Real Presence and the Jerusalem Council

  • Thread starter Thread starter khanathor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

khanathor

Guest
Hey everyone,

I searched for a while looking for people who address this issue in the forums. Maybe I’m just bad a searching. Anyway, on to the question:

I believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. One of the most common objections I hear from protestant fundamentalists is that the idea of drinking the blood of Christ is in opposition to the ruling in Acts 15 that Christians should abstain from drinking blood. “Why,” they ask, “would the apostles advise people to abstain from eating blood if doing so were required in the Lord’s Supper?” Now, in my opinion, the motive of the apostles in making that ruling was to discourage gentiles from returning to the pagan idol worship/sacrifice from which they came, and that makes the issue of the Eucharist entirely separate. But I was wondering what some of your thoughts were on this. How would you answer this objection?

Thanks,
Khanathor
 
RE: Acts 15:20

“According to the Council of Florence in 1442, the apostolic decree was only a temporary measure to facilitate unity among Jews and Gentiles in the early Church. The binding force of its food restrictions was relaxed once the ethnic circumstances that made them necessary passed away.” Ignatius Catholic Study Bible;commentary by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch; Ignatius Press; San Francisco; 2002
From A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture; Thomas Nelson Publishers……

“Blood was recognized to be the seat of life, and therefore something sacred and reserved to God. Even when not involved in sacrifice, the blood of an animal could not be consumed but must be poured out on the ground (Dt 12:16, etc). The prohibition of blood became one of the dietary laws of the Mosaic code, but because of its inclusion within the provisions of this covenant with Noah the later Jews considered it to be binding on all mankind. Hence the concession made to their feelings in the regulation imposed on Gentile Christians living in a Jewish environment according to Acts 15:20, 29. From this apostolic precedent, the custom of abstaining from blood was observed in some parts of the early Church.” 158b

“……the prohibition of eating blood lasted until the end of the second century (Tert. Apol. 9:13).” 833i

From the Council of Florence, Session 11 (1442)…

“It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.”
Protestants misunderstand the Eucharist. We do not munch on Christ’s toe or drink His Type AB blood. The substance of the consecrated Bread and Wine become the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. The accidents – i.e., the appearances – of the elements remain. But it is this supernatural substance (essence, reality) of God’s own Divine Life that we receive under the appearances of Bread and Wine. Transubstantiation means a change ‘across substances.’ Substance is that quality, that essence, that ultimate reality of what a thing is. in and of itself. When Christ said “This Is My Body” the Bread was no longer Bread, though it looked like bread; and “This Is My Blood,” the Wine was no longer Wine, though it looked like wine. In actuality, they both were His own Body and Blood, since Christ was and is alive, and His Body and Blood cannot be separated.

Jim Dandy
 
Protestants misunderstand the Eucharist. We do not munch on Christ’s toe or drink His Type AB blood. The substance of the consecrated Bread and Wine become the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. The accidents – i.e., the appearances – of the elements remain. But it is this supernatural substance (essence, reality) of God’s own Divine Life that we receive under the appearances of Bread and Wine. Transubstantiation means a change ‘across substances.’ Substance is that quality, that essence, that ultimate reality of what a thing is. in and of itself. When Christ said “This Is My Body” the Bread was no longer Bread, though it looked like bread; and “This Is My Blood,” the Wine was no longer Wine, though it looked like wine. In actuality, they both were His own Body and Blood, since Christ was and is alive, and His Body and Blood cannot be separated.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply, Jim Dandy. I agree that protestants by and large misunderstand the Eucharist. I wonder if much of the reason is their extreme displeasure with any mysteries of God. I’m not sure I see the logic of your argument though. You talk about the substances or essences of the bread and wine changing, but you imply that this should not put before our mind the gritty physicality of Christ’s body and blood. But if I recall my Aristotle and Aquinas correctly, the essence of a thing is what makes it what it is. Blood is not blood because it is a red liquid, A or B. The accidents don’t make it what it is. Being in the form of a toe is not what makes flesh flesh. As to essences being supernatural, I’m not entirely sure on that one. Even though they are perceived through the intellect, I don’t know if that qualifies them as supernatural. I’m sure Aquinas would agree with Aristotle in that essences (or forms) only exist in particulars from which they can be abstracted. But I will not pursue that line any further, as I am not knowledgeable enough in metaphysics.

Your statement, to me, reads like this: “We aren’t eating and drinking REAL meat and potatoes blood. Instead the essences of the bread and wine are changed into real flesh and blood (the essences of flesh and blood).”

In other words, I think you’re making more of the accidents of flesh and blood than the average protestant. I think you’re also make more of the accidents than James did when he declared the prohibition. That is, after all, how language works. A word refers to the concept or essence of a thing, not the accidents. So when James said, “Do not eat blood,” we can assume he was talking about real blood, that which has the essence of blood.

Let me again, restate that I affirm the real presence. I just find your philosophical explanation lacking, and this question of Acts 15 has been intriguing to me for quite some time, as many of my friends are devout protestant fundamentalists.

Thanks for your help,
Khanathor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top