OH DEAR!
not the "IMMATURE" bomb!
How will they ever be able to sleep nights, now?
They'll likely be up an extra 2-3 hours
fondling beads trying to become more mature!
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.
INDEED.
JA, I offered some well thought out and practical advice about posting. It was sincere and seriously intended to be of help. It works, but you don’t feel the need to even acknowledge it. Instead you say,
“Seriously, there is no reason for hope on these open threads.”
These open threads are, in my humble estimation, useful in ways you might not imagine but I’m not going to burden you with all of that if you really mean the above.
Remember when you pull your hand from a bucket of water you won’t leave a hole behind.
No.
Expected.
YOUR POST IS WORTH REPEATING:
If you don’t like the free for all of open threads, post a caucus.
Recommend to your Catholic friends that they not engage in personal insults and foul language or respond to those who do. I’ve found this most useful even though it is hard to hold the tongue from wagging.
Do not try to top others in their sarcasm. It never works even if it sometimes feels good.
Lastly, most here are quite able to defend themselves even as “newbies”. Well thought out comments will be welcomed even if disputed, no matter how long the poster has been here. Trust me on this on, really.
And, and have a sense of humor about all this. It’s a talk forum! I dare say I’ve argued with some here rather strenuously yet never neither of us felt the other was a bad person. So don’t take anything personally.
Cheers!
392 posted on Monday, January 24, 2011 12:02:00 AM by count-your-change
Flattery will get you everywhere but not until the first date.
Seriously, I do try to follow my own advice, really.
Not very many Catholic posters on your hate threads anymore, are there? Quite a few of them refuse to come back. We’ve all backchanneled, for years, your (plural) misbehavior.
Don’t you wonder why? If I answer your post, there is an authomatic dogpile. If I don’t answer it, you (plural) high five yourselves on your clever responses. If I point out your (plural) misbehavior — or if any other Catholic does, all of a sudden, we’re whining, we’re immature, we’re all kinds of things you (plural) appear to feel superior to.
Your “well thought out and practical advice about posting” was nothing but bait. Why acknowledge it, when NOTHING GOOD COMES OF IT?
Seriously, there is no reason for hope on these open threadss.
Perhaps you see me as behaving quite differently.
And, perhaps part of my range of styles is a rationalization.
However, I REALLY BELIEVE that when Christ called Pharisees a brood of vipers, sons of satan, white washed tombs
THAT SUCH COMMUNICATION WAS HIS HIGHEST FORM OF LOVE AND TRUTH IN LOVE to them.
AND IT WORKED WITH ONE OF THEM, at least, who ended up furnishing Christ’s temporary tomb.
Certainly I can’t do anything similar flawlessly.
Howver, God has given a certain wit and sense of humor and I try and use them in His behalf, however imperfectly.
LOTS of sacred cows REALLY DO
NEED
GORED
. . . to the death.
And, many folks will SIMPLY NOT HEAR sweetness and light.
Anyway—much appreciate your persepctive and communications.
The heart attitude is crucial.
NOT
Proddys' fault that
Y'all can't deal well, if at all,
With the horrendous factual stats posted above.
The BLAME for that rests
SQUARELY with the INSTITUTION--hierarchy and pew sitters.
Soooooooooooo all y'all blame spreaders might need to find some new mirrors to replace the shattered ones.
BTW, I'd be extremely cautious about blaming Holy Spirit for doing such a poor job of protecting only 9% of the RC faithful in terms of belief in Biblical Truth.
It would be much wiser to blame the hierarchy and their farcical constructions on reality. They need to flush their rubber history and farcical notions of the founding of the edifice.
No it is not and was not “bait”, I don’t bait anything but fish and I don’t fish much anymore. Nor is this my “hate thread”, it was just a simple response to your comments and was directed to only one person by one person.
I neither speak for plurals nor answer for plurals actions.
But so be it.
The open threads are probably a bit too rough and tumble for some folks and that’s O.K. Debate and defense is not child’s play.
Cheers.
Actually, we call pinging the mods over petty little things that only result in hurt feelings and calling people names like *coward* to be immature.
According to the Roman "church" The true church are all those who have been Doesn't it seem blasphemous for a mere created beingThat should read :
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
called out of the world by YHvH. (see Deu 4:10)
to claim that they can perform a magic show and order
the creator of the universe to become a matzoh and Passover wine ?
Who did I call a coward? I mean, if the shoe fits...
WELL PUT.
THX.
GOODNESS,
If you don’t know . . .
perhaps a check on
“honesty in posting”
or on
“personal insight”
could be fruitful.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Been missing your comments. Thanks for stopping in.
LUB BRO.
BTW, HOW’S THE NEW DIGS? Do you have a view?
How do you like the complex cultural mix?
How’s the food? Watch those chili’s!
Naw.
Doesn’t fit. As even MOST RC’s seem to know.
Your style is quite different from mine, yours is colorful while I tend to be dry and pedantic but that is style not motive. I don’t question motives unless it’s blatantly obvious and on display.
So I in no way question yours. It simply is a matter of my inability to use the hot spice of sarcasm and ridicule with the restraint I should.
“Howver, God has given a certain wit and sense of humor and I try and use them in His behalf, however imperfectly.”
I’m not very good at either so I’ll leave it to those who are. Indeed, “The heart attitude is crucial.”
Am beginning to be a bit concerned about the RC’s.
Here I thought they were the strong, proud, resilient, durable, tough, valiant spokespersons for what they perceived to be the pristine, God-ordained ONLY TRUE MOTHER CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
Now it seems they are a bunch of thin-skinned wimps cowering in back channels and caucus threads.
I guess they aren’t all that confident about Holy Spirit’s presumed automatic protection of their fossilized farcical edifice.
Maybe they need to consider that THE GATES OF HELL are defensive. The gates of hell are thrilled when any authentic Christians lay down on the job or cower in sheltered caves.
Or maybe the little kiddies just got tired of getting their sensibilities whacked for so many absurd lies, faleshoods, distortions and reality mangling hogwash assertions.
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.