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.
You guys are posting metaphors. If Christ was really a piece of bread, that would not be a metaphor. I don’t worship a piece of bread.
You guys are dead on the money.
Otherwise, Jesus is a wooden plank with hinges and every time I turn the knob I am twisting his life? And as will of the people said, he is the growing, tangled mess by my fence and I have been hacking away at Him for years? And He is a guy herding us around a field with a big stick and a border collie? No, my FRiends...you two and several others here are absolutely correct. Jesus meant us to open our ears and listen, and open our eyes and see...if we can. But, just like the guys who thought He was being “literal” said He sounded like a barbarian, some of the FReepers here want to transubstantiate a bunch of flour & grape juice into our risen Lord. And you guys aren’t having any part of such nonsense. I’m with you.
Not here. A bit of St. Paul for you, related to this:
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”
(http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53011.htm)
Why does he say this in this way? Because of the Real Presence.
Likewise, from a source much more eloquent than I:
“The Bible is the unerring word of God. Jesus Christ is the unerring Word of God.
Non-Catholic Christians who see the bread of life discourse in general, and Jesus’ words about “Eating his flesh” in particular, as purely metaphorical; symbolic language used by Christ to represent acceptance of the word of God (the Bible) and the Word of God (Jesus Christ) into our heart as nourishment for our souls, should take note of the verb used for the word “Eat” in the original Greek text.
This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the word. The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 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.” (John 6:50-53)
In quoting Jesus Christ in verses 49 through 53 above, St. John chose to use the Greek verb phago. The lexicon at the Protestant bible study site Heartlight’s Search God’s Word defines the word phago as:
to eat
to eat (consume) a thing
When we get to verse 54 however, the author of the Fourth Gospel switches from using phago to the verb trogo. The word trogo is found five times in the Fourth Gospel and only once elsewhere in the New Testament. Trogo is used for all but once for the remainder of the bread of life discourse to describe what Jesus tells us must be done in order for us to have life within us. The same Greek lexicon referenced above defines the word trogo as:
to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds)
to eat
The Greek interlinear bible at Scripture 4 All shows the actual Greek words and the literal translation. It does a far better job at conveying the verb change from eat to chew than I can in this post. A PDF file showing the original Greek text for John 6 is available here.
Whoever eats (trogo-chews) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats (trogo-chews) my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate (ephagon-eat, past tense) and still died, whoever eats (trogo-chews) this bread will live forever. (John 6:54-58)
While it could be argued that the verbs eat (phago) was a metaphor, simply a symbolic reference to spiritual nourishment received by consuming the word of God (bible) and accepting the Word of God (Jesus) into one’s heart, it is hard to argue the same for passages where the word chew or gnaw (trogo) are used. In quoting the Word of God, the unerring word of God seems to be pretty clear.”
(http://timhollingworth.blogspot.com/2010/08/eating-and-chewing-word-of-god-and-word.html)
There are, to be sure, metaphors in the Holy Bible. John 6, in these verses, do not contain one. I understand if you do not believe as we do. That is your choice, not mine. And I can live with that, just as you can. My task, here & now, was simply to try to explain, for your benefit, and others. By the way, sorry about being so long-winded.
Try 1 Cor 10 & 11, especially 10:16 and 11:27. Or John 6. Or reflect on the Passover seder, where you had to eat the lamb to be spared -- eating a lamb cookie and thinking about the lamb wouldn't get the job done. Or try reading Ignatius, who learned everything he knew from Peter, Paul, and John. Or reflect on the simple historical fact that every Christian church with a verifiable history before AD 1200 believes what we do. All the Orthodox do. All the Oriental Orthodox do. All the Assyrians do.
I’m sorry for you. Christ is “in me” all the time not just at Communion. He is in you also but you have to wait til Communion time evidently before you realize it.
I write this with all sincerity...
Did the disciples start literally eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood at the end of John 6?
Did they eat his flesh and drink his blood at the Last Supper? Matthew 26 Mark 14, Luke 22
If there was no cannibalism, its a metaphor.
