Posted on 8/14/2006, 3:42:16 AM by ARAD
IS THIS GOD?
How could I have had an insufficient understanding of the Holy Eucharist: the central focus of Christian worship?
Photography by Robert Nease
I held aloft a golden chalice, gazing upwards at it, performing one of the central liturgical rituals of the Mass, in which the consecration of the wine takes place. But my attitude was not one of reverence or solemnity. I possessed neither the eyes of faith, nor the traditional Christian understanding of the Blessed Eucharist. I was not standing at an altar, let alone in a church. Nearby, my friend and frequent evangelistic partner was neither kneeling, nor bowing his head, nor making the sign of the cross. He was chuckling.
I wore a mocking, sarcastic scowl, just as I wore a mockingly makeshift priestly robe. I looked as ridiculous as the cowardly lion wearing his “king’s robe” in “The Wizard of Oz,” for I was not a priest, or an ordained clergyman of any sort. I was a non-denominational, Evangelical Protestant, lay missionary. My friend (a former Catholic) and I were making light of the gestures and rituals of a priest saying the Mass. This was in the late 1980s, several years before my surprise 1990 conversion to Catholicism.
My friend took a photograph of this mock liturgy. I still have it. It remains a shameful testament to my former dim comprehension of liturgy and sacramentalism, and to a certain attitude of adolescent silliness when it came to “things Catholic.” It’s an attitude we often see in many of today’s anti-Catholic “ministries” and individuals.
How could I — a serious Christian, with considerable knowledge and appreciation of Church history — have had such an insufficient understanding of the Holy Eucharist: the central focus of Christian worship for fifteen hundred years before the birth of Protestantism? How did I manage to regard liturgy itself as a stale, boring, non-essential “extra” which was by no means necessary to Christian communal fellowship?
Those questions are especially puzzling, because I had a fairly high respect for the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion, or Holy Eucharist. My belief was somewhat akin to John Calvin’s “mystical presence,” which was a step higher than the purely symbolic view which many Protestants hold today. I also didn’t believe that what was taking place at the Last Supper was merely empty ritual, or that its re-creation was a bare “remembrance.” Furthermore, I wasn’t “anti-Catholic” in the sense that I would ever have denied that the Catholic Church was Christian.
To understand how such an odd state of affairs could occur requires a look into Church history, especially the historical course of Protestant doctrine. My friend and I — as is characteristic of so many non-Catholics — thought, in the final analysis, that the Eucharist was an add-on, an optional part of the church service.
This IS your Father’s Eucharist
Most Protestant denominations have elevated the sermon to the primary position and climax of the Sunday service. Everything builds up to it. The sermon is the thing to look forward to, the drawing card, especially if the pastor is especially skilled at oratory and homiletics. It is the means by which one gets “fired up,” exhorted, and charged to go out and make a difference in the world, as a Christian disciple.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying those things are bad. I still appreciate a good sermon — even many non-Catholic ones. But much of Protestantism has transformed church almost exclusively into a prolonged liturgy of the Word: only one-half of the Catholic Mass. The Protestant version usually features far less actual Bible reading than Mass, and a sermon many times longer than the average Catholic homily.
Groups like the Anglicans, Methodists and Lutherans retain the weekly Eucharist as the central aspect of their worship service; but other denominations — such as Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, and the many non-denominational groups — tend to have Communion only once a month. Most Mennonites observe Holy Communion only twice a year. Quakers and the Salvation Army, not at all. The latter two groups don’t practice any sacraments, or “ordinances,” or “rites” — not even baptism. Behind this sort of thinking, lies an antipathy toward sacramentalism, the belief in the ability of matter to convey grace. Accordingly, Protestants who place less emphasis on the Eucharist tend to also regard baptism as basically a symbolic ritual, with none of the regenerating power Catholics believe it possesses.
How can vast portions of Christianity, today, deny what was accepted without question by virtually all Christians right up to the time of Martin Luther? Indeed, even Luther retained the doctrines of the Real Presence (in the slightly-diluted form of consubstantiation) and baptismal regeneration.
