Apologetics Strategy etc, regarding True Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter PoorKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PoorKnight

Guest
Hey all,

I have an opportunity to meet with a non-denom (former Catholic, but actually wants to be ‘fair’ to Catholicism) radio talk show host to explain the Catholic teaching on the True Presence, for a future show on the Catholic Possition of the Real Presence.

Thanks to almost a year of listening to C.A. and reading, I think I have an ok, cursory handle on the information, including the unanimous witness from the Early Church Fathers.

I am NOT an experienced apologist though, and although I’ve explained and defended some teachings with friends etc, nothing has been this big and formal…

I’m looking mostly for strategy. I’ve heard some of the C.A. apologists start with identifying Christ as the “Lamb of God”, relating that back to Passover and the Feast of Unleaven Bread, then taking that to John 6.

I’ve also heard apologists just go strait for John 6 and work from there.

I’m also looking for any pit-falls I can avoid, from an apologetics stand point or some of the counter-arguments I could prep for.

Thank you and God Bless :signofcross:

P.S. the meeting is on the 11th… Pro Me Oretis!
 
Un-apologetic “bump”…

Plus, I haven’t had time to grab the CCC paragraphs, or other Church documents, regarding the Eucharist. Could anyone help me save time and point me in the right direction?

Thanks ahead of time,

God Bless :signofcross:
 
Thank you so much.

I’m still open to other suggestions and resourses.

God Bless :signofcross:
 
PoorKnight said:
Thank you so much.
I’m still open to other suggestions and resourses.God Bless :signofcross:
Click to expand...
Hi PoorKnight -
I’m always a little nervous when folks who aren’t comfortable defending the Catholic position on the Real Presence get a microphone, but it is what it is. I’m sure God can work through this situation to bring about His Truth.
I’m no expert either, but I have debated this issue a number of times on these forums and seen the denial, evasion, ad hominem attacks and irrational behavior that often results when non-Catholic Christians have the Catholic position forcefully defended through Scripture, the ECFs and history.
Here’s my basic advice:
Argue from Scripture and from the ECFs, as they are particularly reliable witnesses of the early faith.
A cursory review of some relevant OT texts:
“… Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he [was] the priest of God Most High.” (Gen 14:18) This is important in that Christ is described as “Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Heb 6:20) and then the author of Hebrews in Ch 7 goes on to explain this more fully. The question is does “…the Son of God, remains a priest continually.” (Heb 7:3)? From the Catholic perspective, the offering of Christ in Eucharist (under the appearances of bread and wine) is the simple answer.
Passover involving the killing of a lamb, marking with it’s blood, and the requirement to eat the lamb. Many overlook this last point. This is important in that the Last Supper occurred at Passover.
Some NT texts:
Establish firmly the link of Jesus as the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”. Remember: the lamb was not only slaughtered, but was also eaten as part of the Passover ritual.
Review John 6: Jesus is adamant in sticking to his literal position: “I am the bread of life; whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” Most of those who heard him could not believe Him because they didn’t understand Him and they trusted in their flawed understanding and adherence to old ways more than they trusted in Him. The apostles, however, took a different approach(*except *Judas - read carefully the text) . Although confused by what He said, they had faith in HIM and when asked, “Do you also wish to leave?” Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”. They didn’t understand, but they placed their trust in Him - in who He was and what He said - above their intellectual capacity. They denied themselves – their own understanding – and became like children and had faith.
It’s also worth noting that IF, as those who deny the RP claim, Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6, THEN he had an obligation to explain himself to those who were confused. He had done this a number of times - explained the “leaven of the Pharisees” , explained the parable of the seeds, etc. But here he does not explain his teaching as anything different than exactly what he said. If he misled them through his words and it resulted in them “following him no more”, then he had an obligation to clear things up. After all, he described his words as “spirit and life” - to use those words in a manner which, when reasonably interpreted to drive others away would be a sin. He did not retract anything and offered no explanations, and no one really understood Him…until the Last Supper, as part of the Passover meal (where a lamb was to be eaten so that death would “pass over” them), Jesus finally reveals the fullness of what He meant in John 6. It is recorded in all 3 synoptic gospels:
“Jesus took bread, blessed and broke [it], and gave [it] to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Think of Him emphasizing those words as he held up that bread/chalice – this…is….my body, my blood. Now, at last, they got a major glimpse of the explanation of how they could possibly “eat his flesh and drink his blood”, but there is still more.
(con’d)
 
