That would explain it. Seems like Paul persistently gets this treatment from at least the Rabid Clique RC's.
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.
So let’s just add some more to Trent, Vatican 11...with a bit of your catechism as well...all of which continue to say the same thing....Christ is sacrificed AGAIN!
A Catholic mass is by definition the sacrifice of Christ.... Catechism 1322, 1338.
The Baltimore Catechism Cofradía edition 1949 says,.......
“Christ gives us his own body and blood in the holy Eucharist, first, to be offered as a sacrifice in commemoration of all time TO RENEW THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS”......... Catechism 356.
While the Catholic catechisms cite the passages that speak of Christ to die once, but they ALSO teach that the priest miraculously transforms the bread and wine into the body of Christ and that JESUS IS SACRIFICED AGAIN ,The blood is real blood.... (that seems to know wine and wine of the Mass, but is actually the blood of Christ.”
INDEED.
The convoluted dogma and practices of
The Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology And Reality Mangling clomps along spewing irrational UnBiblical garbage far and wide . . . for centuries . . .
No wonder only 9% believe some of the key dogma.
Yet they pretend that 1.2 billion are in lock-step unity with one another.
What a brazen farce.
The trouble is that what you believe, and what they believed are polar opposites.
Yep. The trajectory of Rome is pagan error upon error. Centuries of them. It’s no coincidence we’ve come to the point where Rome now tries to tell people that Mary is a co-redeemer and its deviant priestcraft is innocent, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
You have to remove your papist glasses to understand God’s word.
Yep. They need to pray that God replaces those specs with with lens of the Holy Spirit so they can read and understand the word of God.
INDEED.
Which is EXACTLY what they do with Scripture. Exactly.
Rome ALWAYS has an answer for everything. It’s just the wrong answer.
Yup.
[24] For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? [25] But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience.Hope concerns things that are possible but not certain
Yes. Thank you.
Seems that the vast majority of Catholics, even here on FR, are pretty out of touch with what they claim their own church fathers wrote.
At least the parts that prove them wrong.
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:
Only with RC's of the Vatican AIWSOTARM edifice, it's:
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.
INDEED.
That would explain it. Seems like Paul persistently gets this treatment from at least the Rabid Clique RC's.
This is the refuge of those that can't stand on Scripture. These early theologians are elevated in stature and are supposedly more authoritative than any one else, either because they were in close proximity to the Apostles, or because their church says so. Obviously proximity does not indicate truth. Judas was close to Jesus and he got it terribly wrong. Also, the declaration from their church that these theologians are "special" also falls away because they only support those that are helpful to them.
It really always goes back to the one source the RC's don't want to stand on, Scripture. Any understanding has to be consistent with and evidenced in Scripture. I really could care less what some guy said later, or some council, if I can't find it in Scripture.
Thanks
So, Jesus says that He is the Bread of Life, and yet I don't see ANYONE claiming that He is made of wheat or dough.
John 6:28-40 28Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." 30So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."
35Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
Likewise, Jesus said that whoever eats His flesh and blood will live forever, but neither do the RC's take that to be literal either. Ooops, all of a sudden, it's not. Catholics die every day around the world. I see none living forever. I don't see any never being hungry or thirsty again. If we are to eat His literal, physical flesh and blood because that's what He is referring to, the consequences then must also be literal and physical.
It's disingenuous to switch interpretation in the middle of passages to make them say what you want to support your favorite doctrine.
John 6:47-58 47Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
And just so that there's no confusion as to what Jesus meant, He tells us here, at the end of the passage, again, a verse Catholics gloss over, take not literally, or just outright ignore.
John 6:61-63 61But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
-Tradition good; even as it changes
-Paul bad
-Church fathers good
-Scripture is useful only when it can be contorted to support the church fathers, otherwise ignore it,
especially the writings Paul.
And THEN they think that some sprinkles of 'holy' water here; some genuflecting there; a few layers of White Hankys; a few idol toe kisses here; a few bead fondlings there . . .
And all will be 'right with God.'
Work's based pseudo-righteousness just doesn't cut it. Never has. It's always been a matter of THE HEART, with God.
ouch....
Thank you.
| Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is concluded as an event, but through the Holy Spirit it continues in time sacramentally and in eternity mystically. This insight provides the key to understanding John’s heavenly vision of the resurrected Jesus, who appeared as "a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered" (Rev. 5:6). While his act of physical death will never be repeated, Jesus’ act of total self-giving to the Father for us (Rom. 8:32) continues eternally in Love—that is, the Holy Spirit. |
This is the refuge of those that can’t stand on Scripture. These early theologians are elevated in stature and are supposedly more authoritative than any one else, either because they were in close proximity to the Apostles, or because their church says so. Obviously proximity does not indicate truth. Judas was close to Jesus and he got it terribly wrong. Also, the declaration from their church that these theologians are “special” also falls away because they only support those that are helpful to them.
It really always goes back to the one source the RC’s don’t want to stand on, Scripture. Any understanding has to be consistent with and evidenced in Scripture. I really could care less what some guy said later, or some council, if I can’t find it in Scripture.
INDEED.
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.