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.
Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
I'm not sure of the source that you are quoting but this is an excellent example of how Roman Catholicism has fallen away from the faith. It no longer believes in the atonement of Christ. Rather, to Roman Catholics the death of Christ upon the cross is an "act of self-giving" of love. Likewise, we to should give ourselves up just as Christ gave Himself up for us. The Holy Spirit isn't a third person of the God-head. Instead the Holy Spirit becomes "love".
This isn't heresy. This is blasphemy and is illustrative of a cult. Christ's act upon the cross was not an act of self-giving. It was to redemptive act of sacrifice in which He physically had to atone for our sins. The Holy Spirit is a living person or the Trinity just as real as Christ or God the Father. His mission is not love but to bring glory to Christ. Love is a characteristic of the nature of the Holy Spirit. I would suggest you read some of the early church fathers on the atonement; not the dribble that comes from the Church today.
It is remarkable how much can be made of "the woman's seed" or the Passover Lamb's bones not being broke, but when it comes to the simple and obvious things, Roman Catholics fail to see the forest for the trees. This is a perfect illustration of the depths of mysticism the Catholic Church has fallen into and how they have departed from the true faith. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. (Heb 9:22)
Aaron, for instance, believed he could feast to the Lord at an altar in front of the molten calf:
And when Aaron saw [it], he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow [is] a feast to the LORD. - Exodus 32:3-5
God's Name is I AM.
The Olympics is really my favorite sporting event. Although, I think I have a problem with that Silver medal. Because when you think about it, you win the gold - you feel good. You win the bronze - you think, "well, at least I got something".But when you win that silver, it's like "Congratulations! You almost won. Of all the losers, you came in first of that group. You're the "number one" loser. No one lost ahead of you."
-- Jerry Seinfeld, I'm Telling You For The Last Time
The “Old Catholic Church” was never more than a splinter group. As for Pio Nono’s motivation, it was the shock of realizing that Italian Liberals were fanatics who would stop at nothing—and were liars. Jokingly he once said that he and Garibaldi were the only honest men in Italy. As i said above, the effect was to free strengthen the hand of the papacy. German nationalists, like Doellinger, did not like this, nor did liberals like Acton, although the latter did not follow his mentor out of the Church.
Yet it is practically the only counterweight against the secularism that is coming to dominate the United States. Sixty years ago, the American Establishment was Protestant. Now it is secular, even agnostic.
Careful, fellow. You are raving now.
And we are really starting to see the consequences of such a shift toward relativism. Nihilism is the reigning worldview of this secular generation. Just as Qoheleth obsesrved three thousand years ago - All is hebel under the sun.
Thanks for your kind confirmation.
Blessed be the Name of The Lord.
Blessed be the LORD GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB.
That helps a LOT.
Thank you.
This then is the danger, worshiping the creation rather than the creator.
We end up looking to it and not Him. God then becomes a good luck charm or fetish to ward off evil, instead of of all who God is.
Hebrews 10:11-14 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
And honestly, the hyperbole that Catholics engage in when confronted with Scripture that contradicts Catholicism is worthy of an atheist.
Speaking of talismans
Some even trust them for their salvation
*shudders*
The brown scapular-http://www.catholic-church.org/apcarmel/scapular.htm
Our Lady gave St. Simon a scapular for the Carmelites with the following promise, saying : Receive, My beloved son, this habit of thy order: this shall be to thee and to all Carmelites a privilege, that whosoever dies clothed in this shall never suffer eternal fire .... It shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger, and a pledge of peace.
Another important aspect of wearing the Scapular is the Sabbatine Privilege. This concerns a promise made by Our Lady to Pope John XXII. In a papal letter he issued, he recounted a vision that he had had. He stated that the Blessed Virgin had said to him in this vision, concerning those who wear the Brown Scapular: “I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory, I shall free, so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting.”
SO NOT BIBLICAL !
AMSOLUTELY INDEED.
And I see little kids walking around with them on.
Certain ethnic groups take that very seriously.
GOODNESS! NOT!
More evidence that most if not all such vicionary stuff re Mary comes from the pit.
This isn't heresy. This is blasphemy and is illustrative of a cult. Christ's act upon the cross was not an act of self-giving. It was a redemptive act of sacrifice in which He physically had to atone for our sins. The Holy Spirit is a living person or the Trinity just as real as Christ or God the Father. His mission is not love but to bring glory to Christ. Love is a characteristic of the nature of the Holy Spirit. I would suggest you read some of the early church fathers on the atonement; not the dribble that comes from the Church today.
It is remarkable how much can be made of "the woman's seed" or the Passover Lamb's bones not being broke, but when it comes to the simple and obvious things, Roman Catholics fail to see the forest for the trees. This is a perfect illustration of the depths of mysticism the Catholic Church has fallen into and how they have departed from the true faith. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. (Heb 9:22)
So insightful, Harley. Rome has no concept of what the atonement really means. To Rome, it's just a feminized, feel-good emotion rather than a supernatural act of payment for sin.
Thanks! Added it to my Favorites list.
ROTFLOL!
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
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.