Apologetics
Does
Not
Mean
Apologies...
Apologetics and the Holy Eucharist:
When the average person gets an "apology"
from another person, he hears that person express regrets, or ask pardon
for a fault or offense. There is, however, a less common connotation of
this word even in a secular dictionary; it also means "a formal justification
or defense".
This connotation is rarely used in common speech except when it comes to
religion where it is quite common.
"Apologetics" has come to be known solely as
"the branch of theology that deals with the defense and proof of Christianity."
This science does NOT teach people to say, "Pardon me for believing....".
Rather, it teaches one to say, "I believe this BECAUSE....",
and does so with reasons which supplement the prime reason for our belief
- "because the Church teaches and has always taught this."
Apologetics is a science indeed, and it exists only where
truth can be systematically justified and defended with consistency...in
Catholicism. Apologetics teaches a Catholic to approach a topic on the
grounds of the non-Catholic listener with the object of convincing him
of the truth, using logic and evidence.
Obviously one would not quote from the Scriptures when
speaking to a pagan, and one would not quote from the New Testament when
speaking to a Jew. For those particular non-Catholics who think they are
following Christ by adhering "to the Bible alone", we can base
our arguments on
Holy Scripture itself. If we can show them they are plainly wrong on a
major point by using the Scriptures which they say they believe in, we
have done well in our apologetic work to show the truth of Catholicism.
Not that you must go around picking arguments with everyone you can, but
that you must be "ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you
a reason of that hope which is in you."
(I Peter 3:15)
As we know, having the Scriptures "alone" does
not guarantee one the correct interpretation when one rejects the Church
which Christ founded on St. Peter and his successors. In the Scriptures
there "are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned
and unstable wrest, as they do
also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (II Peter 3:16)
Those who are outside of Christ's Church do not have the
systematic and consistent theology which would place them in the class
of the "unlearned". They do not have Christ in the Blessed Sacrament
of which Christ said - "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live
forever".
Without it one would most certainly be in the category of the "unstable".
St. Peter speaks of the "unlearned and unstable"
who "wrest" certain things in Scripture which are hard to understand.
This, however, does not exclude the fact that the more plain things of
Scripture are also twisted to their own destruction. There are now hundreds
of "Christian" sects all believing different interpretations
of Scripture (even within the same sect!), yet all claiming "they"
personally have the guidance of "the Spirit".
If we can ever apply the principle of "by their fruits
you will know them", it is certainly here. A prime example of apologetics
at work is in the defense of the Holy Eucharist. While some non-Catholics
may claim to adhere to Scripture as "the word of God", they at
the same time deny the Real Presence of Jesus in the Sacrament of the altar.
The words of Scripture were not found written on a stone
such that one could take the individual words and GIVE them a purpose.
No. They were already written with a purpose, inspired by God yet written
by men, for other men of a certain time period. Bible quotes alone do not
suffice; even
the devil is known to have tempted Our Lord by quoting scripture out of
the original context.
DEFENSE OF THE REAL PRESENCE...
Look at Holy Scripture:
Jesus often used symbolic language; He used it to give a deeper, spiritual
meaning to His words (not to confuse His listeners.) Cardinal Wiseman said
that, "whenever our Lord's hearers found difficulties, or raised objections
to His words from taking them in their literal sense, while He intended
them to be taken figuratively, His constant practice was to explain them
instantly, in a figurative manner, even though no great error could result
from their being misunderstood." An example of this was when Jesus
said to his disciples, "Lazarus our friend sleepeth; but I go that
I
may awake him out of sleep." His disciples then said, "Lord,
if he sleep, he shall do well." Jesus then said plainly, "Lazarus
is dead." Christ did not leave them with the misunderstanding that
they expressed.
In another incident Jesus told Nicodemus, a ruler of the
Jews, that "unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom
of God."
Nicodemus then asked, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he
enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again?"
Jesus then answered him precisely by telling him that a man must be "born
again of water and the Holy Ghost." Christ again corrects his misunderstanding.
At still another time, Jesus said to His disciples, "Take
heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The
disciples then thought that Jesus was talking about their taking no bread
with them. Jesus, knowing what they were thinking, explained Himself and
asked, "Why
do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you:
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?"
The disciples then understood that Jesus was talking about their doctrines.
In all these incidents Our Lord explained the meaning
of His figurative speech even though taking His words literally would have
caused no great harm. We know from this, most certainly, that where there
would arise a misunderstanding that would cause harm, Our Lord would most
definitely make things very clear to his listeners. We have just such an
incident in the Gospel (John 6:48-72):
When Jesus was teaching in the synagogue He told His listeners that:
"the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world."
The Jews then, "strove among themselves, saying: How can this man
give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus then, rather than give a figurative
meaning to His words, repeated the same in more emphatic terms:
"Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of
man, drink indeed."
This was a command, and a divine precept. Many of his disciples murmured
at this saying, "This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"
Jesus, knowing this, said to them, "Doth this scandalize you?"
And, rather than give a figurative meaning still, "many of his disciples
went back, and walked no more with him." Jesus, knowing that they
had taken Him literally, was then prepared to allow even the twelve apostles
to leave Him; Jesus asked His twelve, "Will you also go away?"
It is obvious that Jesus meant his words to be taken literally. The way
Catholics have always believed them. Jesus promised: "The bread that
I will give is my flesh...".
On the eve of His death Jesus fulfilled His promise saying,
"Take ye and eat. This is my body." Those who have the true Faith
accept this. Before the "Deformation" of the 16th century, when
being Christian was synonymous with being Catholic, all Christians believed
this and obeyed
Our Lord's command by receiving Him in the Eucharist so that they would
"have life".
Reprint Freely With This Information:
(c) 1998 Catholic Dispatch
[email protected]
http://www.catholic-dispatch.com
December 21, 1998
Back
to Home Page...