|
Hi, Karen —
Thanks for the question.
You said:
I have been talking
with a Protestant friend of mine
about the Catholic faith. She had
some questions on the Real Presence
of Christ in the Eucharist that I
didn't know how to respond to.
She believes that John 6 (the Bread
of Life discourse) is just a parable.
She leads Bible studies and is now
going to seminary. To me, it is obvious
that Jesus is not talking in a metaphor.
- Is there anything
I can say to her, to help her
see what we believe, as Catholics?
I would first recommend sharing
with her some Scripture resources
I have gathered at:
http://www.askacatholic.com/ScripturePassages
A direct link to the Eucharist section
can be
found here.
Share with her these postings as
well. See what Justin Martyr said
in 155 A.D. in the following posting:
Also in a Catholic Answers forum
posting, I saw this question:
- John 6, Belief, and the Eucharist
Questioner (Bill) asked:
I have been trying to make sense
of John 6 lately, and honestly,
a metaphorical interpretation
seems best. But I do not think
that necessarily means the
Real Presence is not true.
Someone with the handle Static replied:
Bill,
What you ask is a difficult task.
For us to just camp out in John
6 trying to clarify Jesus teachings
without using the rest of the
Scriptures is like you asking
us why we believe baptism is more
than a symbol from just staying
in John 3.
I understand that if we do go
outside of the Scriptures you
asked for, it would become a very
lengthy dialogue which maybe you
want to try and stay away from,
don't really know.
I would like to touch on some
points to be made out of that
chapter without getting long winded
... hopefully.
In mentioning verses 51-56:
Let’s take at look at these
verses mentioned in another way.
Just say Jesus was speaking metaphorically
when He said, "eat
my flesh and drink my blood"
He would of been a poor teacher.
Symbolically speaking of eating
flesh and drinking blood in Scripture,
means to persecute, do violence
to, assault or to murder. Here
are a few examples:
Isaiah 9:18-20, Micah 3:3.
In Revelation 17:6,16 it states,
"I saw that the woman was
drunk on the blood of the holy
ones and on the blood of the witnesses
to Jesus," and "The
ten horns that you saw and the
beast will hate the harlot; they
will leave her desolate and naked;
they will eat her flesh and consume
her with fire."
Now, if Jesus was speaking metaphorically,
His listeners would of understood
Him as saying, “Amen,
Amen I say to you, unless you
do violence to me and assault
me, you do not have life within
you. Whoever persecutes me and
kills me I will raise him up on
the last day.” As
you can clearly see, this makes
no sense of the text whatsoever.
As far as the manna versus Jesus:
Jesus said He is the True Bread
from Heaven. Recall the manna,
did it not come down from Heaven.
Now, according to Hebrews 8:5,
10:1 and Colossians 2:17 — quoting
Colossians, the shorter of the
three, these are shadows of things
to come: the reality belongs to
Christ. So, according to these
verses, any Old Testament figure
(type) was just a shadow of the
fulfillment we have in the New
Testament, which points to Christ.
Now, saying that, if the manna
came down from Heaven and in the
New Testament, the bread that
we break is just that, bread,
then that would make Jesus inferior
to the Old Testament type.
- Can this be, knowing that
Jesus supercedes all Old Testament
types?
- This would leave us with a
big problem since Jesus is
the reality that fulfills all
Old Testament types, would
it not?
Jesus being the Lamb of God who
takes away the sin of the world,
should of held up a piece of lamb
at the Last Supper, not a piece
of bread.
May God Bless, Static (1 Timothy
1:15)
You said:
She also thinks
that the Catholic Church is always
changing things, her examples were
about:
- eating meat on
Fridays and
- the selling of
indulgences.
I tried to explain
that there was a difference between
Catholic doctrine and dogma which
is unchangeable or infallible; and
Catholic disciplines that are changeable.
You are right on the nose:
- Can practices, disciplines and
customs change? Yes,
and they do.
- Can doctrines or dogmas changes? No,
they can't; they can be clarified
for the good of the faithful,
but not changed.
If she doesn't understand the differences
between (practices, disciplines,
customs), (doctrines, and dogmas)
she will always be confused.
You said:
So now she wants
to know how one can prove that Catholic
doctrines have never changed?
One can know, by trusting the Holy
Spirit, who descended on the first
Apostles on Pentecost Sunday. The
Catholic bishops of the Church were
the very first Apostles and are their
successors today. Historically, less
then 75 years after Our Lord's Ascension
into Heaven and the sending of the
Holy Spirit to the Apostles, St.
Ignatius of Antioch is quoted in
107 A.D. as saying:
"See that you all follow
the bishop, even as Jesus Christ
does the Father, and the presbytery
as you would the apostles; and
reverence the deacons, as being
the institution of God. Let no
man do anything connected with
the Church without the bishop.
Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist,
which is [administered] either
by the bishop, or by one to whom
he has entrusted it.
Wherever the bishop shall appear,
there let the multitude [of the
people] also be; even as, wherever
Jesus Christ is, there is the
Catholic Church. It is not lawful
without the bishop either to baptize
or to celebrate a love-feast;
but whatsoever he shall approve
of, that is also pleasing to God,
so that everything that is done
may be secure and valid."
Let's also remember that most, if
not all Christians, believe that
the Holy Spirit is God. As
such, because God can neither deceive,
nor be deceived, we can trust the
Church He founded and sent His Holy
Spirit to guide the Popes of the
Church; a choice Jesus made. (Matthew
16:13-20)
This is despite the scandalous behavior
of some in our Church. Notice throughout
Church history, even when we have
had:
- scandals
- bad behavior among the laity
and clergy, and
- bad practices
the Teachings Jesus left us, have
never gone away. At best, they have
been clarified for our well being.
There have been scandalous, immoral
behavior and practices on the part
of lay Catholics and clergy, but
this has never represented Catholic
teaching, just bad, scandalous behavior.
There are also an array of new moral
issues that never existed in Jesus'
time, like:
- cloning
- in vitro fertilization
- etc.
This is why the Lord left His
Church the Holy
Spirit, to guide the Church
on issues of faith and morals
that new Christian Church would
have to deal with after our
Lord's Ascension, in the future.
Final note: If she comes across in
an argumentative mode on her last
question, just ask her:
- Show me a Catholic doctrine or
dogma that has changed since 33
A.D.
There are none. Most uncatechized
Catholics and Protestants will reply
with either:
- a custom
- a discipline
- a tradition (small "t")
When you reject the Teaching Authority
of Our Lord's Church (the Magisterium),
you miss out on a lot!, especially
the insight to discern custom,
discipline and traditions from dogma
and doctrine.
Hope this helps,
Mike
|
