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.
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.
What an indictment of the Roman Catholic church.
No offense, but please take me off your ping list. It’s a waste of my time to read people trying to persuade themselves that they know what I think better than I do.
The Donatist controversy arose from the refusal of many to forgive priests—and others— who had apostatized during persecution. It ignores the simple fact is that the man who is a coward today may be a hero tomorrow. Anyone who has been in combat knows this. It also had to do with Punic rejection of Latin authority. Faith and culture became so intertwined that Augustine, who first sought to dialogue with the Donatists finally despaired and turned to the Roman governor to blunt the violent spirit of the locals. It was not among his most admirable decisions and proved conterproductive. Not only did the natives welcome the Vandals but centuries later they welcomed the Muslims.
As for the lack of warrant in the Scripture, that assumes that you know exactly what was in the mind of the authors of the letters. Clearly Peter does not resemble a renaissance pope nor Timothy a 15th century bishop. But I don’t HAVE to picture the pope this way either. The last three popes have discarded all the Constantinian imagery. The big difference in style between Billy Graham and John Paul II was that Billy wore a business suit. The real different, of course, is the authority that John Paul claimed. And this is our point of dispute. You reject the idea of a development of doctrine. I accept it, and I also accept the idea that authority takes on different styles throughout history. I can see the foreshadowing of the forms of the later priesthood in the New Testament record. Therefore you and I read “Hebrews”very different. I believe in the Apostolic succession, of a very human line of succession of authority. I believe in hierarchy.
The Lord Jesus commissioned certain men who in turn commissioned others down to this day. Christ, the High priest, has his acolytes—priests and deacons in the Temple (the Church). Their authority comes from him, not the congregation.
I don’t have you on any list.
Sometimes I’m interested in your opinion. So I ping you.
I still value and treasure you as a Bro.
And, I thought you knew that I virtually never include you in my thoughts and opinions about the beliefs and practices of the Rabid Clique types.
You may not be an RC Charismatic but I think of you in much the same terms as I think of them.
In this particular case . . .
I thought that you might be one of the few RC’s I knew who had sufficient Vatican related contacts and could check up on the assertion that the Vatican had ended up with the vast bulk of the better items from the Great Library at Alexandria before it was burned.
Given your literary interests, I also thought it would be of interest to you.
Are you well in your body these days?
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.
Great point! I read about that in the following link which "explains" that according to Rome, the alchemy of transubstantiation is not "invalidated" by the priest's sinful nature or behavior, but it is "invalidated" by using the wrong ingredients, i.e. handing out non-wheat wafers or "sweet rolls."
Apparently God is a demanding chef who follows the Food Channel.
From THE AMAZING GIFT OF THE PRIESTHOOD...
Most Catholics seem to know that mortal sin on the soul of the priest does not render the Sacraments he administers invalid. But it may come as a surprise to many Catholics that the validity of the Sacraments, let us say the Mass, also does not depend essentially on the faith of the priest who offers the Mass. Thus, Masses offered by heretical priests, by schismatics, by Catholic priests who are plagued by doubts or who have false ideas about the Real Presence or transubstantiation, can be and probably usually are valid Masses. They must of course use the correct words of consecration, use wheat bread and wine made from grapes...""...A Mass can be invalid for a number of reasons (we presuppose that the priest has been validly ordained): 1) because of a defect in the matter, for example, using sweet rolls instead of bread made only from wheat flour and water; 2) because of a defect in the form, for example, changing the words “This is my body” or “This is the cup of my blood” into something else...
lol. Catch that? According to Rome, it doesn't matter if the Lord's Supper is celebrated by a non-believer, but God help them if the priest chants the wrong spell, ah, I mean uses "the wrong words" or employs pumpernickel in place of whole wheat.
Regarding your tag, who are the "suffering souls" and where are they?
LOL!!!! That bears repeating... :O)
God demands absolute perfect diction, don't you know. Don't break the circle! Think of all those poor saps shocked to find themselves holed up in Purgatory, because their priest spoke with a lisp. It's like one of those Sherwood Schwartz sitcom episodes, where the main characters find out they aren't really married, because they heard on the radio that their minister's credentials may have been invalid!
Don’t give my husband any ideas. 8~)
It is all woven together wickedness.
AMEN! "Wickedness."
In high places and in very low places.
Jeepers, Quix, I'm a little amazed by that statement. The Vatican wasn't even around when the great Library of Alexandria was burned. By Julius Caesar, no less, in 48 B.C....
Right.
I forget the route the materials purportedly took to reach the Vatican.
It was plausible. I just have never heard of any confirmation.
And I was certainly rusty on the timeline.
Certainly they did not go directly to a non-existent organization.
IIRC, the Roman government held them for a long time.
Then when Rome was somehow threatened, the materials were transferred to the Vatican . . . I think that’s how the story goes.
Exactly! Thanks for your post. This is why, as a Catholic, I was always hopeful that when I died it was right after Saturday confession and Sunday morning Mass. I though this would be the ideal time, since I wouldn't have committed any major sins between those times.
How much I praise the Lord that he allowed me to see the truth of redemption in Jesus Christ by grace through faith and that he gives to us eternal life never to cast us out or lose us.
Made me think of a chicken that, in the old days, got plucked and then you had to singe off the remaining feathers before she was clean enough to be cooked. ;o)
I think if they are going to count themselves as part of the "Church" that wrote the Bible and "gave" it to the world, then they must also accept being part of the atrocities as well.
That bears repeating. It's ALL part of their history. The good as well as the bad.
You can't own the good and sweep the bad under the rug and expect people to not be fooled by it.
Hmmm. That just could be the origins of that “tradition” — whodathunkit!
Also — thanks for the fix on the typo; the iPhone keyboard is kinda tiny.
:D
Hoss
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.