The Bible and the Blessed Sacrament
One of the results of the Reformation was that by seeing the bible as 'sola scripture' the only authority by which we can come to God, the Reformers cut themselves off from the early history of the Church. To know and love Jesus Christ all you needed to do was read the Bible. I find it strange after 500 years of disputes and divisions that there are very few people who actually question this approach and yet I acknowledge that it is only through their reading of the Bible that the Holy Spirit can see their desire to love Jesus, and make them the holy people they want to be, and I further acknowledge the wonderful faith of so many of my Protestant neighbours.
Yet how sad I feel that so many will not have the joy of receiving Jesus in that most personal and intimate way which Jesus intended for all his followers - the Body and Blood of Jesus in Holy communion. But this is where 'sola scripture' lets them down. They interpret the Bible passages for themselves and take no account of the Church in which the books of the New Testament were written. What was the thinking of the time on the words of Jesus "Take this all of you and eat it, for this is My Body" or "Take this cup and drink from it, for this is my Blood of the new Testament, which will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins" We can turn to John 6 and the words of Jesus to the crowd "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot have life in you" And this shocked so many that they followed him no more. Jesus turned to his disciples "Will you also leave me?" The reply was not "Its OK with us, we understand every word" but "Lord to whom shall we turn for you have the words of Eternal Life" In other words they did not understand but they accepted what he said because of their Fatih in Him, and they knew that somehow it would be fulfilled.
To me the matter is easily understood, but for years when I was young and energetic I would argue the matter with Protestant friends and get nowhere. The trouble was that I was giving a Roman Catholic view of the Bible and they were Church of Scotland and who was I to contradict their minister. But this is true of Anglicans, Congregationalists, and the latest Community Churches, in fact all Chrisiian denominations. And even I when I was young and fiery would immediately jump to the defence of the Catholic Church even when my knowledge was questionable. What we all lacked was an outside source that we could all accept, an authority which would silence all of us.
I have mentioned the story of John 6 where the disciples were just as clueless as the crowd who walked away, and yet had faith that in some way they would eat his flesh and drink his blood. Did they ever eat his flesh and drink his blood? The answer came at the Last Supper when he shared his Body and Blood and asked them to do this in memory of him. In other words his Body and Blood would be shared again and again at the Breaking of Bread, and every time the people received they knew this was the fulfilment of John 6.
My evidence comes not from a Catholic but a Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly who wrote "Eucharistic teaching it should be understood at the outset was unquestionably realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and treated and designated as, the saviours Body and Blood (Early Christian Doctrines)
On at the same theme Kelly writes......"Ignatius roundly declares that ...the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists denial of the reality of Christs body......Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood......
The Ignatius mentioned by Kelly is Ignatius of Antioch who wrote the following around 110AD.
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the Grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRISTF, flesh that suffered for our sins, and that the Father in his goodness raised up again. THEY WHO DENY THE GIFT OF GOD ARE PERISHING IN THEIR DISPUTES.
I have used the capital letters in places to emphasise the text. I could go on and on quoting the early Fathers of the Church but I am writing a blog not a book. The best book on the subject I have come across is 'THE FATHERS KNOW BEST' by Jimmy Akin from whose book I have learned so much. It is far from boring reading and the reader is taken quickly through many topic and yet little detail is missed. It can be read through as a book, or the different topics are laid sensibly for quick reference.
But let me return to my young days. Yes as I exchanged scripture texts endlessly with my Protestant friends I even quoted from time to time that the Catholic Church was ruled by the Bible and Tradition but unfortunately at that period of time the Church hardly mentioned Tradition and what they meant by it in the Bible context. After Vatican II when the Church was under a fierce attack from within, it was a Protestant Evangelical Minister Scott Hahn, who using radio and TV had announced his conversion to Catholicism by studying the early Fathers. He had done something we were being forbidden to do, he had 'turned the clock back', and back to the time of the Apostles. I could now say to my Protestant friends "Remember when Jesus in John 6 said those words to Peter and the Apostles "Will you also turn away" And remember how they did not understand what he was saying and yet remained faithful to him. Well at the Last Supper it became very cleat to them and at the Breaking of Bread in the Christian Church Peter and the Apostles believed in the Real Presence. that the Bread was the Flesh of Jesus, and the Wine was his Blood. Jesus had fulfilled what he had said. This is what the Church meant by Tradition.
