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.
Nothing new here, and i have dealt with it much (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord’s_Supper.html#Exegesis), i have responded to this much on FR, such as :
the way go get life in you, so that the Spirit can abide, is by believing the gospel. (Acts 10:43:-46; 15:8,9; Eph. 1:13) Supplementing what i just said, physical food feeding the spirit is contrary to what Scripture reveals, which is that hearing the word of God does so, as by faith comes, (Rm. 10:17) and by believing it souls are born again, (Jn. 1:18) as it is “the Spirit that giveth life.” John also says that Jesus words are to abide in Christians, (John 15:7) “and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit [not a wafer made flesh] which he hath given us.” (1Jn. 3:24)
Rather than allowing 6:63 to interpret what Jesus meant, which conforms to what John says elsewhere, you must try to wrangle eating literal food out of “the flesh profited nothing.” In short, v. 63 is “not a reference to a eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and the natural, as in John 3:6,” contrasting one with the other, with the Spirit resulting from believing the gospel.
And
It is Rome that explains the defining conclusion away, in which, after stating He would not even be there physically, He states, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63) Rome explains this away (the the NAB footnote on “Spirit . . . flesh:” says “probably not a reference to the eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and the natural, as in John 3:6) to disallow that this means spiritual consumption, like a Jesus lived by the Father, and which the rest of the Scripture concurs with. Thus Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Jn. 6:68.69) Rome tries to make this refer to Jesus words in Jn. 6, but nowhere does John or any other writer have eternal life being received by consuming the Lord’s supper. Instead, we have words such as in the next chapter,
“In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)” (John 7:37-39) And Scripture confirms this life is realized by becoming born again, such as in Acts 10:43ff.
And then in the next chapters we read,
“I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
“Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.” (John 9:35-38)
“And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. And many believed on him there.” (John 10:41-42)
“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.” (John 11:25-27)
As for losing disciples, those who left Him were those who had come for physical food, (Jn. 6:26) their minds being on what is below, and those who try to turn bread into Jesus might as well try to be physically born again. However, “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent,” (v. 29) and which, consistent with what is written, means those who believe the gospel message realize life, and live by His word. While this includes keeping the Lord’s supper, they get life by believing, and they way they live it out is by His word, of which the Lord’s supper is only an occasional (“as oft as ye do this”) part and is to help show this life of love for each other.
Yes, I believe what you wrote as well. Thank you for this post. Unfortunately it does appear some catholics do believe otherwise. But I am gaining a broader understanding of “why” they believe what they do and the resources which they rely on to encourage themselves to sustain those beliefs.
Good point. Everything about transubstantiation is transitory because the penalty for the sins which the eucharist is supposedly wiping away is re-instated when the person walks out the door of the church and sins again.
Sin/condemnation/cleansing/sin/condemnation/cleansing...
An endless cycle. No wonder Rome concocted the necessity for last rites -- the final absolution which apparently Christ was incapable of accomplishing on the cross.
Truth in jest....as far as I'm concerened. After I've been reading catholic history I've become all the more grateful for the reformation and those who stood against all which had come into the church God never intended to be there.
“Calvin makes a very interesting point in that he points out how the heresy of transubstantiation is really an attempt to recreate the Judaic model of temporary (insufficient) sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. It really goes back to the foundation of our faith, was the sacrifice Jesus Christ made for us at the Cross sufficient, or not.”
This is also supported by Rome’s fantasy of “Purgatory” which again effectively renders Christ’s death on the cross as insufficient as a ‘final purging’ is necessary before entering Heaven. All man-made, non-Biblical, cultish “tradition.”
It is all woven together wickedness.
Hoss
placemarker
If there is no death, there is no victim, there is no sacrifice, and there is no need for an altar.
So, if He doesn’t die, what are they doing up there?
Torturing Him?
AMEN!
“No wonder Rome concocted the necessity for last rites — the final absolution which apparently Christ was incapable of accomplishing on the cross.”
Don’t forget that even THAT is not enough — got go get scorched some before you can get into Heaven....
;)
Hoss
Yep...either Jesus “finished” what He was sent here to do or not...I can see no middle ground whatsoever.
If there is no death, there is no victim, there is no sacrifice, and there is no need for an altar.Exactly! No death, No blood, NO Sacrifice!
the definition of Immolate im·mo·lat·ed, im·mo·lat·ing, im·mo·lates
1. To kill as a sacrifice.
2. To kill (oneself) by fire.
3. To destroy. Clearly, by using "immolate"
Rome muddies the waters. Is Jesus sacrificed? Killed? Most say no. But what is meant by immolate? I think another magesterium is needed to clear up the previous magesteriums confusion. What are the benefit's of a magesterium again?