The first Christian leader — of any lasting importance and influence — to deny the Real Presence, was the Swiss Protestant “Reformer,” Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531). He dissented from not only received Catholic doctrine, but also from the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, which earned him Luther’s wrath. Let’s examine some of the rationale Zwingli gave for adopting this novel, radical position, which set the tone for all subsequent Protestant views of the Eucharist as only a symbol. “A sacrament is the sign of a holy thing. When I say: The sacrament of the Lord’s body, I am simply referring to that bread which is the symbol of the body of Christ who was put to death for our sakes. The papists all know perfectly well that the word sacrament means a sign and nothing more, for this is the sense in which it has always been used by Christian doctors . . . the sign and the thing signified cannot be one and the same. Therefore the sacrament of the body of Christ cannot be the body itself” (Huldreich Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” from Zwingli and Bullinger, edited and translated by G.W. Bromiley; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953, p. 188).
First of all, it’s simply untrue that Christian doctors “always” denied the reality aspect of the sacraments, particularly concerning the Eucharist. Hundreds of counter-examples could be brought forth. This matter is so well-documented as to seriously bring into question Zwingli’s knowledge of Christian doctrinal history. The evidence for the Real Presence in the Eucharist, among the Church Fathers, is among the most compelling of any historic Christian doctrine or dogma which Protestants now dispute.
As proof of this, I shall cite just one standard Protestant reference work, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press, 1983). Its “Eucharist” entry says, “That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first, and language was very commonly used which referred to the Eucharistic elements as themselves the Body and Blood . . . From the fourth century, the language about the transformation of the elements began to become general . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages.”
Secondly, sign and reality need not be opposed to each other. Later in the Zwingli essay, the author attempts to enlist St. Augustine as espousing his views, by exploiting that false dichotomy. Augustine, however, accepted the Real Presence, and a conception of the Eucharist in which it is also a sign (just as the Catholic Church does today). The Bible itself confirms this. For example, Jesus refers to the “sign of Jonah,” comparing Jonah’s time in the belly of the fish to His own burial (Matt. 12:38-40). In other words, both events, although described as “signs,” were literally real events. Jesus also uses the same terminology in connection with His Second Coming (Matt. 24:30-31), which is, of course, believed by all Christians to be a literal occurrence.
J.N.D. Kelly, a highly-respected Protestant scholar of early Church doctrine and development, writing about Church Fathers’ views in the fourth and fifth centuries, concurs: “It must not be supposed, of course, that this ‘symbolical’ language implied that the bread and wine were regarded as mere pointers to, or tokens of, absent realities. Rather were they accepted as signs of realities which were somehow actually present though apprehended by faith alone” (Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, 1978; San Francisco: Harper Collins). About St. Augustine in particular, Kelly concludes: “There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that he accepted the current realism . . . One could multiply texts . . . which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecessors.”
Likewise, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church makes the same point about allusions to “symbolism” with regard to the general teaching of the Church Fathers: “Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts.”
A different kind of miracle
Zwingli gets down to brass tacks in the following blast against Catholic eucharistic doctrine. It is here where we begin to clearly see the philosophical and skeptical roots of his false belief: “The manna which came down from heaven was of the same size and shape as coriander seed, but its taste was quite different. Here the case is otherwise, for what we see and what we taste are exactly the same, bread and wine. And how can we say that it is flesh when we do not perceive it to be such? If the body were there miraculously, the bread would not be bread, but we should perceive it to be flesh. Since, however, we see and perceive bread, it is evident that we are ascribing to God a miracle which he himself neither wills nor approves: for he does not work miracles which cannot be perceived.”