The New Covenant is ratified and sealed by the blood of Jesus (see the last Supper verses cited above). Jesus is glorified sitting on the throne at the right hand of God. He has given us the Holy Spirit and made us righteous by faith (Romans 5; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21). We are now children of God, new creations, a royal priesthood, joint heirs with Christ, and his ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:17-21, 6:17-18; Galatians 4:4-6; 1 John 3:2; Revelations 1:4-6). What else could we possibly gain by consuming his PHYSICAL body and blood at this point?
The Lord’s Supper is for remembrance. To rightly discern and remember all that we have been freely given under the New Covenant. Our focus should be on the spiritual (the Word, which is Jesus and goes into our spirit), not the physical bread and wine that simply go into the stomach and out into the sewer. (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23)
Jesus died once for all time. See Hebrews 10:11-18. Assuming transubstantion were true, you would be sacrificing Christ again and again as under the old covenant, which is not scriptural. Jesus is in heaven waiting until his enemies are humbled and made a footstool under his feet. He is not physically returning to earth every Sunday in a shot glass and a piece of bread.
If you are born again, you have something even better, Jesus lives in you through the Holy Spirit. You want Jesus in your heart (spirit), not your stomach.
Well, you are half right. You are quoting the Bible %100. The problem is you are interpreting wrong.
Dear Kandy Atz,
the Church does not take it as a metaphor. That was what fish hawk was disputing. I’ve been rather long-winded here tonight, so here is the single best explanation I can think of, for you. This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican, and is, for me as a Catholic, the final word.
(http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm)
I believe it as surely as I know my name, and as surely as I respect your opinion, which apparently disagrees with my belief. You might reread my statements, which are scriptural, given that they are direct quotes from the Holy Bible. It is my sincere hope that you will take a moment to follow the link and see for yourself, exactly what we believe. I will add that we who are Catholics are born anew in water and spirit, when we are baptized, but that’s a subject for another day. I wish you well on your journey, and will simply say, God bless, and Good night.
I guess the author could be called a “failed Protestant”.
They HAVE to because they really do must see that what they put into their mouths at Mass is not literal human flesh and blood. They use words like "accident" and "transubstantiation" to describe a substance that still never physically changes yet spiritually does to their minds.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me if Catholics or others want to think of the bread of communion in this way. What I stridently disagree with is the dogma that goes along with it that curses with eternal hell all who do NOT believe as they do and that insists that when we receive Christ by grace through faith it is not enough and anyone who claims to be a Christian MUST receive the "Eucharist" in order to obtain "grace". Eucharist meant thanksgiving in the early church and they came together to share in a love feast and when they took the bread and wine and passed it around they were doing it in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice for them. This is what Jesus actually said to do at that last supper with his disciples.
Ah....but Jesus HIMSELF, said to “Take this Bread and eat it, this is MY BODY”....etc.....so don’t follow Jesus’s own words at your peril.
Jesus spoke in Parables....NOT metaphors......not EVER metaphors.
Oh geesh, not this again. Please....go about your Protestant religion and we will NOT say anything about what you believe in, but leave Catholics and what we believe alone...PLEASE....go take care of your 7 children which GOD has Blessed you with.
AMEN...AMEN...AMEN!!!!
You need to take your disgust about non-Catholics posting their opinions on an OPEN religion forum topic out on the person who chose to post it that way. Just so you understand, when one does it this way, they are inviting opposing views. Perhaps you need to stay on the Caucus threads to be more comfortable.
Oh geesh, not this again. Please....go about your Protestant religion and we will NOT say anything about what you believe in, but leave Catholics and what we believe alone...PLEASE....go take care of your 7 children which GOD has Blessed you with.
You need to take your disgust about non-Catholics posting their opinions on an OPEN religion forum topic out on the person who chose to post it that way. Just so you understand, when one does it this way, they are inviting opposing views. Perhaps you need to stay on the Caucus threads to be more comfortable.
The legalism of the RCC astounds me.
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.