This will come as great news to Princess Buttercup.
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.
This will come as great news to Princess Buttercup.
And Aunt Josephine.
Oh.
Whatever your sources on this "story," dear brother, they seem not to have regarded the historical timeline very closely.
That Julius Caesar burned the Great Library of Alexandria in 48 B.C. has been documented by contemporary observers. Some of these observers say that Caesar didn't mean to burn the library, this was just an unanticipated, unfortunate result of his trying to burn the Alexandrian Fleet at their moorings, and then the wind just blew the wrong way....
The Library was the treasure of Greco-Roman culture, appreciated as such in Caesar's time, at Rome. Its loss was devastating to that culture: For the fire wiped out the original sources of some of the greatest achievements of human thought produced by that culture. Which in so many ways laid down the original foundations of rational thought, effective ever since.
It was a grievous loss, IMHO FWIW.
The point is, there's no way the Vatican could have benefited from it....
Maybe I’ll track down the segment and transcribe it.
Appreciate your input.
The contention in part was that the treasures were saved and lesser materials burned.
Thx
If the priest is essentially a mouthpiece , he is speaking the words of someone else. In this case. The words of Jesus, and the power implicit in the act comes from the Holy Spirit, not from the priest. This is the way it works. If Barack Obama signs a bill, it is valid, even though he has not read it, nor does he approve of its contents. As to the mockery, recall when Chief Justice Roberts bungled the swearing in ceremony —and had to do it all over again.
Ihn any case, I do not understand all the noise about his being or not being a holy person. Many a communion rite is presided over by person of indifferent faith. That does not diminish the authority of that person who retains it until it is withdrawn by competent authority. Fact is, we seldom know whether a priest, or some protestant minister is a believer or not. Sometimes he is a Talleyrand, but we usually find that out after the fact, and we are scandalized to learn that he has committed sacrilege.
I dare say that you are more charitable than I. :P
That’s understandable in a 10-year old. But what is a mortal sin? It is unfaithfulness, a breaking of a covenant. In the Old Testament what is often compared with idolatry or adultery. The old Puritans had a keen sense of evil —too keen, perhaps—and in the Irish Church Jansenism—a king of Catholic Puritanism—had great influence. It is possible to overestimate the power of the devil and underestimate the power of God.
Well, the endless cycle is the way that we continue to lapse into sin, however hard we may struggle against it. Even Paul was fearful that he might be lost.
That’s a vicious remark.
No alchemy involved. All that is required is a duly-ordained pastor, but in a pinch, anyone can conduct the Supper because it is a moment of reflection and gratitude for God's gracious love through Jesus Christ's one-time sacrifice on the cross.
In a Roman Catholic service of the Lord's Supper, the whimsy is that this "alter Christus" is supposed to actually change matter intrinsically, atom for atom. And this magick is only possible when various conditions are met - a performance by an Alter Christus, by virtue of his orders, who is the only person capable of morphing the bread and wine into some other material, namely Christ.
Additionally, other conditions must be met such as elevating the bread and wine to just the right height; saying exactly the right words; using exactly the correct elements, etc.
The mass is voodoo dressed up as a religious observance. It is a shameful re-sacrificing of Christ who cannot be pulled down from His rightful place in heaven next to the Father, regardless of how much Rome desires that Christ be slain over and over for its bloody pageant.
Worshiping a piece of bread and goblet of wine.
Not really surprising now, is it?
The incident began about a month ago when a young boy received the Eucharist at Mass and then became sick in the restroom. Ushers who checked on him found the intact host in the bin.
-- from the thread Communion "Host" in Dallas Church Grew Fungi, Bacteria Naturally
"Does Papal Law have anything to say about what to do, if the Wafer is expulsed from the mouth (or launched out of the nose) as the result of a spit take??"Related threads:
-- Alex Murphy, June 6, 2006
Amen and Amen!
This really nails it:
“The mass is voodoo dressed up as a religious observance. It is a shameful re-sacrificing of Christ who cannot be pulled down from His rightful place in heaven next to the Father, regardless of how much Rome desires that Christ be slain over and over for its bloody pageant.”
Thanks for the wonderful post.
Hoss
Interesting article about missionaries in Time magazine in regard to communion....
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923232-10,00.html
You know what’s interesting,...
When missionaries first went into Indonesia and made converts, they discussed what to do about communion. The staple of the native’s diet was sweet potato. The only juice they were familiar with was raspberry juice.
When considering the significance and meaning of the communion supper, they felt it would be more meaningful for the Dani’s to have communion elements which reflected what Jesus meant when He told His followers that He was the bread of life.
Bread in those days for that culture was the staple of life, just as Jesus is the staple for our spiritual lives.
Introducing foreign food for communion, they felt, would not get the real meaning Jesus was trying to get across.
It can be read in this fascinating book....
The People Time Forgot by Alice Gibbons
http://www.amazon.com/People-Time-Forgot-Alice-Gibbons/dp/0875094058
i am not in doubt at all. i will ask you again to answer my questions. you can use trent, vatican I or II, church father, pope or other church council. you will not be able to, because you are delibrately making a false charge. pretty sad for someone who claims the name of Christ.
Wrong. Paul was aware all men are sinners which is our default setting and therefore we slip easily into its grasp.
But Paul never once doubted his salvation by Jesus Christ alone. Never.
Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." -- 2 Timothy 1:7-12
"Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." -- 1 Thess. 5:24"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
I think Roman Catholics are sold a shoddy bill of goods when they're told that Paul doubted his own salvation. Nothing could be further from the truth which Roman Catholics are entitled to know.
Read your Bible.
you never fail to amaze with your accusations. a few comments on your post:
1. i don’t imply things, if i believe it, i will come right out and state it.
2. “but made Himself nothing” = emptied Himslef Paul and I both know Jesus was always God ( He has a divine nature and a human nature, but is One Person )but chose to humble Himself while on earth.
3. “why else would you say he was limited in the languages he could speak” uh... you better go back and read my post, i said no such thing. in fact, i said the opposite. “i am sure he could speak the King’s English better than the King”
How else could a man in Israel circa 33ad speak the King’s english, unless He was God? English was an unknown language at the time, spoken no where on earth!!
4. “He would have perfect knowledge as God” umm, I think i am saying Jesus is God, no?
I am sure we both can be thankful for the Catholic Church and the Bishops at Nicea for opposing Arius and defending the Divinity of Jesus. ( or maybe you aren’t since these men also taught the Real Presence and Sacrifice of the Mass )
read Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Iraneus and you will understand how those directly taught by the Apostles and their immediate successors understood the Lords Table.
Read Clement of Rome, who taught by St Peter, talks about the priests at Corinth offering the “sacrifices”
then how can your doctrine be true if it was unknown for the first 1,500 years of the Church?
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.