Here’s my answer to Zwingli:
God intended the Eucharist to be a different kind of miracle from the outset. He intended it to require more profound faith than is required by tangible, provable, or easily seen miracles. But, in requiring such faith, it is certainly not unique among Christian doctrines and traditional beliefs — many of which are fully shared by our Protestant brethren. The Virgin Birth, for example, cannot be observed or proven, yet it is indeed a miracle of the most extraordinary sort. Likewise, in the Atonement of Jesus, the world sees a wretched, beaten, tortured man who is put to death on a cross. The Christian, on the other hand, sees in Him the great miracle of redemption and the means of the salvation of mankind: an unspeakably sublime miracle that can only be seen through the eyes of faith.
Baptism, according to most Christians, imparts real grace of some sort to those who receive it. But this is rarely evident or tangible, especially in infants. Lastly, the Incarnation — which might be considered the most incredible miracle ever — couldn’t be perceived as an outward miracle. Yes, Jesus appeared as a man like any other man — eating, drinking, sleeping, needing to wash, experiencing emotion and suffering. Yes, He proved Himself more than that by performing demonstrable miracles, foretelling the future, rising from the dead, and ascending to heaven in full view of His disciples. The Incarnation however — the moment of God becoming man, strictly viewed in and of itself — was not visible or manifest in the tangible, concrete way to which Zwingli seems to think God would or must restrict Himself.
To summarize: Jesus looked, felt and sounded like a man; no one without faith would know, just from observing Him, that He was also God. If we allow that Zwingli’s argument abolishes the Eucharist, then the Incarnation — and by implication, the Trinity — must be discarded along with it.
Besides, didn’t Jesus habitually call us to a more sublime faith? In John 6, when people ask Jesus for a sign to prove what He is saying about “the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you,” He encourages them to forsake signs and reach for the more profound faith required by the eucharistic miracle He is talking about.
We also have the example of “Doubting Thomas” (John 20:24-29). Jesus appeared to Thomas, after the Resurrection, apparently for the express purpose of demonstrating graphically to him that He was raised from the dead. But, after doing so, Jesus says, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
Jesus called on us to increase our faith on more than just those two occasions. But, even if He had done so with every other word, there would still be people denying the obvious.
That’s why it’s called “faith”
“If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
“For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles . . . For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength” (1 Cor. 1:22-23,25).
The Zwingli model for miracles also ignores the fact that there are times when outwardly apparent signs, wonders and miracles do not suffice. People had seen Jesus do many wondrous things, prior to the day He taught about the Eucharist. He didn’t give a sign that day, but His credibility was already well established. In fact, the day before, He had fed five thousand with just a few loaves and fish. Still, there were those who simply refused to be reached, and remained willfully resistant to what He was saying. Noticing that, Jesus said, “Does this offend you?” and “among you there are some who do not believe” (John 6:61,64). Notice that Jesus didn’t begin explaining Himself in a different way, or reveal some hidden meaning that His references to “flesh” and “blood” were meant to symbolize. Knowing that the only way to truly comprehend the Eucharist is through faith, Jesus merely reiterated His teaching in ever more forceful terms. He repeated it, because He knew that the problem was not lack of comprehension, but flat-out unbelief.
The Eucharist is no less “foolish” than the redemptive truth of Christ crucified. But people will disbelieve both, because they are difficult to grasp with the natural mind; whereas the mind of faith can see and believe them. Romano Guardini, a great Catholic writer, stated about John 6, “Should they have understood? Hardly. It is inconceivable that at any time anyone could have grasped intellectually the meaning of these words. But they should have believed. They should have clung to Christ blindly, wherever he led them . . . and simply said: we do not understand; show us what you mean. Instead they judge, and everything closes to them” (The Lord; Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1954, p. 206).
Jesus could walk through walls after the Resurrection (John 20:26); and even a mere man, Philip, could be “caught away” and transported to another place by God (Acts 8:39-40). Because of such things, Zwingli thinks God couldn’t have, or wouldn’t have, performed the miracle of the Real Presence and transubstantiation (which means, literally, “change of substance”). I don’t find this line of thought convincing in the least. No one should rashly attempt to tie God’s hands with such arguments. The fact remains that God clearly can perform any miracle He so chooses.
