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.
Beckwith bump!
No metaphor in use here at all.
Trans=transfer
Substantiation=substance
The Bread is transferred into the Body of Christ, just as the Lord said at the Last Supper. “This is my Body.”
The Wine is transferred into the actual Blood of Christ, just as Christ said at the Last Supper, “Take and drink, this is my Blood, the Blood of the New Covenant.”
It is at your own peril that you do not take this Scripture literally.
Eucharistic Miracle at St. Stephen's in New Boston MI.(Catholic Caucas)
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS]'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity': The Miracle and Gift of the Most Holy Eucharist
Looking After a Eucharistic Miracle (Franciscan Recounts His Special Mission in Siena)
Eucharistic Miracle: 2009?
Possible Eucharistic Miracle in Poland
The Eucharistic Miracles(Catholic Caucus)
Vatican display exhibits eucharistic miracles
Eucharistic Miracle - Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy
Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano -Verifies Authenticity of the Phenomenon
BLOOD TYPE FOUND IN ICONS IS SAME AS IN SHROUD OF TURIN AND 'LANCIANO MIRACLE'
Eucharistic Miracle: Lanciano,Italy-8th Century A.D.
Sorry, Catholics don’t do YOPIOS.
No, they are not metaphors. They are allegories.
If I believe this:
Jesus is our God and Savior. We get to meet Him at His table.
Am I in peril?
Francis Beckwith explains (in a blog entry / column titled: "Transubstantiation: From Stumbling Block to Cornerstone"):
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.Transubstantiation is one of those Roman dogmas that spectacularly fails the tests of history and Scripture, so it was interesting to read what Beckwith wrote. It was particularly interesting because Beckwith views transubstantiation as a cornerstone, whereas for us (Reformed), the cornerstone of our theology is the Word of God.
Beckwith begins by allegedly setting for the doctrine of transubstantiation:
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.There's a tiny problem that Beckwith hasn't accurately represented his church's position. The position of Rome is that:
And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.- Trent, Session XIII, Chapters 3-4And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.
Notice what is actually involved:
1) The bread becomes not just the body of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remains bread.
2) The wine becomes not just the blood of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remains wine.
…
So, while there may be some vague "Eucharistic realism" out there in the fathers, that does not convert Jesus' metaphors into the Tridentine absurdity, in which the bread is said to be not only the body of the Lord, but his blood, soul, and divinity as well - and not at all to be bread, except as to appearances. Had Beckwith founded himself on the Word of God, rather than on the traditions of men, he would not be led into this error. Since he has rejected, however, the Word of God, he has a new cornerstone for himself.
Amen. Excellent points. Insofar as the RCC believes itself to be the curators of the Word of God, they seem to be able to ignore it whenever it suits their fancy.
Deception is the desire of Satan, he wants to have men take their eyes off of God and put it objects and actions..
I know what Catholics say about the eucharist, and I know it is not true, but a deception.
Those who worship Satan have rituals which attempt to invert Catholic rituals
Exactly ,They mimic the work of God.. and that is exactly what is done with the eucharist.. that have made the last passover meal into a false god, a false ritual that replaces the meaning that Christ intended..
Lets look at this ok?
If we go to John 5-6 we see Jesus on route to celebrate the passover in Jerusalem . As He travels He is attracting crowds that He is teaching ... He sees they are physically hungry and He feeds them with a few fish and loaves of bread .
After that miracle the crowds continued to follow Him. But they were not following Him because they were looking for a Savior, they followed Him to be fed by another miracle .
At this point Jesus rebukes them and He draws a Passover reference for them (remember that is where He was going ) He told them that Moses and the bread were a "type" pointing to Him.. The Israelites were fed manna in the desert as they followed Moses, that fed them physically.. But the He is the bread that will give men eternal life that the Father has sent .
We see that the unleavened bread of the Passover meal, that was done as a memorial of the salvation of the Jewish people in the desert , is a sign..a prophetic meal pointing to Christ.
Now move to the final passover meal..it is final because the prophesy is fulfilled shortly after it
Jesus holds up the bread...the remembrance of the manna in the desert and reveals the prophetic nature of it..He says THIS is my body ...
He then tells them to now do this in memory of HIM no longer the passover. The passover is fulfilled
The Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant). He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3). [The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood” (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface).
I suffer with a lot of pain and at times I cannot make it to church but my husband is allowed to bring me Holy Communion. One day I was having a particular bad day and was praying a lot and told our Lord I needed him so much as to not lose it! When this day my husband gave me Holy Communion I heard the words to myself, feed my sheep. My mind went to when Jesus was telling Peter to feed his sheep before our Lord left. Then my mind when to when Moses was taking the people to the promise land they were fed by God by Manna and now today we have our Lord’s body, grace, to feed us on our journey to heaven. I felt like our Lord was trying to comfort me, knowing that this journey of mine, ours, we are not without him. I wasn’t looking for something like this to happen but when that small gentle voice speaks I listened.
How did they do that?
Clement of Alexandria wrote the following about John 6 :
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. (The Instructor, 1:6)
Understand - symbols and metaphor!
Seems to me that a Catholic opened the discussion on this relating to a conversion ..it is an open thread..not a caucus.
What Catholics fail to appreciate is the bible teaches there are tares among the wheat in the church..when an unsaved man or woman chooses to leave Protestantism and become a Catholic we do not morn that loss. It is not about numbers, it is about Christ as Lord and Savior.....We are told many are called, but few are chosen..numbers only count to men
When a man comes to the Catholic church he comes for tradition, or atmosphere or thinking they can find salvation there..
There is no salvation in the church, in any church.. Salvation is only IN Christ, the church is by definition the gathering of the elect, the saved..
Of this man and those like him I agree with John
" They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."
Indeed.. :)
What brings me to this discussion is that the worship afforded a piece of bread is due only to God.. It is idol worship and I would call them to repentance
Good to see your name.
LUB THX FOR THE PINGS.
You have just proven that Catholics dio not know what a metaphor is
"I am the bread of life" (John 6:35,48,51).
"I am the light of the world" (John 8:12).
"I am the door of the sheep"(John 10:7,9).
"I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11,14).
"I am the resurrection, and the life" (John 11:25).
Clement of Alexandria wrote the following about John 6 :
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood," describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. (The Instructor, 1:6)
Understand - symbols and metaphor! "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). "I am the true vine" (John 15:1,5).
It's a shame that so many are confused by this. All we can do is preach The Gospel and pray God the Father gives them ears to hear.
I thought the Scripture forbade the drinking of blood. Do not those who suggest the cup contents turn into the literal blood of Christ violate this command?
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.