As a former Catholic, I don't recall ever hearing He was being killed over and over again. A perfect sacrifice only needs to occur once, not thousands of times every day.
It is unfortunate that a simple thanksgiving and memorial was turned into a superstition that doles out a temporary quanity of "grace" only by the magic hands of a "priest".
I was speaking of the Babylonian paganism There was also the rejection of the This was accompanied with Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
introduced at Nicea and Laodicea.
Holy Word of Elohim.
institutionalization of anti-semitism.
To know Roman Catholic history is EVERY reason TO be Protestant. Truth in jest....as far as I'm concerened. After I've been reading catholic history I've become all the more grateful for the reformation and those who stood against all which had come into the church God never intended to be there.
Yeah, I get a kick out of that quote. History is rife with proof that the Roman Church is not the "one true church".
Cyril and Rome can take the blame for the major split from the Oriental churches over Nestorianism.
Who can forget the 3 popes at once scandal.
The spanish inquisition? The Crusades?
The blatant use of forgeries by Rome, donation of Constantine, the decretals?
The split from the Orthodox churches?
Saint Bart's day massacre! "the Pope did grin" and ordered the bells to be rung and Te Dum be sung after hearing of the massacre!
The farce of Vatican I where Pius got himself coronated infallible by a rigged vote of pensioners living off his dime, causing ANOTHER split.
Just a tip of the iceburg.
Their mind is made up.
Don’t confuse them with the facts.
http://carm.org/mass-and-sacrifice-christ
According to the New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, vol 2, question 357, “The mass is the sacrifice of the new law in which Christ, through the Ministry of the priest, offers himself to God in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine. The mass is the sacrifice of Christ offered in a sacramental manner...the reality is the same but the appearances differ.” Question 358 asks “What is a sacrifice?” The answer given is “A sacrifice is the offering of a victim by a priest to God alone, and the destruction of it in some way to knowledge that he is the creator of all things.”
Even if I were to accept your premise (which is ludicrous, btw), one would have to accept a "conflation" of huge proportions in this, and every other European Crusade, not to mention the Eastern Crusades, North Africa, and the "mission fields" of South America (need I mention witch hunts?) in order to have a remote chance of coming in under my "hundreds of thousands" statement, which is the genesis of your ire.
To wit: In order for my statement to be false, even in this single crusade, one must accept that the death toll is less than one fifth of the accepted number.
As I said, the statement is kind.
What it did do, however, was to discredit the Church among the local population, both noble and peasant.
The Roman church bathed herself in blood and power for over 1200 years. What has discredited her is her own nature.
INDEED.
The usual despairing hook of vanity driven works righteousness.
DOES anyone know of the Vatican ending up with the best of the library at Alexandria before it was burned?
Have often wondered about that.
IIRC,
John Moore in this video series somewhere mentions that the Vatican ended up with the good stuff from the library in Alexandria before it was burned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6Ieca5utqo
It may have been DR MICHAEL HEISER IN HIS HYBRIDS NEPHILIUM SERIES . . .
DR MICHAEL HEISER LIST:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Michael+S.+Heiser&aq=f
Mike Heiser Genesis 6 hybrids, Sons of God, Nephilim 1 of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPtz-3mIyTw
A very important point - And necessary in order to clearly define who the "Judaizers" really are, and why.
“But he did step back from the actual presence of the Lord in the species in large part because he had rejected the authority of the sacerdotal priesthood and tried to place it totally in the saints gsthered.”
He rejected it because there was no warrant for it in the scripture. It is not an hereditary office of the Old Testament priesthood since that required priests to have first offered sacrifices for their sins before offering sacrifices for the community. The office of the Aaronic priesthood lost its significance when it became part of the state under David and Solomon. It became the focus of the prophets’ ire during the divided kingdom and New Testament times.
The prophets railed against an ex opera operato materialistic worship; a dead externalism in religious practice and mechanical routine in religious thought.
Isaiah 1:11-14, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.”
Amos 5:21-24, “I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.”
The “sacerdotal priesthood” is not an extension of the New Testament offices of Bishop, Deacon or elder since they required marriage, blamelessness, good behavior, and good reputation.
The “sacerdotal priesthood” and “ex opere operato” are concepts that were constructed during the Donatist controversy in order to remove the requirement of personal holiness from the priest and yet keep the authority in the office of the church. It placed the burden of worthiness on the recipient and absolved the priest of the responsibility for personal holiness in the handling of the office.
Those concepts are contrary to Peter’s statement in 1 Pet. 2:5, (”Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”) and 1 Pet. 2:9, (”But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:”), where Peter explains to the redeemed of the churches that they are a “holy priesthood” able to “offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”; the redeemed individual, not the professional clergy. Peter says that holiness of the person, not an office, was required in order to “offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”.
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.