Many Christian beliefs require a great deal of faith, even relatively “blind” faith. Protestants manage to believe in a number of such doctrines (e.g., the Trinity, God’s eternal existence, omnipotence, angels, the power of prayer, instantaneous justification, the Second Coming). Why should the Real Presence be singled out for excessive skepticism and unchecked rationalizing? I contend that it’s due to a preconceived bias against sacramentalism, and matter as a conveyor of grace, which hearkens back to the heresies of Docetism and even Gnosticism, which looked down upon matter, and regarded spirit as inherently superior to matter.
The ancient heresy of Docetism held that the sufferings of Christ were apparent rather than real; that His human body was an illusion of sorts, that what died on the cross wasn’t what it seemed. It is thought by many that St. John wrote his Gospel with a Gnostic/Docetic opponent in mind, thus accounting for his strong emphasis on Jesus’ “flesh” and “blood” (John 6). Similarly, many Protestants believe that the Eucharist is apparent, and not real; that “This is my body” doesn’t mean what it appears to mean. But the Eucharist is not merely apparent, it is an extension of the Incarnation of Christ, just like the Church (which St. Paul calls the “Body of Christ”). A denial of the Real Presence might, therefore, also be regarded as a denial of the Incarnation.
This pervasive bias against the Real Presence, reminds of the Jewish and Muslim view of the Incarnation as an unthinkable task for God to undertake. For them, God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become a man. In much the same way, Evangelicals hold that God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become substantially, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. To my mind, the dynamic is the same. But “could’ve, would’ve, should’ve” theology is not biblical theology. Every Christian exercises faith in things which are very difficult to grasp with the natural mind, because they are revealed to be true by God in the Bible.
The Catholic belief in the ability of matter to convey grace (sacramentalism), as exemplified by the doctrine of the Real Presence, has a sound biblical basis. The Incarnation, which made the Atonement possible, raised matter to previously unknown heights. God took on human flesh!
All created matter was “good,” in God’s opinion, from the start (Gen. 1:25). Most non-sacramental Protestants wouldn’t deny the goodness of matter per se; that being the case, their beliefs regarding sacraments are all the more puzzling. Even from the “Scripture alone” perspective, the evidence for sacramentalism is more than evident (see box, p. 40). No a priori biblical or logical case can be made against a literal Eucharist, on the grounds that matter is inferior to spirit and/or that belief in a literal Eucharist indicates a stunted, primitive, “pagan” spirituality or some such similar negative judgment. If Christ could become Man, He can surely will to become truly present in what continues to appear as bread and wine, once consecrated.
No poetic license required
The classic biblical texts which Catholics use to support their position are John 6:47-66, Luke 22:19-20 (cf. Matt. 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24), 1 Corinthians 10:16, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-30. Zwingli attacks each of these in turn, but with invalid and insubstantial reasoning such as that seen above, spawned from the same false premises and unbiblical philosophical assumptions.
As for John 6, and Jesus repeatedly commanding the hearers to “eat my flesh and drink my blood,” it is known that, in the Jewish mind at that time, such metaphors were synonymous with doing someone grievous injury (see, Job 19:22, Ps. 27:2, Eccles. 4:5, Isa. 9:20, 49:26, Mic. 3:1-3, Rev. 16:6). Therefore, it isn’t plausible to assert that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, according to the standard Protestant method of interpreting Scripture in light of contemporary usage, customs and idioms.
When His hearers didn’t understand something He was saying, the Lord always explained more fully (e.g., Matt. 19:24-26, John 11:11-14, 8:32-34; cf. 4:31-34, 8:21-23). But when they refused to accept a teaching, He merely repeated it with more emphasis (e.g., Matt. 9:2-7, John 8:56-58). By analogy, then, we conclude that John 6 was an instance of willful rejection (see John 6:63-65; cf. Matt. 13:10-23). Only here in the New Testament do we see followers of Christ abandoning Him for theological reasons (John 6:66). Surely, if their departure was due to a simple misunderstanding, Jesus would have cleared things up. But He did no such thing. He continually repeated the same teaching, using even stronger terms. All of this squares with the Catholic interpretation, and is inconsistent with the idea of the Eucharist as a mere symbol or metaphor.
