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, and
drink his blood, you shall not have life in you....For my flesh is meat
indeed: and my blood is 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) 1997 The Catholic Dispatch cdia@earthlink.net
