The Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ

This Sunday we commemorate the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.  And for this occasion I thought I’d bring out another solid argument on the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.

In today’s second reading we find Paul reciting what he was told about Jesus’ words at the Last Supper but what you don’t hear is the explanation on why this is not a mere symbolic remembrance.  At the end of today’s reading, the very next verse and following we find Paul stating: 

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.  That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” (1 Cor 11:27-30)

The clue that precludes a mere symbolic understanding of the Eucharist is St. Paul’s usage of “guilty of blood,” which is a figure of speech connoting murder (Nm 35:27; Ez 35:6).  One incurs the “guilt of blood” only if the victim is present in person.  If someone fires a gun at a picture of the President of the United States, that person is not guilty of the President’s blood.  But if someone actually shoots the President, then that person is guilty of the President’s blood.

St. Paul says that we are guilty of Jesus’ blood if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily.  Therefore, we cannot conclude that St. Paul understood the Eucharist to be a mere symbol.  He must mean the Eucharist is Jesus present in person, with his body, blood, soul, and divinity.

And lastly, There are several other ways Jesus could have more clearly indicated that His words of institution (This is my body, this is my blood) was symbolism if He had wished to do so.  Aramaic [Jesus’ native language] has around three-dozen words that can mean ‘represents.’  That’s why Paul warns us that we are to discern the body (if we partake in an unworthy manner, then we are guilty of the blood of Christ.  Now, how can we ‘discern’ the body if it’s merely a symbol?  We can’t!  We are to discern the body in the Eucharist because the Eucharist IS the body.

God Bless
Nathan

Adapted from a Catholic Answers Newsletter

The First and the Last

After some contemplation of last Sundays Mass Readings I felt the Holy Spirit guiding me to talk about the Divinity of Jesus.  This feeling came to me when I read the Scripture readings and fell on the passage of John describing the voice that said to him: “Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning ant the end.”

 

One sentence later we find out that Jesus is the one speaking here but I’ve already heard from those who do not believe Jesus to be God that the one speaking was God the Father and that Jesus began speaking later.  Context is pretty plain that it is indeed Jesus speaking about being the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last but since this verse isn’t convincing for some, I thought I’d bring out some other verses that are a little clearer on this.

 

First, we know with certainty that the Lord God is the first and the last because the Old Testament explains this explicitly.  Isaiah 44, verse 6 tells us: “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”

 

God also describes Himself as the Alpha and Omega in the first chapter of Revelation when He says: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8)  So, it’s established that God is the Alpha and the Omega.  And earlier in Isaiah we see that God describes Himself as the first and the last.  The New Testament being written in Greek, the idea of ‘the first and the last’ is expressed using the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, alpha and omega. 

 

So, does Jesus call himself the first and the last to describe himself as God?  In fact, He does.  In the Book of Revelation the Apostle John writes: “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”

 

Do you see it?  God is the First and the Last and here the one calling Himself the ‘First and the Last’ also says in the same breath that he once was dead but now is alive for ever and ever.  The only one that can claim this title is God, and yet Jesus is also the only one who can say that he once was dead but is alive once again.  Therefore since Jesus describes Himself by a title that only God can have tells us that Jesus, right here in Scripture, declares Himself to be God.

 

God Bless
Nathan

Friendly Exchange with Fallen-Away Catholic on Savation by Faith Alone

Fallen away Catholic:

It was most refreshing [talking with you]--I didn't do a complete look at faith versus works (according to what we discussed); however, I would like for you to consider Ephesians Chapter 2 starting at verses 4 through 10 with special emphasis on verse 8.  I am sending this not in the spirit of argument but for your consideration.

Again it was enjoyable talking to you.  Best regard

I replied:
Hi [his name]

I so appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with a fellow brother in Christ.  I really enjoyed talking with you as well and anticipate some good exchanges in these emails.

I have a pretty thick skin.  I will take whatever is said here on your part as someone who loves Christ and wants to share what he has found to me.  And so, don't worry about hurting my feelings or fear of insulting me or something.  Ok?

You recommended that I read Ephesians 2, verses 4 through 10 with an emphasis on verse 8.  Well, let's have a quick look at those verses shall we.  Here are those exact verses from the NIV (its a little easier to read then the KJV) I hope you don't mind.

Eph 2

⁴ But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, ⁵ made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions – it is by grace you have been saved. ⁶ And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, ⁷ in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. ⁸ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – ⁹ not by works, so that no one can boast. ¹⁰ For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

And so we see that we are saved through faith, not by works.  Now, if you look closely Paul couldn't be talking about the uselessness of good works, ie works of God since he goes on in the very next verse on the idea the God Wills that we do certain works (verse 10).  Paul then, is referencing the works of the law (sacrificial law, circumcision and so on...) when he says that one is saved through faith and not by works of the law.

