Posted on 06/10/2007 4:48:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.
Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.
The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.
The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.
Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.
The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).
Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.
The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
So we know by this that many disciples, followers of Jesus couldn't handle this any better than those who today don't believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. What made the difference between those who left and the Apostles is their absolute belief in Jesus. As Peter pointed out Jesus had the words of eternal life. It didn't matter that what He said was hard to understand, they believed in Jesus with a supernatural faith and if He said that, He meant that.
This is also not a parable. When Jesus used parables, he explained them to the Apostles and in this case, He said it and He obviously meant it or He would have explained it to the Apostles.
So if there are those out there who cannot accept this hard saying we are left with the knowledge that many who actually walked with Jesus and called Him friend is Jesus' lifetime could not accept it and many walked away.
As far as making any of these people understand...it is impossible, only Jesus can speak to their hearts and inform them of the truth of the mystery of the Eucharist. In the meantime, Jesus has given us a great gift and we can only feel profoundly humble for it.
In part you are correct that the doctrine of transubstantiation comes from a misreading of the Lord’s words. The whole doctrine actually centers around John 6:60-66 of which the Catholics tend to leave parts out by focusing on two specific verses (see above in this document). One really need to go back to 55 and up to verse 70 to get the full context of the message. Our Catholic friends claim the take the “literal” interpretation but here is what John 6:55-70 says in its entirety.
Most interesting, and problematic, for our Catholic friends who claim to take a “literal” translation are verses 64-65. The true disciples had no idea as to what our Lord was talking about but all they knew was that He alone could save them. Our Lord point blank asked the true disciples (after the others had left) if they wanted to leave. Where could they go as Peter puts it? As our Lord pointed out to them, they were saved because Christ had chosen them (except Judas alone remained of the unbelievers). The rest were only in it for the free meal. This is really one of the greatest passages of election of all time IMO. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist and is totally misinterpreted.
Nowhere in scripture does it say that grace is imparted through the Eucharist as is taught by the Church. In fact, the purpose of the communion is clearly spelled out by Paul:
“I hope all the RCs take the time to read it and see where the perpetual offering of the mass blasphemes the word and will of God.”
Dr., is this a common Protestant belief? Do Masses offered by other Churches such as the Orthodox and Oriental Christians blaspheme the word and will of God? Or is there some difference in the Catholic(Latin rite) Mass that makes it alone blasphemous in your view?
Freegards
2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
24:25 Behold, I have told you before. 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
OK, that's just blasphemy.
Actually, not quite. The Mass has the power to take the congregation to a different space/time, so everyone in the congregation is experiencing the original crucification.
showing signs and wonders, pulling fire down fron heaven
Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Gotcha. We don't teach grace is imparted solely from the Eucharist. We wish all people could eat and drink worthily. If you cannot we ask that you refrain. It's that simple. It is desirable, it SHOULD be the most desirable thing in the world. But your state of grace determines whether you can eat and drink it worthily, not the other way around.
I guess you wouldn’t have liked it today when we put the Host in a special ciborium and erected a canopy over it, and then had a procession to our Shrine to Mary, with the Bishop carrying the Host, sang psalms, said the following, kneeling, and then processed back:
Blessed be God.
Blessed be His Holy Name.
Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blessed be the name of Jesus.
Blessed be His Most Sacred Heart.
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
Blessed be the Holy Spirit, the paraclete.
Blessed be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blessed be her holy and Immaculate Conception.
Blessed be her glorious Assumption.
Blessed be the name of Mary, Virgin and Mother.
Blessed be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blessed be God in His angels and in His Saints.
May the heart of Jesus, in the Most Blessed Sacrament, be praised, adored, and loved with grateful affection, at every moment, in all the tabernacles of the world, even to the end of time. Amen.
#43 check it out
Thank you for the nice response. I am confused, though, why you assume that John 6:64-65 would be problematic for a Catholic? Of course, God knew before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who would not be saved. For God, time, which bounds us humans, is not an issue. As the Catechism (paragraph 600) states: 600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:27-28; cf. Ps 2:1-2.) For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. (Cf. Mt 26:54; Jn 18:36; 19:11; Acts 3:17-18.)
God has predestined all of us to be conformed to the image of His Son, as reported in the Catechism: (As the Catechism reports (paragraph 2012), "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . . . For those whom he fore knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. and those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:28-30))
Please to note that I am quoting from the Catechism, not because I think in any way that you give it any authority, but becasue it demonstrates what the actual Catholic doctrine is.
Now, you make some interesting comments, though:
This was a turning point in our Lord’s ministry. Many of those claiming to be His disciples found this comment to be offensive. As long as He fed them with actual loaves and fishes (John 6:9), they were satisfied. When Christ declared Himself to be the bread of life they realized their meal ticket was over.
I agree with the first two sentences here, and metaphorically, with the last one, but I don't see that Jesus was ever running a soup line...please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
You then go on and say,
Most interesting, and problematic, for our Catholic friends who claim to take a “literal” translation are verses 64-65. The true disciples had no idea as to what our Lord was talking about but all they knew was that He alone could save them. Our Lord point blank asked the true disciples (after the others had left) if they wanted to leave. Where could they go as Peter puts it? As our Lord pointed out to them, they were saved because Christ had chosen them (except Judas alone remained of the unbelievers). The rest were only in it for the free meal. This is really one of the greatest passages of election of all time IMO. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist and is totally misinterpreted.
Again, I really don't see how you can get that interpretation out of that section of scripture. Yes, the true disciples were separated from the false. "Eat my flesh" "drink my blood" are pretty durned explicit and unambiguous. I am not certain how in the world you could manage to ignore those phrases. From that, your statement, It has nothing to do with the Eucharist and is totally misinterpreted, is clearly unsupported. No offense, but I cannot see how you can ignore that.
As to the section of scripture, you cited 1 Cor 11:23-29, but you only actually quoted through 11:23-11:26. The entire citation is:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
Of course, you should also refer to the previous chapter (v16): 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?
Yes, the Eucharist is a solemn memorial to the sacrifice of Christ. But it is more profound than a simple meal shared between friends...
Thank you for the constructive input to the thread HarleyD. I do sincerely appreciate it...
Amen
To a Jew who didn't really believe that Jesus was Lord, it would be a perversion of Passover.
-A8
Not so fast, Sky King.
Jesus then said, "THESE WORDS are SPIRIT and they are life."
This is where folks who don't accept transubstantiation have lots of reason to take a different stand.
No, the priest is like a placemarker for Christ, but isn't actually Christ.
LOL. None of the Calvinistic confessions is anywhere near as long and convoluted as the RCC catechism.
And unlike the RCC catechism, everything I posted in my comment, including Calvin's comments and the Heidelberg Catechism, was predicated on Scripture.
Anyone who actually reads the post can see that.
We are called to study the word of God so that we can preach it correctly...
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker" -- 2 Timothy 2:15-17"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
If something isn't founded on the word of God, such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, the praying to saints, the perpetual offering of the mass, purgatory, limbo, transubstantion, then it isn't worth very much at all.
It doesn't. Let's let the Bible speak for itself:
Hebrews 7:26-27 -- 26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
Tell me, where is the re-crucifixion of Christ authorized in Scripture. What part of "once for all" do catholics not understand?
Who would want to experience His crucifixion??? Other than the people that wanted Him dead???
The Apostles didn't want to experience Jesus' crucifixion, and they didn't...They all left...They wanted no part of the crucifixion...
That shows us that if your sacrifice was the real deal, and the Apostles were alive, they'd walk out of your church everytime you pulled out the wafers...
Peter wouldn't be caught dead in your church during one of your Masses...
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.