Likewise, in the Last Supper passages (Luke 22:19-20; cf. Matt. 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24), nothing in the actual text supports a metaphorical interpretation. Where the New Testament intends the word “is” to be figurative, the intent is readily apparent (Matt. 13:38, John 10:7, 15:1, 1 Cor. 10:4). In the Last Supper passages, that intent is not there.
The Last Supper — Jesus and the Twelve celebrating the Jewish feast of Passover — involved a sacrificial lamb. The Apostles could hardly have missed the significance of what Jesus was saying, when He told them, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” Before and after those statements, He spoke of His imminent suffering (Luke 22:15-16,18,21-22). And John the Baptist had already referred to Him as the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29).
St. Paul’s eucharistic passages (1 Cor.10:16; 11:23-30) are also intended to be taken at face value. How can one be guilty of profaning the “body and blood of the Lord” by engaging in a merely symbolic act (1 Cor. 11:27)?
Paul also says, “Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?” (1 Cor. 10:18). He had just stated two verses earlier, “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?” Just as the Jewish sacrifices were literal and not symbolic, so is the Christian sacrifice of the Mass!
Furthermore, the whole thrust of the contextual passage of 1 Corinthians 10: 14-22 is to contrast Christian eucharistic sacrifice with pagan sacrifice (1 Cor. 10:19-20), and the pagan “table of demons” to the “table [altar] of the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:21). It’s inescapable. The Catholic literal interpretation requires no twisting of the text.
In conclusion, let’s take a look at the actual nature of what occurs in the miracle of transubstantiation. Accidental change occurs when non-essential outward properties (accidents) are changed in some fashion. For example, water can take on the properties of solidity as ice, and of vapor as steam, all the while remaining chemically the same. Substantial change, on the other hand, produces something entirely different. In our everyday, natural experience, a change of substance is always accompanied by a corresponding change of accidents, or outward properties. One example would be the metabolizing of food, which literally changes to become part of our bodies as a result of digestion.
But the Eucharist is a supernatural transformation, in which substantial change occurs without accidental change. Thus, the outward properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance are replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. This is what requires faith, and what causes many to stumble, because it is a miracle of a very sophisticated nature, one that doesn’t lend itself to empirical or scientific “proof.” But, in a sense, it is no more difficult to believe than the changing of water to ice, in which the outward properties change, while the substance (molecular structure) doesn’t. The Eucharist merely involves the opposite scenario: the substance changes while the outward properties don’t. Can anyone reasonably contend that one process is any more intrinsically implausible than the other, where an omnipotent God — particularly One Who took on human flesh and became Man — is concerned?
Jesus, after the Resurrection, could walk through walls while remaining in His physical (glorified) body (John 20:26-27). How, then, can the Real Presence be regarded as impossible or implausible by many Protestants — people who accept the same walking through walls, and numerous other supernatural and mysterious events in Christian theology? We have seen the strong biblical indications of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and also the equally compelling historical record of the Church for fifteen hundred years, prior to Protestantism. We have even delved into some philosophical background and influences, and related theological ones, such as the Incarnation and sacramentalism. All of these point to the Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, a truly towering intellect, whom few would accuse of being unreasonable, gullible, or philosophically naive, put it this way: "People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe...It is difficult, impossible to imagine, I grant — but how is it difficult to believe?...For myself, I cannot, indeed prove it, I cannot tell how it is; but I say, 'Why should it not be? What's to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? Just as much as the greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all.'"
e
PS. I can't wait for Bishop Burbidge to visit my parish next Sunday!
Flannery O'Connor famous said about the Eucharist: If it is only a symbol, then the hell with it!
Bumping for later. God bless you.
Bump
To speak of symbolically "eating my body and drinking my blood" would mean the words of Jesus ...
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day
... Really meant....
