Belief in the Real Presence
I was talking today with friends about how hurt we felt when we go to Church on Sunday into a congregation where children are running around, adults are involved in loud discussions, and very few are acknowledging the physical presence among them of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. In the days in which I grew up the presence of Jesus in the Tabernacle at the centre of the altar called us to prayer, and preparation for the Mass that was to follow. For if the consecrated host is not Jesus then there is little point to the Mass, we are just at a service of praise and calling the host Jesus is merely symbolic. This is the opinion of the majority of Protestants, but being Catholic should be different.
Difficulties entered the Church when the Protestant version of Authority and the Bible was introduced. Whereas for two thousand years it was scripture and tradition, tradition meaning the teachings passed down from the apostles and their successors, or the Fathers of the Church, as we call them, this particular teaching was ignored very recently. And all the confusion in the Church today is caused by this ignored testimony of the Fathers. The Authority of the Church was attacked and undermined.
So when we read the story of the Last Supper and Jesus saying "Take and eat all of this, for this is My Body" a discussion takes place as to what Jesus really meant. And even in the Catholic Church there are multiple explanations. But surely we must ask the obvious question which we ignore, "What did the Gospel writer believe when he wrote those words of Jesus. And it is not difficult to find what he and the other disciples of his time believed. And when we find what they believed then that is the meaning of the text.
So let us go to the Fathers. What did they believe? A Protestant scholar J.N.D Kelly writes in his book EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 'Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was unquestionably realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as the Saviors Body and Blood'
Tertullian writes ".the converted pagan feeds on the Lord's body, that is on the Eucharist The realism of his argument comes to light based on the intimate relationship between body and soul, as in Baptism when the body is washed by water so as to cleanse the soul, so in the Eucharist the flesh feeds upon the Body and Blood of Christ so that the soul may be filled with God.
There are many testimonies written like this by St Ignatius of Antioch, St Hypollitus, St Justin Martyr, and many others all affirming their belief that the Eucharist was the flesh of Jesus. Now were you to ask the early Disciples to explain their beliefs in the Eucharist the only answer you would have received is "Jesus said so" Do you remember John 6 when Jesus told the crowd that unless you eat my Body ad drink my blood you cannot have life in you. Many turn away in disgust. Jesus then turns to his disciples "Will you also leave?". And what did the disciples reply. Was it "Of course not Jesus we understand every word" No the reply was a confused "Lord, to whom shall we turn for you have the words of eternal life" They did not need the theology of St Thomas Aquinas, for they were people of Faith. Are we people of Faith?
Difficulties entered the Church when the Protestant version of Authority and the Bible was introduced. Whereas for two thousand years it was scripture and tradition, tradition meaning the teachings passed down from the apostles and their successors, or the Fathers of the Church, as we call them, this particular teaching was ignored very recently. And all the confusion in the Church today is caused by this ignored testimony of the Fathers. The Authority of the Church was attacked and undermined.
So when we read the story of the Last Supper and Jesus saying "Take and eat all of this, for this is My Body" a discussion takes place as to what Jesus really meant. And even in the Catholic Church there are multiple explanations. But surely we must ask the obvious question which we ignore, "What did the Gospel writer believe when he wrote those words of Jesus. And it is not difficult to find what he and the other disciples of his time believed. And when we find what they believed then that is the meaning of the text.
So let us go to the Fathers. What did they believe? A Protestant scholar J.N.D Kelly writes in his book EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 'Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was unquestionably realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as the Saviors Body and Blood'
Tertullian writes ".the converted pagan feeds on the Lord's body, that is on the Eucharist The realism of his argument comes to light based on the intimate relationship between body and soul, as in Baptism when the body is washed by water so as to cleanse the soul, so in the Eucharist the flesh feeds upon the Body and Blood of Christ so that the soul may be filled with God.
There are many testimonies written like this by St Ignatius of Antioch, St Hypollitus, St Justin Martyr, and many others all affirming their belief that the Eucharist was the flesh of Jesus. Now were you to ask the early Disciples to explain their beliefs in the Eucharist the only answer you would have received is "Jesus said so" Do you remember John 6 when Jesus told the crowd that unless you eat my Body ad drink my blood you cannot have life in you. Many turn away in disgust. Jesus then turns to his disciples "Will you also leave?". And what did the disciples reply. Was it "Of course not Jesus we understand every word" No the reply was a confused "Lord, to whom shall we turn for you have the words of eternal life" They did not need the theology of St Thomas Aquinas, for they were people of Faith. Are we people of Faith?
Comments
Post a Comment