ARE COMPLAINING
ABOUT
OTHERS
NOT ANSWERING
YOUR
QUESTIONS?
Oh, right, Vatican AIWSOTARM folks
shattered all their mirrors
as a RELIGIOUS obligation
LONG ago!
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.
Wikipedia?
You mean the same wikipedia where just any body can go in and edit anything they want to make it say what they want and can then go and cite it in a debate to *prove* that they're right?
That wikipedia?
Or some people just like being obnoxious.
i keep asking you to show me where the Church teaches Jesus dies in the Mass? that was the charge, you keep posting “trent” statements, but none of the statements teach Jesus dies in the Mass. you say “it’s right there”, ok, show me where! you say you see them clearly, ok, show me where. all i see is a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing!
Where is the evidence that Ignatius was personally taught by the apostle John?
That's the result when you disparage and denigrate Scripture .
They have to have something that sounds impressive to back up their doctrines. Since Scripture doesn't do it, they'll go back as far as they can and try to imply some special knowledge on the part of the writers to give those writings the validity and certainty that only Scripture should be credited with.
RC’S?
Oh, Right.
Isn’t it a RELIGIOUS DUTY OF OBLIGATION or some such?
Or is it merely a Station of
The Stations of The White Hanky?
I have no clue.
You’ll have to ask a Catholic, provided they’ll answer it.
ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)
To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: “He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week...and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint. (Letter of Basil to a Patrician Lady Caesaria)
does this statement sound like Basil retained the spiritual conception of the sacrament?
I have to laugh when the Fathers are tried to be used against the Church.
Augustine did not believe in the change of substance? LOL! He wrote Jesus held His own Body in His hands at the Last Supper.
Whoever wrote this misreprents the Fathers and Church doctrine by its “re-sacrificing Christ” charge.
Nice try.
GREGORY OF NAZIANZ (c. 330 - 389 A.D.)
The tongue of a priest meditating on the Lord raises the sick. Do, then, the greater thing by celebrating the liturgy, and loose the great mass of my sins when you lay hold of the Sacrifice of the Resurrection. Most Reverend friend, Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword. (Letter of Gregory to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium)
ORIGEN (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)
We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. (Against Celsus 8:33)
You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Josue 2:1)
But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a ‘commemoration’ which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that ‘Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,’ that shewbread which ‘God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,’ and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, ‘Do this in commemoration of me,’ then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)
You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish....how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)
...now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: “MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK.” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)
The old Puritans used to keep diaries in which they traced their spiritual life in detail, always in fear of discovering that they were not among the Elect. Pretty obviously, you will never taught , to wonder what was the reason behind the rules. Child psychologists tell us that children are all pretty much rule-bound, but as they mature they need to grasp the rule intellectually. Many people never do, What was a child, I thought as a child etc.
But one is pretty much dependent on one's teachers. The Church has a rich intellectual history, but the downside of the old Catholic education was the fossilization of doctrine. That is, the tendency to treat everything as dogma, even that which was not dogma. One reason why the liberals caused such havoc in the Church was that they took eggs and instead of warming them and hatching them to make chickens, they cracked the eggs and made an omelete.
or it proves some people have no clue what they are talking about, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)
“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)
“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
“How this [’And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)
“Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)
“Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)
“By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)
“Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church.” (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)
Let the true St AUGUSTINE speak for himself. The man was a Catholic priest, who offered the Sacrifice of the MASS.
Yes, I think some believe it is a RELIGIOUS DUTY OF OBLIGATION to be obnoxious, obloxious, oblivious and obstentious, to name just a few. ;o)
Thanks for all the links to the heresies of those the Catholic church calls its church fathers.
It’s appalling the deception Satan is capable of putting in men’s minds when they put self before God.
It should be a lesson to us all to keep our eyes on Christ and Scripture alone. Only that way can we avoid falling into the same kinds of errors as they.
LOL. So it seems.
This
WAR OF THE CHURCH FATHERS
strikes me as beyond absurd.
The pretense on the part of the Vatican AIWSOTARM as represented on FR is
that the church fathers are all a homogeneous, seamless, 100% unified-in-lock-step with a 100% unified current 2011 Catechism [which is itself a contradictory pile of convoluted diplospeak] group of cloned identical idologues.
. . . when the reality is virtually the opposite.
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.