These events were so important that St Paul was also given divine revelation concerning them: 1Cor 11: 23-29 “I pass on to you what I received from the Lord…This is the new testament in his blood…whoever eats is “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”. Notice how Paul builds on the importance of this memorial, that to receive the Eucharist unworthily constitutes one being “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”. How could this be – actual guilt of the body and blood of the Lord if, in fact, it were merely a symbolic memorial? Once again Scripture points us to an interpretation most consistent with the Catholic teaching of the Real Presence, and we aren’t done. In addition to St. Pauls account (and Hebrews above) we also have some additional NT material from the gospel of Luke and from Acts:
Read Luke 24:13 - 35 v16: The two disciples on the road to Emmaus were “prevented from recognizing him…v30-31 " as they walked along and talked with the Resurrected Jesus. Until he…took bread blessed it, broke it and gave it to them. Then their eyes were open and the recognized Him.” v35 They told the others “…how He was known to them in the breaking of the bread.” Now we have a miracle involving Christ being “recognized” in the “breaking of the bread” – isn’t that somewhat odd that while He could reveal himself the usual way – as He did at all other encounters before His ascension, that He chooses to reveal himself “in the breaking of the bread”? I think it points to something important and continues to build upon the Scriptural witness already established: the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ. Lastly, from the Scriptural record we have Lukes account in Acts.
Acts 2:42 “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.”
Lets start with an observation: the breaking of the bread is placed on par with the apostles teaching, community of believers and prayer. This makes no sense if the Protestant/non-denom understanding of the Eucharist is accurate, does it. If they disagree, then ask them how it makes sense. Tell your friend, "I understand devotion to teaching, communal life and prayer. But what exactly is “devotion” to the breaking of the bread? How is devotion to the breaking of the bread practiced by non-Catholics on a par with Scripture? With prayer? Are you as devoted to the breaking of bread as you are to prayer and Scripture study? For Catholics we are - just as the original community of Christians was. And on this point we will proceed to just one ECF – St Ignatius of Antioch. He was a first century bishop, martyr and disciple of St John. Do you think his opinions of the “breaking of bread” might give us a reliable understanding of St John’s understanding? Of course it would, since he learned his theology from St John himself and was such an exemplary Christian that he was canonized. that would help us to understand John 6 better. Here is his famous quote from his letter to the Smyrnaeans. It is in a section where he is trying to keep the flock away from heretics.
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”
Yes, he used the word “Eucharist” – that is an early part of Christianity as well. The important part, however, is that by condemning the heretics, Ignatius teaches us what he undoubtedly learned from St John the Apostle, and what true Christians believed from the beginning: that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. This is completely at odds with your friends who hold symbolic views or some variation of it. It is once again completely consistent with the Catholic Church’s theology. And so, in the end, what do we have? We have Scripture supporting the Catholic position and the ECFs supporting it as well. And what do they have? Interpretations of Scripture that have developed, based on their adherence to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide (salvation is by faith alone), that do not even remotely deny the Real Presence.
They will claim that Christ was speaking “spiritually” in John 6 and then attempt to twist the words “spirit and truth” to mean “symbolic”. Spirit and symbol are completely different.
They will claim that since salvation is by faith alone that our interpretation of John 6 can’t be correct because it would violate salvation by faith alone. This, of course, is an error on two levels:
First, salvation is not by faith alone as James 2 and many Scriptures attest to. Secondly, it is an act of faith to believe in the Eucharist.
They will do this over and over with various Scriptures, picking and choosing how it refutes the Catholic position by implication. They are mistaken in every case and a knowledgeable Catholic can easily demonstrate this. What they can never do is show you any Scripture or ECF clearly articulating that the Eucharist is not the body of Christ, nor can they use either to clearly articulate that the Eucharist is only a symbol. Catholics recognize the symbolic nature of choosing a broken piece of bread and wine also, and we share that relatively unimportant dimension of this mystery, but we also recognize the larger mystery – that these elements become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and in receiving them we receive Eternal Life.

Peace be with you!
 
If I may, you may find it advantageous to point out that it’s not just Catholics who believe in the true presence. Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans do to.
 
Perhaps a bit late, but here’s some guidance anyway.

I just posted in another thread yesterday, some posts that you might find helpful here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=733977&page=6

particularly at post #81 (feel free use whatever you find helpful from it).

Additionally, I’d suggest going in with actual quotes from the Church Fathers, rather than just glossing over them in general terms (I didn’t do it in the linked post, due to time constraints).

Here is an excellent source for both those quotes, and the topic in general;

therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html

and here is the link (from same site) for many authoratative quotes:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

VIVAT JESUS!
 
