It is commendable that you read through forty-eight paragraphs of that babble (although I noticed there's seventy-six altogether with eighty-two parallel texts to wade through in direct contravention of Scripture) to help us understand the error involved.
Proverbs 30:3-6 I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy. Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
When I first heard about the doctrine of transubstantiation (around the age where you start looking up words like antidisestablishmentarianism and floccinaucinihilipilification, strangely both relevant in the present context) I'd thought to myself, having learned that speaking to adults was pointless, it could signify a process
.—
.otherwise known as digestion
.—
.whereby the food one ate became absorbed into the vital tissues very much along the lines of I Corinthians chapter 12.
I Corinthians 12: 12-14, 26-27 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.….And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
It turned out that they were instead using utter crackpottery in a context devoid of meaning for anyone who'd read The Bible (as I had) or had not been indoctrinated into their hocus-pocus.
OK, that was my understanding as a child. In that encyclical the point of indoctrination is explicit, from paragraph 31:
Quote:
31. But there is something else that We would like to add that is very helpful in shedding light on the mystery of the Church; We mean the fact that the whole Church plays the role of priest and victim along with Christ, offering the Sacrifice of the Mass and itself completely offered in it. The Fathers of the Church taught this wondrous doctrine. (24) A few years ago Our predecessor of happy memory, Pius XII, explained it. (25) And only recently the Second Vatican Council reiterated it in its Constitution on the Church, in dealing with the people of God. (26) To be sure, the distinction between the universal priesthood and the hierarchical priesthood is something essential and not just a matter of degree, and it has to be maintained in a proper way. (27) Yet We cannot help being filled with an earnest desire to see this teaching explained over and over until it takes deep root in the hearts of the faithful. For it is a most effective means of fostering devotion to the Eucharist, of extolling the dignity of all the faithful, and of spurring them on to reach the heights of sanctity, which means the total and generous offering of oneself to the service of the Divine Majesty.
(24) Cf. St. Augustine, City ot God, X, 6; PL 42.284.
(25) Cf. Encyclical letter Mediator Dei; AAS XXXIX (1947), 552.
(26) Cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, c. 2, 11; AAS LVII (1965), 15 [Cf. TPS v. 10, p. 366.].
(27) Cf. ibid., c. 2, n. 10; AAS LVII (1965), 14 [Cf. TPS v. 10, p. 365-366.].
|
There is a whole lot of other nonsense probably only intelligible to people who've had it rammed lifelong down their throats (as per the portion I've highlighted in paragraph 31) and without wishing to dwell on blatant heresy I'll simply include paragraph 49, highlighting the salient clause.
Quote:
49. St. John Chrysostom insists upon the same point with these words: "It is not man who makes what is put before him the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words, but their power and grace are from God. This is my Body, he says, and these words transform what lies before him." (53)
(53) Homily on Judas' betrayal, 1.6; PG 49.380; cf. Homily on Matthew 82.5; PG 58.744.
|
This is what enables us to infer the origins of Romish and all similar cults. The idea of "priests" standing in for whatever they think they're worshipping is a continuation of what went before in assorted temples of classical deities previously existing. The central tenet of Christianity is that no such function is necessary, an idea as challenging to priests of Zeus and Aphrodite as it was to the Pharisees and Sadducees – all of whom were lined up at the gravy train, trotters in the trough and little tails a-wiggling. That challenge is explicitly set out in The New Testament together with the idea that no such function should exist in the future. It's even referred to in the hocus-pocus of paragraph 31, albeit in such a way as to negate the Christian message and preserve a rôle for bogus priests to reinforce their deceptions by indoctrination and lies.
Just as they always had.
But in that case, everything a Christian ate would become the Body of Christ. He paid the price once, not temporarily, as The Bible explains. All that's necessary is to read it.
Hebrews 10:11-14 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.