Posted on 05/30/2005 12:57:09 PM PDT by NYer
The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharist, the wafer and the wine really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have you ever met anyone who finds this a bit hard to take?
If so, you shouldn’t be surprised. When Jesus spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, the response was less than enthusiastic. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (V 52). “This is a hard saying who can listen to it?” (V60). In fact so many of his disciples abandoned him that Jesus asked the twelve if they also planned to quit. Note that Jesus did not run after the deserters saying, “Come back! - I was just speaking metaphorically!”
It’s intriguing that one charge the pagan Romans lodged against Christians was that of cannibalism. Why? They heard that this sect met weekly to eat flesh and drink human blood. Did the early Christians say: “wait a minute, it’s only a symbol!”? Not at all. When explaining the Eucharist to the Emperor around 155AD, St. Justin did not mince his words: "For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him . . . is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”
Not till the Middle Ages did theologians really try to explain how Christ’s body and blood became present in the Eucharist. After a few theologians got it wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic. In all change that we normally observe, he teaches, appearances change, but deep down, the essence of a thing stays the same. Example: if, in a fit of mid-life crisis, I traded my mini-van for a Ferrari, abandoned my wife and kids to be a tanned beach bum, bleached and spiked my hair, buffed up at the gym, and took a trip to the plastic surgeon, I’d look a lot different. But for all my trouble, deep down I’d still substantially be the same confused, middle-aged dude as when I started.
St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one change we encounter that is exactly the opposite. The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence of these realities, which can’t be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What starts as bread and wine becomes Christ’s body and blood. A handy word was coined to describe this unique change. Transformation of the “sub-stance”, what “stands-under” the surface, came to be called “transubstantiation.”
What makes this happen? The Spirit and the Word. After praying for the Holy Spirit to come (epiklesis), the priest, who stands in the place of Christ, repeats the words of the God-man: “This is my Body, This is my Blood.” Sounds like Genesis 1 to me: the mighty wind (read “Spirit”) whips over the surface of the water and God’s Word resounds. “Let there be light” and there was light. It is no harder to believe in the Eucharist than to believe in Creation.
But why did Jesus arrange for this transformation of bread and wine? Because he intended another kind of transformation. The bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ which are, in turn, meant to transform us. Ever hear the phrase: “you are what you eat?” The Lord desires us to be transformed from a motley crew of imperfect individuals into the Body of Christ, come to full stature.
Our evangelical brethren speak often of an intimate, personal relationship with Jesus. But I ask you, how much more personal and intimate than the Eucharist can you get? We receive the Lord’s body into our physical body that we may become him whom we receive!
Such an awesome gift deserves its own feast. And that’s why, back in the days of Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi, the Pope decided to institute the Feast of Corpus Christi.
What's to glean? His instructions were direct and clear. "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life within you".
Straightforward and to the point.
The translation of the Verba has become my litmus test for the orthodoxy of any children's Bible. "Is" and only "is" will do. Too many render the word "represents" or "is a symbol of"; and those are just plain heretica; and the sort of attempt at leading little ones astray that the Lord deems worthy of being necklaced with a millstone.
Thank you so much for posting this article. I wish this is what we could have heard for the Homily on Corpus Christi instead of the feel-good homily we usually get.
bttt
Excellent line!
 |
Sienna, Italy -- August 17, 1730 Consecrated Hosts remain perfectly preserved for over 250 years. Rigorous scientific experiments have not been able to explain this phenomena. |
|
|
Amsterdam, Holland 1345 Eucharist thrown into fire overnight miraculously is unscathed. |
 |
Blanot, France -- March 31, 1331 The Eucharist falls out of a woman's mouth onto an altar rail cloth. The priest tries to recover the Host but all that remains is a large spot of blood the same size and dimensions as the wafer. |
|
|
Bolsena-Orvieta, Italy Again, a priest has difficulties believing in the Real Presence, and blood begins seeping out of the Host upon consecration. Because of this miracle, Pope Urban IV commissioned the feast of Corpus Christi, which is still celebrated today. |
 |
Lanciano, Italy -- 8th century A.D. A priest has doubts about the Real Presence; however, when he consecrates the Host it transforms into flesh and blood. This miracle has undergone extensive scientific examination and can only be explained as a miracle. The flesh is actually cardiac tissue which contains arterioles, veins, and nerve fibers. The blood type as in all other approved Eucharistic miracles is type AB! Histological micrographs are shown. |
|
|
Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - (Zenit) "Dr. Edoardo Linoli says he held real cardiac tissue in his hands, when some years ago he analyzed the relics of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy." |
"The Teachings of the Church Fathers, by John R. Willis, S.J., Ignatius Press, 2002."
