Evangelisation: Arianism, Substance, and Stupidity.
Born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, Consubstantial with the Father, and through Him all things were made
It is remarkable just how far the above goes to describe the relationship between Jesus and the Father. What the Fathers at the Council of Nicaea were doing in composing the Creed was to demonstrate that God and the Son are One. "Lord, show us the Father" "Have I been with you so long and you do not know me" Jesus replied "When you see me, you see the Father" Now as the Early Church worked out just who Jesus was, there were many people with ideas that the Church examined and found wanting. One of these was a heresy called Arianism. They claimed that Jesus was in fact a Divine person created by the Father and separate from the the Father. At the Council of Nicaea this was condemned. God and the Son were One. The Council of Nicaea met in 325 Just to examine this heresy.
So from 325AD all the teachings of the Council were held and affirmed by our Catholic Church. Indeed Catholics affirm them as our Faith every Sunday at Mass That is, until there were mumblings 20 to 30 years ago. It was over the word 'Consubstantial' It apparently confused people though I had never until then met anyone or even read of anyone confused. I did remember about 40 years ago commenting on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and his teachings on the SUBSTANTIAL change of bread into the Lord's body and blood in a then parish magazine. My very orthodox article was criticised for using the word Substance. Apparently some difficulty had arisen about the word and there was no such thing. I was very surprised. Here I am in this article talking about the use of the word substance 1700 years ago, yet we are led to believe by some in the Church that there is no such thing. Now I can put my hand through water but not a rock, I can crush the stem of a flower but not a rod of steel. You see in ordinary everyday language they are different substances. It was of course part of an attack on the Blessed Sacrament. We must not say the substance of bread changes into the substance of the body of Jesus. This of course puts on hold any idea that the bread changes at all, just as the moving of the Sacrament from the Altar makes the presence of Jesus seem less important. Of course from the school of Modernism there were many other attacks. You could find in a book the Strange Teaching that the presence of Jesus was neither Spiritual nor Physical but somewhere in between. There were people in the Church whom as St Paul said, had left true and sound teaching to look for novelties. Now I came upon a very novel one, and it brought me trouble.
The book was not written by a priest but a layperson who had 'discovered' that it was not the priest who turned the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus but the Holy Spirit. So well was this news received that he started touring parishes with his book. I went to one of his appearances and listened to him, for our parish was opened to him. I was amazed that people actually turned up. OK I left with the impression that he had a good 'little earner' and if people were foolish enough to listen, then good luck to him. I was amazed a couple of weeks later to hear this same nonsense from the pulpit. But then I have listened to so much of it over the years. I guess I would not have reacted if, in describing the words used by the priest, 'Hocus Pocus' had not been used' by the speaker. Hocus Pocus stands for "Hoc est enim Corpus Meum' (This is my Body). It was a phrase of mockery towards the Mass used by Cranmer at the Reformation to insult the Catholic belief in the Mass. The speaker was so caught up in his novelty that he was almost saying the words of the priest were also a waste of time for it was the Holy Spirit who changed the Body and Blood into the Sacred Species. I put the matter on the blog. A few Sundays later he returned to the theme and complained to the people that he had been attacked (and of course everyone knew by whom). The parish priest took up the theme the following Sunday, stating that the person had only been saying that it was the Holy Spirit who changed the Bread and Wine, so I was 'shamed' again
Let us put the matter to rest. Just before the Consecration a bell is rung and the priest says. "Therefore, Father most merciful, we ask that you send forth your Holy Spirit to sanctify these gifts of bread and wine that they may become for us the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ...."
So if I am calling this novel teaching a nonsense, then these words prove me right. We know the Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine, we are not stupid people, we who are faithful to the Church, we listen to these words every Sunday. But is this novel teaching just an attack on the priesthood, as the word substance was an attack on the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. I cannot help but think so. What is true is that the priest does take the place of Christ at the altar. The priest does say the words that Jesus said, and by doing so, he does not change the bread and wine into Our Lords Body and Blood, because that is an action of the Holy Spirit. And I do not believe I am heretical if I say that Jesus Himself at the Last Supper did not change the bread and wine. The Holy Spirit did. But the priest is a very special person, for through his actions and words, he calls upon the Holy Spirit to make incarnate again Jesus Our Lord and Saviour.