But what of those who walked away. Are you one of them. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink" they said in disgust. "We are mature adults" they may well have added.
Yet how sad I feel that so many will not have the joy of receiving Jesus in that most personal and intimate way which Jesus intended for all his followers - the Body and Blood of Jesus in Holy communion. But this is where 'sola scripture' lets them down. They interpret the Bible passages for themselves and take no account of the Church in which the books of the New Testament were written. What was the thinking of the time on the words of Jesus "Take this all of you and eat it, for this is My Body" or "Take this cup and drink from it, for this is my Blood of the new Testament, which will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins" We can turn to John 6 and the words of Jesus to the crowd "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot have life in you" And this shocked so many that they followed him no more. Jesus turned to his disciples "Will you also leave me?" The reply was not "Its OK with us, we understand every word" but "Lord to whom shall we turn for you have the words of Eternal Life" In other words they did not understand but they accepted what he said because of their Fatih in Him, and they knew that somehow it would be fulfilled.
To me the matter is easily understood, but for years when I was young and energetic I would argue the matter with Protestant friends and get nowhere. The trouble was that I was giving a Roman Catholic view of the Bible and they were Church of Scotland and who was I to contradict their minister. But this is true of Anglicans, Congregationalists, and the latest Community Churches, in fact all Chrisiian denominations. And even I when I was young and fiery would immediately jump to the defence of the Catholic Church even when my knowledge was questionable. What we all lacked was an outside source that we could all accept, an authority which would silence all of us.
I have mentioned the story of John 6 where the disciples were just as clueless as the crowd who walked away, and yet had faith that in some way they would eat his flesh and drink his blood. Did they ever eat his flesh and drink his blood? The answer came at the Last Supper when he shared his Body and Blood and asked them to do this in memory of him. In other words his Body and Blood would be shared again and again at the Breaking of Bread, and every time the people received they knew this was the fulfilment of John 6.
My evidence comes not from a Catholic but a Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly who wrote "Eucharistic teaching it should be understood at the outset was unquestionably realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and treated and designated as, the saviours Body and Blood (Early Christian Doctrines)
On at the same theme Kelly writes......"Ignatius roundly declares that ...the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists denial of the reality of Christs body......Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood......
The Ignatius mentioned by Kelly is Ignatius of Antioch who wrote the following around 110AD.
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the Grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRISTF, flesh that suffered for our sins, and that the Father in his goodness raised up again. THEY WHO DENY THE GIFT OF GOD ARE PERISHING IN THEIR DISPUTES.
I have used the capital letters in places to emphasise the text. I could go on and on quoting the early Fathers of the Church but I am writing a blog not a book. The best book on the subject I have come across is 'THE FATHERS KNOW BEST' by Jimmy Akin from whose book I have learned so much. It is far from boring reading and the reader is taken quickly through many topic and yet little detail is missed. It can be read through as a book, or the different topics are laid sensibly for quick reference.
But let me return to my young days. Yes as I exchanged scripture texts endlessly with my Protestant friends I even quoted from time to time that the Catholic Church was ruled by the Bible and Tradition but unfortunately at that period of time the Church hardly mentioned Tradition and what they meant by it in the Bible context. After Vatican II when the Church was under a fierce attack from within, it was a Protestant Evangelical Minister Scott Hahn, who using radio and TV had announced his conversion to Catholicism by studying the early Fathers. He had done something we were being forbidden to do, he had 'turned the clock back', and back to the time of the Apostles. I could now say to my Protestant friends "Remember when Jesus in John 6 said those words to Peter and the Apostles "Will you also turn away" And remember how they did not understand what he was saying and yet remained faithful to him. Well at the Last Supper it became very cleat to them and at the Breaking of Bread in the Christian Church Peter and the Apostles believed in the Real Presence. that the Bread was the Flesh of Jesus, and the Wine was his Blood. Jesus had fulfilled what he had said. This is what the Church meant by Tradition.
But what of those who walked away. Are you one of them. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink" they said in disgust. "We are mature adults" they may well have added.
Comments
Post a Comment