I was tempted to purchase this book. However, I already own the 3 book series "Faith of the Early Fathers" by Jurgens. How would you compare the two, if you are familiar with Jurgens's work?
Thanks
Brother in Christ
Our pastor's sermon was on this and the fact that we don't have to be a Lanciano -- because this happens every time we attend Mass.
Holy Sacrifice, Living Sacrament
The Banquet of Corpus Christi - "Why did Jesus give us His Body and Blood?"
The Eucharist: Eternity and Time Together
Restored Order of the Sacraments of Initiation? Confirmation and First Eucharist together? (Vanity)
Reflections of Cardinal Ratzinger on the Eucharist
THE HOLY EUCHARIST: NOURISHMENT TO FINISH OUR COURSE
The Eucharist in Scripture - Part 1 - Old Testament
POPE GRANTS PLENARY INDULGENCE FOR YEAR OF THE EUCHARIST
New Plenary Indulgence to Mark Year of the Eucharist
Kneeling and Faith in the Eucharist
The Immaculate Conception and the Eucharist, a course in Christian culture in Tashkent
The Year of the Eucharist by Bishop Donald Wuerl
"While We're At It": What can we do to show that the Eucharist is a communal activity?
See? That's what happens when it's done by a true believer in communion with the holy spirit. The reason I said what I said was in partial quotation of a story I listened to yesterday either by Father Corapi, or by Father Benedict Roschel, about some atheists stealing a host and analyzing it and finding only wheat gluten. It is to THEM I say Ichabod(!), The Spirit of the Lord has left this place!
The Uncircumscribable circumscribed. It's flat out impossible, by definition, and yet we believe it to be true.
This reminds me of something my priest said to me when I was being catechized. He said that those who say God doesn't change the bread and wine are really saying that God doesn't change *us*. The bread and wine remain the same; we remain the same. That is a rather frightening thought.
In reading the scripture, I have seen many words stated for a definition from non Catholics to the following chapter and verse. Some of the words used to describe are:
• device
• figure
• ornament
• emblematical
• indicative
• representational
• representative
• token
Many of those words have been posted over the years from evangelicals and many of the Protestant denominations. Non of them said that the Eucharist was True Substance. MOF, the majority of those posters never gave and answer.
I get the feeling that those same people would have responded as the Pharisees did. Walk away!
John 6:- 53-57
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him
Since you bring that sentence up, please note that it's completely wrong. St. Thomas hadn't even been born when transubstantiation was defined as a dogma by the Lateran Council of 1215.
Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, F27 and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. ..... He who eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" ..... It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
circa 350 A.D.: St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Catecheses, Lecture 22, ss. 1,3-6,9
(cf. Lecture 19, s. 7; Lecture 23, ss. 20-23)
On the night he was betrayed out Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: ``Take, eat: this is my body.'' He took the cup, gave thanks and said: ``Take, drink: this is my blood.'' Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question and say that it is not his blood?
Therefore, is is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us udner the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and one blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.
Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understandoing his words ina spiritual way, they thought the Savior wished them to practice cannibalism.
Under the old dispensation there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.
Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.
You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man's heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spriritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul.
May purity of conscience remove the veil from the face of your soul so that by contemplating the glory of the Lord, as in a mirror, you may be transformed from glory to glory in Christ Jesus our Lord. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
St. Cyril!
Thank you. That's a gem.
Ya know, given the kinds (& number!) of things that have been argued about within the Church, one might expect Real Presence to top the list. But it doesn't even *make* the list. How a christian could challenge it today and keep a straight face I just don't know.
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.