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.
I understand that it does . . .
. . . . for you folks.
You keep on repeating that same nonsense, as though the repetititon makes it become true.
But it makes Christ a liar.
.
What a stretch. Catholicism is wrong if that's what it teaches you about why Judas fell away. There is NO Scriptural support for that contention. Judas' problem started long before the Last Supper.
John 12:1-8 1Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. 3 Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, 5"Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" 6He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7Jesus said, "Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. 8For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."
As far as the Last Supper, there is NOTHING that indicates that his *rejection* of the teaching of Jesus about the meaning of the Passover bread and cup played a role in his falling away. Read the passage in John 13.
John 13:21-30 21After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” 22The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. 23One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table close to Jesus,e 24so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. 25So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, “Lord, who is it?” 26Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” 28Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. 30So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.
There's a twofold problem here.
One is that there is no way that one can say this was the same action as the Last Supper. It is simply not supported by the passage.
The other is, if it IS, and this was the the Eucharist that Judas partook of, that means that it did not give him eternal life, which Catholics claim happens when you take communion.
On the contrary, it would demonstrate that partaking of communion, which the Catholics call the euchrist, is of no consequence at all spiritually.
Judas' views were similar to those who deny the REAL presence, namely "how is it possible? Is He asking us to become cannibals? This can't be true" and that lead to Judas betraying Christ.
Where does Judas ask that? Prove it.
If anything, Judas' story holds as an example of those who deny the Eucharist.
Prove that as well.
Scripture for both of those would be nice.
We have time. We'll wait.
But Catholics are so conditioned to accept and believe what *the church* tells them, that they can look at it, shrug their shoulders, and say something like, *Well, that's just one of those mysteries of the faith. We'll never understand it here.* when confronted with two diametrically opposed statements which are impossible to both be true.
Jesus died (past tense), rose (again past tense) and is presently seated at the right hand of the Father.
Now, if the mass is not a resacrifice of Christ, then the sacrifice must still be continuing.
That means that either He has not died yet, thereby obtaining our redemption as there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
Or that He has not risen yet, thereby conquering death.
Either Scripture is spreading lies about that, or it happened.
Where in Scripture does it state that the sacrifice of Jesus is continuing outside of time?
>> “but it illustrates how shocking Jesus’ words were to His listeners when he said that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink. AND he repeated this twice, not saying “this is a metaphor” even after they left.” <<
.
Was that statement deliberate deception, or just faulty memory?
Here is what Jesus really said:
[63] “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”
The entire use of the term ‘bread’ in chapter six is metaphorical; he called himself the Bread as he stood there before them in the flesh; how mush more would one need to understand?
[28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
[29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
[33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
[34] Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
[35] And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
After taking communion, do you never need to eat again? or do you become hungry later in the day?
After drinking the cup, do you never need to drink again? Or are you thirsty a few hours later?
[40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Nowhere in God’s word is there a clearer statement of what the path of salvation is; why do you not believe it?
Good ole Iggy...It's been proven that tons of Iggy's writings are FAKE...Yet you continue to use those FAKE writings as a source of truth to justify your religion...
That makes you even less credible in my eyes that Iggy's FAKE history...
That's because they were all Jew...No Gentiles allowed...You wouldn't have been allowed in that church either...
Gentiles were not allowed into the Jewish temples...
When God revealed the Gospel of the Grace of God to Paul and took on the Gentiles as adopted Sons, they were not allowed into the Jewish Synagogues...They (the church) met and worshiped in each other houses and no doubt in fields, garagesm warehouses and storefronts...
The fact is, Baptist and many non Catholic churches are modeled after the very scripture that is read in those churches...
However, the Vatican makes it clear where they stand time and again despite those among who differ...or attempt to soften the meaning of what is otherwise clearly stated.
No where does Christ mention “ to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross by “consuming Him” in the manner in which catholics are practicing this......it's barbaric imo no matter how or who presents it otherwise, that catholics are actually ‘eating Christ’(as you stated in your post...”in which Christ is eaten”)..... since the claim is elements are somehow “mysteriously” changed to His real blood and body.
To remember Christ's great price He paid for our redemption is one thing...to state, as the Vatican does, that we “eat Him “....thru the elements... is just plain wrong in every way...... To state that practicing this rite unites us to Him in that manner flys in the face of what has already been accomplished by His Spirit's constant abiding is us from the moment of our salvation....with the promise He will never leave us.
The Christ I know has RISEN. He indwells us via His Spirit from the moment we are saved. We are “complete” in Him and there is no need whatsoever to somehow mystically bring Him down from heaven and take him in again thru re-sacrificing him on the alter as catholics depict this.
840 posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:43:20 AM by mitch5501
What I'm seeing is what they post supports their own belief and their own “translation” of whatever author supports their belief best. They will find fault ,always, with authors that oppose their belief...even when it's the Vatican stating so.
This is what happens when men look to men instead of the scriptures as the final authority. These threads are consistent at revealing the confusion among catholics themselves.
There you go again, repeating that same deception as though repetition creates truth.
No... The Holy Spirit within each believer is what makes them one in Christ. We are each His from the moment of our salvation.
Amen!
| Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated.Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal. Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Revelations 5:6). For all eternity i.e. outside time He, who is out of time is appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us. |
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.