It is remarkable just how far the above goes to describe the relationship between Jesus and the Father. What the Fathers at the Council of Nicaea were doing in composing the Creed was to demonstrate that God and the Son are One. "Lord, show us the Father" "Have I been with you so long and you do not know me" Jesus replied "When you see me, you see the Father" Now as the Early Church worked out just who Jesus was, there were many people with ideas that the Church examined and found wanting. One of these was a heresy called Arianism. They claimed that Jesus was in fact a Divine person created by the Father and separate from the the Father. At the Council of Nicaea this was condemned. God and the Son were One. The Council of Nicaea met in 325 Just to examine this heresy.
So from 325AD all the teachings of the Council were held and affirmed by our Catholic Church. Indeed Catholics affirm them as our Faith every Sunday at Mass That is, until there were mumblings 20 to 30 years ago. It was over the word 'Consubstantial' It apparently confused people though I had never until then met anyone or even read of anyone confused. I did remember about 40 years ago commenting on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and his teachings on the SUBSTANTIAL change of bread into the Lord's body and blood in a then parish magazine. My very orthodox article was criticised for using the word Substance. Apparently some difficulty had arisen about the word and there was no such thing. I was very surprised. Here I am in this article talking about the use of the word substance 1700 years ago, yet we are led to believe by some in the Church that there is no such thing. Now I can put my hand through water but not a rock, I can crush the stem of a flower but not a rod of steel. You see in ordinary everyday language they are different substances. It was of course part of an attack on the Blessed Sacrament. We must not say the substance of bread changes into the substance of the body of Jesus. This of course puts on hold any idea that the bread changes at all, just as the moving of the Sacrament from the Altar makes the presence of Jesus seem less important. Of course from the school of Modernism there were many other attacks. You could find in a book the Strange Teaching that the presence of Jesus was neither Spiritual nor Physical but somewhere in between. There were people in the Church whom as St Paul said, had left true and sound teaching to look for novelties. Now I came upon a very novel one, and it brought me trouble.
The book was not written by a priest but a layperson who had 'discovered' that it was not the priest who turned the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus but the Holy Spirit. So well was this news received that he started touring parishes with his book. I went to one of his appearances and listened to him, for our parish was opened to him. I was amazed that people actually turned up. OK I left with the impression that he had a good 'little earner' and if people were foolish enough to listen, then good luck to him. I was amazed a couple of weeks later to hear this same nonsense from the pulpit. But then I have listened to so much of it over the years. I guess I would not have reacted if, in describing the words used by the priest, 'Hocus Pocus' had not been used' by the speaker. Hocus Pocus stands for "Hoc est enim Corpus Meum' (This is my Body). It was a phrase of mockery towards the Mass used by Cranmer at the Reformation to insult the Catholic belief in the Mass. The speaker was so caught up in his novelty that he was almost saying the words of the priest were also a waste of time for it was the Holy Spirit who changed the Body and Blood into the Sacred Species. I put the matter on the blog. A few Sundays later he returned to the theme and complained to the people that he had been attacked (and of course everyone knew by whom). The parish priest took up the theme the following Sunday, stating that the person had only been saying that it was the Holy Spirit who changed the Bread and Wine, so I was 'shamed' again
Let us put the matter to rest. Just before the Consecration a bell is rung and the priest says. "Therefore, Father most merciful, we ask that you send forth your Holy Spirit to sanctify these gifts of bread and wine that they may become for us the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ...."
So if I am calling this novel teaching a nonsense, then these words prove me right. We know the Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine, we are not stupid people, we who are faithful to the Church, we listen to these words every Sunday. But is this novel teaching just an attack on the priesthood, as the word substance was an attack on the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. I cannot help but think so. What is true is that the priest does take the place of Christ at the altar. The priest does say the words that Jesus said, and by doing so, he does not change the bread and wine into Our Lords Body and Blood, because that is an action of the Holy Spirit. And I do not believe I am heretical if I say that Jesus Himself at the Last Supper did not change the bread and wine. The Holy Spirit did. But the priest is a very special person, for through his actions and words, he calls upon the Holy Spirit to make incarnate again Jesus Our Lord and Saviour.
Comments
Post a Comment