Scriptural Accounts of Catholicism

A novel idea emerged out of the 16th century.  Under the guise of reforming the Church, Martin Luther established the concept of Sola Scriptura, the idea that the Bible alone is the authority.  Under Sola Scriptura, only rites, rituals, practices, and beliefs that were explicitly stated in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, could be accepted as authentic expressions of Christianity.  Anything else was considered to be pagan accretions.  Such a concept eventually led to the idea of the great apostasy in some particular Protestant sects, where it is believed that the Catholic Church lost the true faith over a millennium ago, and that one or more Protestant sects represent a return to true Christianity.  Practices that generally get condemned are the use of images/statues, praying for the dead, veneration of saints, and Sacramental theology, particularly worship of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ.  Unfortunately, the justification of reforms hinges heavily on the personal interpretation of a particular reformer.  While the Catholic Church believes that the Scriptures are interpreted through Sacred Tradition, Protestantism, in eliminating Sacred Tradition, relies on the interpretation of Scripture through the eyes of a single individual, whether Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, or any other individual.

In order to always be prepared to defend their beliefs, Protestant theology focus tremendously on knowledge of the Scriptures.  Catholics, Orthodox, and other ancient Churches, we sometimes lack in the in depth knowledge that our Protestant brothers and sisters have, and can easily be won over by their arguments, particularly when our education is lacking.  As such, it is important that we always take the time to re-educate ourselves on the Sacred Scriptures in order to equip ourselves with the necessary knowledge.  The following are a few examples.

Eucharistic theology is presented in a rather straight forward manner in John 6, where Jesus, without any ambiguity states in verses 54 and 55 that unless you eat His Body and drink His Blood, you shall die.  Now, this, combined with 1 Corinthians 11:23-32 agrees very well with Catholic/Orthodox theology regarding the Eucharist.  Taken individually, it might be easier to pass each of these off as figurative language, but always remember that Paul wrote prior to the Gospels being written and therefore implies knowledge of the theology of John 6.  Luke 24:13-32 could also be taken to correspond with this same idea, as the disciples on the road to Emmaus only recognized Jesus after a series of actions that the ancient Churches would refer to as a Liturgical offering. 


In the above example, what is apparent is not particularly the single reference to the Eucharist.  We could always say that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6.  The important aspect is that, if Jesus were speaking figuratively, then the other verses shown above are seemingly out of place.  Throughout all of them, there is the implication that the reader understands the ritual or theology that is taking place.  We could do this with many pieces of Catholic theology, particularly justification, where Lutherans diverge significantly.  Without knowledge of the historical importance of these passages, then personal interpretation can lead to a wide range of practices and beliefs.  It is within this lens only that we are able to draw logical conclusions that unite seemingly dissident sections of Scripture.