. When he said one baptism, he had to have meant the baptism of the Holy Spirit that ALL believers receive when they come to faith in Christ. And the one Father is obvious also, as, of course, there is only one true God who is our Heavenly Father. All of these point to the unity that all believers have and all that we have in common regardless of outward labels or designations. We are all connected to the one body, the body of Jesus Christ through faith. One Father, one Lord, one Spirit.
yet they teach that men must do good works in order to be saved.
more false accusations on what the Church teaches. let me give you an example:
If a murderer is on death row, and one hour before he is to be executed, he summons a Catholic priest and he professes faith in Jesus Christ and believes He dies for his sins and then is baptized by the priest. The prisoner is then hanged.
In Catholic doctrine, was he saved?
If YES, how is that possible since he did not do any “good works”?
“he had to have meant”
He had to have meant baptism is for the forgiveness of sins as he was taught in Acts 22:16. Jesus said we must born of water and the Spirit in John 3:5. Paul later wrote in Titus 3:5 “he saved us, not because of any deeds we have done in righteousness, but in virute of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.
unless you are infallible, why do you oppose what the Church has taught unanimously for 1,500 years on baptismal regneration?
Peter agrees with Paul, he wrote in 1 Peter 3:21 “baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as the removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
i am tempted to ask you if anything could be clearer, but the i remembered you don’t accept “This is My Body” means “This is My Body”.
M-E-T-A-P-H-O-R?? Your Bible must read “This is LIKE my Body” Which version do you use, so i can check it out?
Also, i am wondering why no one had your insight into the Scriptures for the first 1,500 years of the Church? I would have thought the Holy Spirit would have enlightened somebody before the 16th century, no?
I think a thread on “Grace” would be a good idea. Just make it “Ecumenical” so we don’t have any wars breaking out. I think we could do the subject justice.
15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with[in] water, but you will be baptized with[in] the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
Too bad they don't also teach by faith alone.
There ya go, pigeonholing again.
Good post, good instructions, still won’t do any good. Watch.
umm...where is anybody told to be baptized as an act of obedience again?
they would, if it were in the Bible. BUT since James teaches not be faith alone, they can’t!
agreed, i loved your explaination of grace from a night or two ago.
What would be the fun in THAT!?!
/joking.
I think I could handle an ecumenical thread. I haven’t had my one a year, yet.
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.