Take along a copy of Mark Shea’s compact, 60 page book entitled, This Is My Body and ask your friend to read and ponder it at his leisure. In the end, only the Holy Spirit will convict him of the true Presence. Invite him to adoration with you. Gazing upon Jesus has resulted in many conversions.
 
I want to thank you all for your time and responses.

The meeting went very well. We spent an hour and a half talking about, mostly, authority, of all things, before getting around to the True Presence.

I think he was shocked to hear a well-thought out Biblical and historical support for the True Presence in the Eucharist. I think that he’s “in trouble” as Patrick Coffin would say. He wants to be ‘fair’ to Catholicism. What does Chesterton say? The moment a man stops fighting the Catholic Church he is immediately drawn to it. Strike 1. He has just started reading church history, and wants to do so from the origional sources. I think it was also Chesterton who said he who learns history ceases to be Protestant. Strike 2. He’s also been watching Scott Hahn on EWTN, and while he does “agree with everything he says”, he finds Dr. Hahn very interesting and challenging… If that’s not Strike three, that fast ball is coming right up the gut…

After showing him some Biblical support, I gave him the 3 Catholic Answers tracs on the True Presence and the Mass, as well as Ignatius of Antioch’s letters to the Smyrnaeans and Romans, and Justin Martyr’s first Apology. I also, by prodding by the Holy Spirit, had burned copies of Scott Hahn’s audio speaches on the Eucharist, the Supper of the Lamb and the 4th Cup.

This meeting did, however, really make clear to me how poor of a job we Catholics have done in the last 50+ years of educating our youth. The radio station manager I was meeting with, Mike, is a former Catholic. He attended 12 years of Catholic school, had the Latin mass memorized, was an alter boy for several years, briefly considered the priesthood, and won an award for the most outstanding Catholic youth in his school, but was not prepared for the temptations the world would offer him - nor was he ever taught WHY we beleive the things we do. Between age 16ish and 23 he went from that to almost committing suicide because he had let himself get way into the pleasures of the world.

15 years after that he had a re-awakening to faith, but in a non-Denominational community. From statements I’ve heard on his program and in person, he doesn’t know hardly the first thing about the what’s and why’s of Catholicism.

I was much the same way… only younger 😃

I am so grateful for this Apostolate for bringing the Truth to light again, for me. God Bless Catholic Answers and all it’s staff, employees, members and founder! :signofcross:

Please Pray for Mike. I feel he’s on the edge of something big, but if he does make that step, he will lose his job for sure, and I don’t know where his family is on their walk. All that could be daunting enough to make him ignore what he’s being called to.

Thank you again, God Bless :signofcross:
Poor Knight for Christ
 
“To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant” - Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman.

So many converts/reverts have taken the exact path that your friend has. Once he comes to accept the authority and “Apostolicity” of the Church, he will have nowhere else to go. If it comes up again, have him consider the surprising occurrence in Acts 15 - the first Church council called to address the circumcision question. Paul, a Pharisee trained at the feet of Gamaliel, was well-versed in the scriptures, yet they offered no help in answrring the Judaizer’s demand that alll converts be circumcized.

Paul did not “go straight to God” in prayer, but straight to the Church that Jesus founded. There, Paul listened to the debate and, when all was said and done, set scripture aside and listened to the Church over and above the scriptures. Contrary to all existing scripture, the Church in Acts 15 forever answered the question of circumcision.
 
PoorKnight said:
What does Chesterton say? The moment a man stops fighting the Catholic Church he is immediately drawn to it.
Click to expand...
Do you have this quote exactly?

.
I also, by prodding by the Holy Spirit, had burned copies of Scott Hahn’s audio speaches
Click to expand...
20+ years ago, people would have been appalled at this comment. 😃
 
MarcoPolo said:
Do you have this quote exactly?

.
20+ years ago, people would have been appalled at this comment. 😃
Click to expand...
“The moment men cease to pull against it [the Catholic Church] they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it.” It’s in his “Catholicsm and Conversion” essay.

Sorry I would have grabbed the exact quote last night, but I was trying to type a quick “thank you” to all of you before the wife got done putting our littlest one to bed.

Thanks for the correction on the John Henry Cardinal Newman quote. I have all these great quotes that float around in my head… who said them sometimes comes secondary 🙂

Just as an editing note, that line should read that “while he DOESN"T agree…”

God Bless :signofcross:
 
PoorKnight said:
I want to thank you all for your time and responses.

The meeting went very well. We spent an hour and a half talking about, mostly, authority, of all things, before getting around to the True Presence.

