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.
Secondly, I said again, Christ’s sacrifice has already happened in our time. He is not “being sacrificed”, he has already been sacrificed.
Awesome! You came to Jesus in just the way he wants us to, through his words of truth. I can’t think of a better reason for them.
Good summary, thanks.
In Hebrews 10:8-14 is a very clear pronouncement from God that when Christ died on the cross, that did away with all other sacrifices. It reads:
"Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt-offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the whichwill we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. "
This Scripture explicitly says certain things. It says (a) "Sacrifice and offering and burnt-offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law." (b) He expressly says that He did away with the old sacrifices to establish a second. (c) And then He expressly says that the offering of Jesus Christ "once for all" settles the whole matter of sin. Again, He says, "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." When Jesus had paid for all sins and offered the last sacrifice which settled things forever, then He sat down because His sacrificial work was done. (d) There is no need for further sacrifice, "for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified," that is, them that are set apart for God by the blood of Christ.
Then in the following verses the Lord reminds us of the promise in the Old Testament that He would make a new covenant with men, that He would put the law in their hearts and minds, and He says: "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin" (Heb. 10:17, 18).
Now notice the one grand summing-up statement: "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." When one has trusted Christ and had his sins forgiven, then "there is no more offering for sin," no more animal sacrifices, no more of any other kind of sacrifices.
So to make the mass a sacrifice, to claim that in the mass Jesus is sacrificed again and again, that the bread becomes His body, that the wine becomes His blood, and that there is saving virtue in this sacrifice-that is a blasphemous rejection of the Bible in favor of traditions of men. That is a false religion, not the Christian religion. Thus Roman Catholic friends, however good their intentions, have made in vain the commandments of God by their traditions.
There is not a single hint anywhere in the entire New Testament that New Testament Christians had any kind of sacrifices. The Lord's Supper was a memorial supper, a simple object lesson, a spiritual reminder that Christ had died for us and we are saved by His blood, and a simple and sweet reminder to all Christians that we belong to God and ought to love Him and serve Him and enter into His death. There is not a single hint in the entire Bible that there was any saving virtue in the communion. There is no hint that anybody ever was invited to take the communion or the Lord's Supper in Bible times except as he had already found peace with God and was already forgiven and saved.
Particularly a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant, self-serving, bureaucratic, power-mongering magicsterical theological elite committees.
LOL INDEED.
Wow, wow, wow. Thanks, Quix, you said,
= = =
Well I’ve been posting more than a line or two of their doctrines and still makes no difference to them what their own stuff is saying. Astounding denial! Most recently I’m being told I ‘do not grasp their History’, which I suspect is yet again a denial and avoidance to see what’s so clearly presented by their own doctrines.
As a psychologist . . . I rate their !!!!DENIAL!!!! on a par with that of the alcoholic bloke court ordered into our program on an 8th or 9th DUI. On one of his earlier DUI’s he’d been hospitalized and his life hanging. On another of his earlier DUI’s a mother and her kids were hospitalized. The first words out of his mouth when it came time for him to introduce himself were:
“I don’t need to be here.
I don’t have an alcohol problem!”
Only with RC’s of the Vatican AIWSOTARM edifice, it’s:
“WE DON’T HAVE A PAGAN PROBLEM!”
While continuing to
24/7/365
PAGAN SPEW! PAGAN SPEW! PAGAN SPEW!
And when we document it from their own official writings,
They drag out their Vatican AIWSOTARM DAFFYNITIONARY and call black, white; white, black; up, down; left, right; good evil and evil good.
THEN they act incredulous and all prissy and self-righteous about how Proddys just DON’T GET IT.
MAY GOD have mercy and PREVENT us from !EVER! GETTING such spiritually hazardous, unBiblical, corrosive, destructive, horse feathers from hell!
May all of good heart seriously seeking God be delivered out of such a maze of horrors.
= = =
End quote, thanks Quix, brilliant, may the Lord deliver all those who call on HIS NAME.
imho,
Either such a person hits absolute rock bottom in utter brokeness and despair—abandoning ALL their personal opinions—even about Scripture and theology—sufficiently to be attentive to WHATEVER HOLY SPIRIT AND HOLY SPIRIT ALONE has to say
or
somehow, Holy Spirit in His sovereign power chooses to break through their defenses, perhaps due to prayers of others who love the person.
Quix, you and others have spent years attempting to let the truth be seen and heard here on FR. Trying to reason with some I’m afraid is a waste of breath...they do not want to know the truth. The walls they out up time and again indicates they are content to remain behind them. What say you?
OF COURSE you are correct. HOWEVER, there are RC lurkers considering escaping the trap of the Vatican AIWSOTARM and others considering becoming RC’s who will benefit from such pontifications.
Hey all y’all . . .
I realize Alamo-Girl’s preferred font is all nice and clean, lean and pretty . . .
However, one of the reasons she uses it is to make it easy to scroll through and find her own posts.
GIVEN that she posts substantive posts rarely, I’d love to make it easy for her to navigate the Rel Forum in her preferred ways in the hopes that she might post more often.
I realize it’s a free font freely available to one and all . . . just stating MY preference about her preference.
There are lots of other fonts to use instead of her preferred one.
Am humbled by your kind affirmation.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
BLESSED BE THE WORD OF THE LORD.
BLESSED BE THE WAYS OF THE LORD.
BLESSED BE THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB.
HHHHMMMMMMMMMMM maybe it’s clicked into that font as a default . . . hmmmmm Not sure what’s going on with that.
Exactly...and they do use the word re-sacrifice more often than not. But what else can they actually call it when the belief is Christ is there in the bread and wine...certainly isn't a rememberance to them...even when you read what their memebership states they believe they are "consuming Christ himself." Just so hard accepting people believe this....more than hard.
Then tell me why your doctrines state that receiving the Eucharist is "salvific"? Why does a person's eternal state of their soul rely on attending Mass specifically with the intent of receiving the Eucharist? And why is missing Mass considered a grave sin?
It was a good post. It bore repeating. Twice. LUB
Yes, you did say that in so many words but then I can say what about the effects of inter-dimensional space on the flow of time as it is compressed around events? So what? Does either have anything to do with what the Scriptures say? No. Words strung together without meaning and no more.
Your posts 1096 and 1097 were lifted from other websites.
You are putting Free Republic at risk of copyright infringement with your continuing plagiarism.
Is this intentional? Should JR be notified of this pattern?
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.