Throughout the
history of Christendom certain sects of Christianity have, for one reason or
another, questioned or even denied the Real Presence of Christ in the
Eucharist. Most sects fell into historical antiquity, at least before the
Protestant revolt occurred in 1517. This was a different denial altogether, as
it was for the first time ‘fashionable’ to rebel against the Church’s
authority. With this rebellion, came many
new and novel theological ideas, each as eccentric as the local revolutionary
leaders themselves. Ulrich Zwingli, a former Catholic Priest, certainly left
his mark on this changing landscape. In 1525, he even defied Luther to make the
bold claim that the Eucharist was merely a symbol.1 It is pretty
heavy stuff theologically speaking, but a basic break down is this:
TRADITIONAL ZWINGLI
Zwingli was a mental
gymnast, and used every faculty at his disposal to support his new claim. It
should be noted that the aforementioned groups that have denied the Real
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist were so marginal, so theologically
inaccurate, that ancient history has not even documented them as relevant in
the Christian discussion. The Catholic Church has always held the belief that
Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, even before it was formally defined
and re-iterated at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. This
clarification from the Church, by the way, was prompted by the radical new
teachings of the so misleadingly named ‘reformers.’ Zwingli was known to make
such arguments that the translators mis-recorded Bible texts (omitting
‘symbolizes’ from Luke 22: “This is my body.”). He also argued that
Jesus was pointing to himself when he utters the words of consecration at the
Last Supper (conveniently left out of the Biblical text). Zwingli even made the
argument that Jesus is the ‘bread of life’ in the same way that he ‘is the
vine.’ After receiving a letter in 1524 from his Dutch colleague Cornelius Henrici Hoen, he began adopting
the notion that the word ‘is’ in the phrase “this is my body” should be translated as ‘signifies.’2
However, his most raucous argument centered around John 6:63: “The Spirit gives
life; the flesh counts for nothing.”
I always ask non-Catholics about
the Bread of Life discourses in John’s Gospel (chapter 6), and what they think
Jesus meant when He told the crowds, “Unless you feed on my flesh and drink my
blood, you shall not have life within you.” I usually get the stock answer:
v.63 negates the previous 62, as though GOD might be confused, or ignorant to
the fact that his metaphorical speech was being misinterpreted by the crowd, or
that He willingly drove followers away under false pretenses that He later
contradicts to His Apostles. He uses strong language, speaks very literally,
and when people say that this teaching is hard, He does not stop them or
clarify his speech, but re-iterates again with even more literal speech. You
have to take a bite out of Jesus to have eternal life!! Many of His followers
left Him that day. Right after that guess what happened? He turned to His
Apostles and said, “Will you also leave?” No one escaped scrutiny! When they
stayed, he said the words in verse 63. When he did so, his words were a clarifier
of the text, not a nullifier of his teaching.
What Christ is telling his
Apostles in verse 63 is this: the Eucharistic mystery is a spiritual truth that
cannot be discerned simply by reasonable deduction. He is not telling the
Apostles that he was earlier speaking metaphorically; He is telling them that
they have to have faith to understand! As ‘the flesh’ (not HIS flesh, but the
general term describing all things not of the Spirit) is of no avail in
understanding the deep spiritual truth He was laying before them.3
To make the bold claim that
Jesus’ flesh was of no avail (remember, if we are going down this rabbit hole, we
have to acknowledge that Christ was
previously talking about eating his flesh), is to make far reaching
theological claims that border on being dangerously un-Christian. Was his flesh
‘of avail’ the day he died on the cross? Is his resurrected and glorified body
of any avail? If not, what was the whole point of the Incarnation? Like the
other excuses that Zwingli gives for his unbelief, they are merely mental
exercises that eventually lead to only one place: opposite of fifteen centuries
of Christian belief and away from the Catholic Church.
The Eucharist is not a single
teaching of the Church, or a single story in the Bible. The Eucharist is the
whole narrative of the Bible, Judaism, and the fulfillment of Jewish
prophesies. The Eucharist became a necessary part of GOD’s plan at the fall of
man in Genesis 3, and is the whole point of the Old Testament, the foundation
of the New Testament, and the source and summit of the Christian faith. No
amount of mental gymnastics can lead us to avoiding the reality of Jesus’
teachings on the Eucharist. Throughout Church history, there have been numerous
councils called into session to discuss Trinitarian doctrine, the nature(s) of
Christ, the efficacy of Sacraments, and the Christian life. Not once was there
a council called among the body of believers to discuss whether or not Christ
was present in the Eucharist. This belief went absolutely uncontested until the
Protestant revolution of the sixteenth century.
The case against the Eucharist is
too fleeting, and comes on the scene too late. All Christians believe that
Christ was the fullness of God’s revelation to man. This seems like a large
fallacy that, when corrected at such a later time in Christian history, would
fall under the category of ‘new revelation.’ Why was this not an issue prior to
1525? If you must protest a couple getting married, you do so before the vows begin, not during the
recession. The most logical reason Zwingli was so adamant about the symbolic
nature of the Eucharist, is because his church did not have the authority of
consecration. And that is not a powerful enough excuse to deny one of the least
contested traditions of the Church.
1 Vidmar, John OP, The Catholic Church Through the Ages,
Paulist Press, pg.198
No comments:
Post a Comment