"WHOEVER PERSECUTES ME AND ASSAULTS ME WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE."
That is so because to symbolically eat somebody's body and drink their blood means Persecute and Assault
Do you think Jesus intended to say that the way to eternal life is to persecute and assault Him? Of course not.
Following are examples from Holy Writ where one, symbolically, eats somebody's body and drinks trheir blood.
Ps 26:2
Isaias 9:18-20
Isaias 49:26
Micah 3:3:2
2 Kings 23:17
Rev 17:6,16
To symbolically eat someone's flesh and blood is to persecute and assault them.
Even Luther got it right about the Eucharist. "of all the early fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacraments as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expressions as "It is simply bread and wine," or "Christ's body and blood are not present." Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as "It is simply bread" or "Not that the body of Christ is physically present" or the like; since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ's body and blood are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative arguement should have turned up at least once, as it happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side." Luther's Works
*Please reread John Chapter 6. Jesus repeatedly speaks the truth about His real presence in the Eucharist
Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
St Polycarp, St John's disciple, wrote that those that do "not" believe that what is in the cup is truly the Lords body and blood is antichrist.
Let's put this in perspective...St John received the Revelation of Christ while St Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna. Of the seven churches in Revelation only 2 receive "A+'s"...one is Smyrna.
Now, St John knew what St Polycarp was teaching yet St John still wrote good things of the Messenger of the Church of Smyrna.
But more important is what Christ said. If Christ is all-knowing (which all Christians should believe) then did He miss this important teaching? If so then He is not God and is not all-knowing. On the other hand, if Christ is all-knowing and praised the messenger of the Church of Smyrna then He also knew that what He taught St John was properly translated to the next generation of disciples...namely St Polycarp (and St Ignatius).
It is also interesting to note that only 4 times in the gospel of St John does Christ use this formula "Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you do 'this' you have ...."
So of what did Christ use this formula...well, for most protestants they would rather die than misinterpret the first two and last one but for the third they prefer to go against even the Revelation of Christ, St John, St Polycarp, and countless early pre-denominational Christians in complete unity and run with reformation ministers born and steeped in the deep sins of Roman Catholicism...in others words to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
1) Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you are born again...you cannot "see" the kingdom of heaven.
2) Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you are born of the water and the spirit you cannot "enter" the kingdom of heaven.
3) Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you eat the body of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you have "NO" life in you.
4) Amen, Amen I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies it remains only a single grain of wheat. But if it dies it produces many seeds.
What is very interesting is John 6:66 "they turned their backs...and they walked with Him no more". This is the sign of eternal death...to walk with God "No" more. A foreshadow of the mark of the beast...those darkened by death for they have "NO" life in them.
Don't be fooled...the Jews that turned their backs did not do so because they believed Christ was talking symbolically or that he was talking of grape juice and crackers or even of plain wine and bread. They knew what He was talking about very clearly. The problem was that they really did not believe He was God, and only God could ask such a thing (for even if they could not under why Christ was asking us to do this, if they believed He was God, truly belived, they would have done so standing on their heads).
A further comment...it is interesting to note that man fell by eating what he was told not to (that which contains death). Christ now tests man after 4000 years by commanding to eat (that which contains life). A simple symmetry. A simple Truth. Yet when presented with such simplicity, man still chooses to ask "did God really say that" reminiscent of the words of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
For those that cannot read classical Greek...there are many passages that modern translations have figuratively changed "wine" into "water" by watering down very important passages. But then again...one could blame God for being born in a time when such translation run ships amuck, but therein lays the test of humility. God is not at fault. We believe we can all individually interpret scripture and that the wisdom of the first millennium of the church is irrelevant.
Unless you turn back to the wisdom promised to the early church by none other then Christ you will not be able to understand the Words it was given. It takes complete humility to understand this...to all others these are still words by which to crucify the messenger.
PS: Rome is not the original Church. Orthodoxy is (even though in spite of it's problems Christ’s promise is still alive in His humble body). Look not to riches and fancy buildings but to Christ crucified. More Orthodox Christian martyrs have died in the last century alone than in all the combined centuries since Christ. Evil knows whom to pursecute and to the rest it just makes life miserable.
