Way back in the beginning of this thread, John claimed that transubstantiation was invented by the Catholic Church in 1215. Here is my question: If that is true, why do the Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the real presence as well, since they predate 1215? What about Coptic Christians?
This is interesting, because it was only through studying Eastern Orthodoxy that I was finally able to see how untenable the Protestant position on various issues (like the Real Presence) was. The Catholics and Orthodox had some struggles fairly early on, particularly in regard to the Pope’s role and such, but the Real Presence was held by them both. It wasn’t just some later Catholic addition.
My initial objection to the Real Presence wasn’t based on an interpretation of Scripture, but was based more on an intellectual rebellion against the idea. It just seemed so ludicrous. However, when I determined that the overwhelming Christian belief from the earliest days was opposed to my understanding of the Doctrine, I had to admit I was wrong.
I remember a book by Tim LaHaye, in which he mentioned how a friend of his had asked for his help in interpreting prophecy, as his friend wanted to incorporate it into a book. Tim LaHaye encouraged the man to look into it on his own, saying (and I paraphrase, not having the original text in front of me), “Interpreting prophecy is easy.” The problem is, of course, that Dr. LaHaye’s “easy” interpretations of prophecy often go against that held by nearly all Christians until very recently.
Many people pick up a Bible and, whether they are interpreting end-times prophecy or the words of Christ, they come up with an apparently obvious interpretation. It seems so obvious to them, that they automatically assume that those who disagree are either deliberately rejecting the truth or are simply not Christians at all.
However, different interpetations do occur, over just about every passage of Scripture, it seems. How, then, is one supposed to know whose interpretation is more correct? One could pray, yes, and we certainly should all do so. However, even then, people still disagree. I’ve talked with Mormon missionaries whose sincerity was quite apparent, and their interpretations were vastly different than mine. I am certain they prayed for guidance.
So, how does one reconcile different interpretations? In the case of an historical account, I believe that an earlier interpretation is more likely to be true than a later one, unless it could be proven that the later interpreter had access to more information than his predecessors. For example, if a man writes an autobiography, some parts of which are difficult to understand, who is more qualified to interpret it, someone who lived many hundreds of years later, or the man’s own family and friends? If the man’s son clarified an event from the autobiography, I would tend to trust that interpretation more than that of someone who just picked up the autobiography and started studying it.
To bring it back to the present topic, the John 6 discourse is a bit difficult to understand, and I think even Catholics must admit this. As this passage is confusing, I think it would be quite arrogant for anyone to suggest his or her personal interpretation is obviously correct. If one starts
insisting on the rightness of his or her interpretation, to the point of questioning others’ Christian faith, I think some serious self-examination needs to occur.
I believe, then, that what we really ought to do is humbly admit that we, two thousand years removed from the writing of the passage, are perhaps not the best qualified to correctly interpret it. Those who knew the writers, however, are
far more qualified, and when there is a consensus among them, how can we, apart from scaling the heights of arrogance, say that they were wrong and we are right?
For me, this settles the matter. The interpretation of Scripture held by the Early Church, passed down through the ages for fifteen hundred years, is that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. For me to trust the interpretation of anyone in the 1500’s to the 2000’s who thinks his or her new interpretation is more correct would be folly.
God bless!
I am now a veteran of two RCIA classes!
