(see below for an illustration of the Romanist scheme of Salvation)
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.
That’s what happen when a committee designs a building.
***read what Augustine said about the Catholic Church.***
FWIW I am pretty sure Augustine would have sang a different tune had he seen what the Catholic Church became by the time of the Reformation.
Oh, read what Augustine said about predestination.
I beg to differ.
It’s government work.
Fixed it.
Rather than just letting you spout your usual disdain for everything "16th century", why don't we actually discuss which completely brand new, never before believed doctrines you mean. Would that be something you might be interested in doing, or do you just wanna have fun slamming the Reformation? Go ahead, your turn.
agreed.
i have and so has the whole Church. You do know he was given the title “Doctor of the Church” and is called the “Doctor of Grace” Kinda of hard to say Catholics teach salvation by works and yet believe Catholics accept Augustine!
Can’t be! It seems to function.
It is not, therefore, true, as some affirm that we say, and as that correspondent of yours ventures moreover to write, that “all are forced into sin,” as if they were unwilling, “by the necessity of their flesh;” but if they are already of the age to use the choice of their own mind, they are both retained in sin by their own will, and by their own will are hurried along from sin to sin. For even he who persuades and deceives does not act in them, except that they may commit sin by their will, either by ignorance of the truth or by delight in iniquity, or by both evils,—as well of blindness as of weakness. But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil,—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. For “everything which is not of faith is sin.” (Rom. xiv. 23). And thus the good will which withdraws itself from sin is faithful, because the just lives by faith. (Hab. ii. 4). And it pertains to faith to believe on Christ. And no man can believe on Christ—that is, come to Him—unless it be given to him. (Rom. i. 17). No man, therefore, can have a righteous will, unless, with no foregoing merits, he has received the true, that is, the gratuitous grace from above. (Augustine, A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 1, Chap. 7)
where have you been, this thread is about “transubstantiation”. i know you don’t like history, but i thank God some people may be reading Church History for the first time and then may actually think, where was my church for the first 1,500 years?
no comment on Augustine’s beliefs listed in #1016? this man is a Christian in your eyes?
But you might want to rethink using it because to the Jews of the day, their beliefs were thousands of years old and Jesus and His Apostles teachings were brand new.
Absolute Truth but brand new.
absolutely! to even ask the question, is further proof you have no clue what the Church teaches. oh, that’s right, Catholics teach we are saved by our “good works”, right?
“i’ll follow 1st century tradition, believed for 2,000 years. you go ahead and follow 16th century tradition, believed for almost 500 years.”
You go right ahead; I don’t believe in ‘tradition’ no matter the century; I believe in Christ, and him crucified for our sins, risen, and coming again.
You take men, I’ll take God’s Word.
Hoss
Of course. You stumbled on the key.
*seems to*
FOTFLOL!!!
i believe that as well! we agree! but i also believe Jesus has His Body on earth, The Church, and He gave it authority. using that authority, The Church set the NT canon, which you accept, so we also agree on Catholic Sacred Tradition! Without the Church, you wouldn’t have the Word of God!
yes, but the difference is the Jews rejected true Divine Revelation, the Reformers were bringing forth new doctrines unheard of to the Church up to that point. you don’t believe what the Reformers taught was new Divine Revelation, such as what St Paul produced do you?
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.