A lot of us on here are holding our tongues and refraining from attacking each other's Churches. We Catholics believe we are already in Communion with the Orthodox Church, however imperfect, and we believe the great Pope Benedict and your magnificent Hierarchs are bringing us ever closer together.
I have pinged a few stellar Orthodox brothers who I admire very much. It is obvious we do not agree on particularly thorny Ecclesiological and Theological issues. Who does? But, it does appear we have a practical agreement of refraining from criticising each other in public.
I think you could do worse than to think them role models and imitate them.
Me and Thee belong to Churches with Apostolic Succession, Sacraments/Mysteries etc and our Prelates are diligently working to find a way to effect a reconciliation.
Such a reconciliation might save Europe.
My Pope has my total trust and he does not need me in public badgering those in a Church we are trying to come to an agreement with . He needs my prayers.
There is a LOT to admire about the Orthodox in FR, not the least of which is their restraint in the face of what they see as Roman Catholic perfidy.
Longanimity will be rewarded.
Peace, brother
"I think your song about the Eucharist is better heard when it is not accompanied by the static of ecclesiological polemics."
"I did not come to bring Peace but division..." Christ
Which is more important "Truth" or "Love"?
Although Love may be the greatest of "gifts", it implies something even greater...the "Giver!" God never refers to Himself as Love, yet He does refer to Himself as "Truth" (the Apostle St John is the only Apostle to say God is Love...a true theologian that experienced the loving energy of God as few of us do).
The fruit of Truth is Love, yet Love does not exist without Truth.
The further we get from Truth the more unloving it feels to be told the Truth. But since God says "I am Truth" it is unchanging...static...a revelation of God essence. Love is His energy; Love is how we experience Him.
I'm sorry that when I speak the Truth in todays world that it has the same Polemic tone and threating feeling that Truth had 2000 years ago and was crucified for it.
In todays modern world so far removed from Truth, the only way back is to remember the humble words of the Psalmist "Let a good man strike or rebuke me...it is as excellent oil"
Hiding Truth under a bushel only leaves the world in darkness. It leaves the world filled with empty love and unsatisfying feelings.
Rome and Orthodoxy tried to reunite once before but without Truth. God will not allow it...no matter what you or I "wish" will happen. St Mark of Ephesis was hated because he spoke of Truth in a time when no one else wanted to hear it.
Today is no different with modern Ecumenism. Everyone want to be PC, even if Truth must remain under a bushel or be sacrificed to achieve man's ends.
The theology of the East and West are like night and day. What does light and darkness have in common? The God you believe in is not the same God I believe in! Because we both call Him Christ is more coincidence than fact. Read http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm to understand if Truth is what you seek.
"A lot of us on here are holding our tongues and refraining from attacking each other's Churches."
If I did not speak the Truth...the rocks would. When we did not recognize the Creator of the world hung upon a tree; as we held our tongues and even worse cursed Him, the rocks quaked, the heavens cried, the curtain rent in two, and all of creation screamed out in their own tongue...as if to say...can you not see what you've done?
Peace will come when Truth returns...think about it!
"You were saying" ping.
If I am wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me.
Have a profitable life, brother
I did not come to bring Peace but division..." Christ
And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Which is more important "Truth" or "Love"?
*Your will
The further we get from Truth the more unloving it feels to be told the Truth.
*You can't hurt my feelings, brother. You have no power over me. Your polemics are risible not wounding.
I'm sorry that when I speak the Truth in todays world that it has the same Polemic tone and threating feeling that Truth had 2000 years ago and was crucified for it.
*I have no doubt you think you speak the truth. However, please don't fool yourself thinking I am in any way hurt or threatened by your statements. Believe me, you have nothing to apologise for in that regard. BTW, don't you think that parallel was a might over-drawn? I mean, you ain't 'zactly Jesus, brother.