I think he was shocked to hear a well-thought out Biblical and historical support for the True Presence in the Eucharist. I think that he’s “in trouble” as Patrick Coffin would say. He wants to be ‘fair’ to Catholicism. What does Chesterton say? The moment a man stops fighting the Catholic Church he is immediately drawn to it. Strike 1. He has just started reading church history, and wants to do so from the origional sources. I think it was also Chesterton who said he who learns history ceases to be Protestant. Strike 2. He’s also been watching Scott Hahn on EWTN, and while he does “agree with everything he says”, he finds Dr. Hahn very interesting and challenging… If that’s not Strike three, that fast ball is coming right up the gut…

After showing him some Biblical support, I gave him the 3 Catholic Answers tracs on the True Presence and the Mass, as well as Ignatius of Antioch’s letters to the Smyrnaeans and Romans, and Justin Martyr’s first Apology. I also, by prodding by the Holy Spirit, had burned copies of Scott Hahn’s audio speaches on the Eucharist, the Supper of the Lamb and the 4th Cup.

This meeting did, however, really make clear to me how poor of a job we Catholics have done in the last 50+ years of educating our youth. The radio station manager I was meeting with, Mike, is a former Catholic. He attended 12 years of Catholic school, had the Latin mass memorized, was an alter boy for several years, briefly considered the priesthood, and won an award for the most outstanding Catholic youth in his school, but was not prepared for the temptations the world would offer him - nor was he ever taught WHY we beleive the things we do. Between age 16ish and 23 he went from that to almost committing suicide because he had let himself get way into the pleasures of the world.

15 years after that he had a re-awakening to faith, but in a non-Denominational community. From statements I’ve heard on his program and in person, he doesn’t know hardly the first thing about the what’s and why’s of Catholicism.

I was much the same way… only younger 😃

I am so grateful for this Apostolate for bringing the Truth to light again, for me. God Bless Catholic Answers and all it’s staff, employees, members and founder! :signofcross:

Please Pray for Mike. I feel he’s on the edge of something big, but if he does make that step, he will lose his job for sure, and I don’t know where his family is on their walk. All that could be daunting enough to make him ignore what he’s being called to.

Thank you again, God Bless :signofcross:
Poor Knight for Christ
Click to expand...
First, sounds like you did great in the meeting–congratulations, and well done, sir.

Second, in ref. to the bolded portion above–I couldn’t agree more. Your observation here, sadly, is dead on.

I ‘flirted’ with converting to protestantism. Grew up in the Bible belt, married a pro.-- I also attended Cat. school for 12 years, and served as a Cat. missionery to Mexico over a period of several years. As a missionery, and as a Cat. school student, I understood the ‘framework’ of the Faith on an academic level, and was fully capable of conveying it…

…but I had many questions. I knew many wonderful protestant friends (not any better than my Cat. friends, but still wonderful people). So I couldn’t help but wonder if there was something to protestantism. This led me to dig deeper and deepr into the underpinnings of the Faith–the history of the Church, why we beleive what we believe, and why pro’s believe what they believe. The response to this inquiry was staggeringly one sided. Protestant theology is a house of cards, built on an inverted pyramid of toothpicks, sustained by little more than air–IOW, it is completely unsustainable, in reality–only in the fertile imagination of the beleiver, by perpetual suspension of disbelief, founded on a complete disregard of history–especially wrt the development of the Bible.

The point of the above, is that 12 years of Cat. school, training and experience as a missionery…and I had to dig and research to learn the Truth about the Cat. Church.

…and sadly, this is still very much the state of affairs today–although I have noticed a drastic improvement–particularly with the proliferation of the I-Net–where teh Truth of Catholicism is getting much greater play, the truth about the historical bases of the Faith so much more readily accessible, and so many more devout Cat’s being far more outspoken, and exposing the fallacy uderlying protestantism (esp. fundamentalism and Calvinsim) much more effectively, and much more frequently. One such example that comes to mind, is a website called “called to communion”–founded by former Calvinsts (IMO, THE MOST anti-Cat. variety of protestants)–who converted to Catholicism–after opening their hearts and minds to the Truth, and seeking in earnest–just as Scott Hahn did. (here is the link to that site, if anyone is interested:

calledtocommunion.com/

Keep up the good work.

VIVAT JESUS!

Caveat: re. that website I linked–I don’t necesarily agree with everything I have read on there, and I’m not trying to promote it–I merely share the link, because I found it incredibly noteworthy, that you have this collection of ex-Calvinist Cat. converts, who put the site together, and continue to operate it. If you’ve ever dealt with Calvinists, you probably understand why this is so remarkable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top