Rome and Orthodoxy tried to reunite once before but without Truth. God will not allow it...no matter what you or I "wish" will happen.
*Thank you, God.
The God you believe in is not the same God I believe in!
*LOL One of us in for a rude awakening at our Private Judgement.
Because we both call Him Christ is more coincidence than fact. Read http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm to understand if Truth is what you seek.
* I think I've seen it....
Bridgekeeper: STOP!
He who would cross the Bridge of Death
Must answer me
These questions three
Ere the other side he see.
*"A lot of us on here are holding our tongues and refraining from attacking each other's Churches."
If I did not speak the Truth...the rocks would.
*Really. Do you actually have that high an opinion of yourself? Amasing. Astounding actually.
Peace will come when Truth returns...think about it!
*Is now the time I should withdraw my extension of Peace?
From Truth comes Love...
You've asked me to sacrifice Truth to which I've responded "NO"...
For Rome and the Orthodox to be reunited it must start with Truth, else it is a false union...
Let's begin with Truth...History shows us that for the sake of man's version of love, ie the love for power, Rome has build one lie upon another starting with the filioque (which when discovered to not exist in the original creed, instead of embracing Truth, Rome chose to switch the 9th century council condemning the actions of anyone trying to change the creed [which Rome was in agreement to and signed by the Pope] to the Robbers Council, and later having to sacrifice Truth further by militarily marching against Constantinople [their brothers for over a 1000 years], then to create a labrynth of doctrinal errors climaxing with Papal infalibility to explain in spite of historical fact what now gives the Pope the right to change the creed [itself based on scripture]).
First, my brother would not march on my land, destroy my Holy Churches (and commit the acts of atrocity they did). This is not the sign of "Sweet Jesus on Earth" as the Roman St Catherine called the Pope.
Second, a humble brother would reject what is false, speak the Truth (after having truly mined for it as a buried treasure and not having accepted it from someone on earth called the Vicar of Christ.
Third, from that humility would come brotherly love because it would have been built on the solid foundation of Truth.
But as long as Rome continues to persue that which is false...I must reject it
Don't be fooled by the image in the mirror. Even though it looks the same it is cold and lifeless.
I've often felt a pull inside toward converting to Catholicism. I've had this feeling for many, many years. Maybe it's because almost half of my ancestors (from Ireland) were Catholic. My grandmother fell away from the Church and did not raise her sons Catholic.
Or maybe it's something God wants me to do. I'm not fighting it; I just don't find time to convert.
Dear 3cats+dog,
The first thing I'd like to say is that your soul sounds like it's longing for completion. The article was about the Eucharist, which is where Jesus may be calling you. My advice would be to go to a church, and sit in silence for a time, near the tabernacle, which houses the Eucharist. God often speaks to us when our hearts are open, and our surroundings are silent.
There are cool websites you may enjoy. The one I think you will enjoy initially is the Coming Home site. It is specifically for encouraging and providing fellowship for those coming into, or within the Catholic Church. It is actually comprised of many converts, who will answer your questions.
http://www.chnetwork.org/
http://www.chnetwork.org/converts.htm
(for the conversion stories)
Every Monday night, The Journey Home program on EWTN (one of my favorites), interviews individuals who have felt a longing, and found Christ' fullness in the Church. You may enjoy listening to the witness of those who came into, or returned to the Catholic Church. Here's the link for listening to these programs. http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/SeriesSearchprog.asp?SeriesID=-6892289&NewList=&T1=journey
I'm sure that lots of FreeRepublic Catholics will certainly be praying for you, and your understanding of whatever God wishes of you. I will. My only advice is the advice my mother (a convert herself to Catholicism, from a small town Pentecostal-like church) gave me, concerning how she prays. She told me that after she finishes her prayers, she always asks God, "Through your will, Lord." I've been taking that advice since she gave it to me.
I can also forward you any other information that you may desire in your journey.
Thank you for posting, and I hope you enjoyed the article.
ARAD
best wishes & God bless, 3 cats
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.