Look at verse 10, it says: "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God has prepared in advance for us to do."

Now, God has prepared in advance some good works that we are to do.  It is His Will that we do them.  What happens if we do not do the Will of God?  Answer: "‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."  (Mat 7:21)

Faith alone isn't enough, we must also do the will of God and if we knowingly refuse to do God's Will means that we will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The verse that I believe best explains the role of faith and works is in Gal 5:6

"the only thing that counts is faith working through love."

God Bless
Nathan

Primacy of Peter?

We find that Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of the apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times in the New testament of our Bibles.  Peter is also always listed first except in 1 cor 3:22 and Gal 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).  In light of this maybe we should have a look at the role that Peter received from Jesus in our Bible.

In today’s Gospel reading we find that Jesus is making Peter the shepherd of all, including the other apostles.  After Peter denied Jesus 3 times at the beginning of His Passion, Jesus asked the same basic question after His Resurrection when He appeared to the twelve.  He asked Peter if he loved Him: “Do you love more than these?” (referring to the twelve apostles who were present.)  Peter answers that yes, of course he loves Him.  Jesus then tells him to “tend my lambs, “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep,” which refers to all His followers, including the other apostles themselves.  Jesus charges Peter “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.”  Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Another verse that I find clear that Jesus was gave Peter the Primacy of the twelves authority is when Jesus explained to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,^[a] that he might sift you^[b] like wheat, ³² but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” (Luke 22:31-32)

A couple of things to notice.  First, Simon was Peter’s name before Jesus changed it when He said “You are Peter and on this rock…”  Second, the ‘you’ marked with [a] is the singular ‘you’, the one marked with [b] is the plural ‘you’.  We’re losing a key distinction when translating the original Greek text into English.  The word ‘you’ in English is the same whether in singular form or plural form but this isn’t so in the Greek of the New Testament times.  An easier way of reading that won’t lose the differences could be this way: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you[,Simon],^[a] that he might sift you [all]^[b] like wheat, ³² but I have prayed for you [,Simon], that your faith may not fail; and when you[, Simon] have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

We can plainly see that Jesus is showing Peter and the apostles that Peter is indeed the ‘leader’ of the twelve, the one with primacy of authority.  But let’s confirm this understanding by looking at some early Christian writings.
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
The Letter of Clement to James "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Origen "[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Augustine
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

God Bless
Nathan

Infallibility - A Challenge?

Recently, on Triablogue, John Bugay posted a query using Hans Küng as his primary source for challenging infallibility - as if a dissident "theologian" is a good place to start from.  I guess from a Protestant perspective, a dissident Catholic is "better" than an orthodox one, but even Bugay refers to Küng as a "renegade Roman Catholic theologian."

According to Bugay,

"Küng says he is not writing to destroy, but if ever there was a need for destruction, it is here. Wrong-headed from the start, both “papal infallibility” and “the papacy” both need to be headed toward “the ash-heap of history”. If anyone can muddy the waters right now (further than they have been muddied), it will be “Pope Francis”."

In short, Küng is writing to destroy.  The link there takes you to another Triablogue article on Papal Infallibility, also written by Bugay and while using another source, Küng wrote the introduction to that source - already opening it to the question of its orthodoxy.  That article opens with a discussion of the "Johannine Comma" and goes into a discussion about later popes overturning decisions by earlier popes.

It is apparent that Bugay (and perhaps his sources) is oblivious to the fact that not EVERYTHING decreed by a pope is infallible!  The fact of the matter is, VERY FEW decrees are actually considered to be infallible.  Yes, such a decree is binding upon all faithful Catholics - but again, a non-infallible decree can be (and several have been) overturned.

My response to the first article I cited is quite simple and straightforward:

Something which is bound in heaven, by its very nature, is then infallible - for nothing fallible could be "bound" in heaven.  If Peter, and thus his successors, has this authority, then Bugay's point is moot.  If Peter has not this authority, then Matthew 16:18-19 is a lie.  You can't have it both ways.

That response, if it is approved, was also posted to the original article on Triablogue (slightly paraphrased here because I did not copy it before I submitted it).  The bottom line is, if the Bible is the true and final authority for Bugay, then his objections to infallibility are pure folly and even scandalous in opposing the Word of God.

Is Sterilization Acceptable?

I had a nice exchange with 2 of my co-workers last the other day.  Someway or another our conversation turned to pregnancies and what people can do to avoid them.  One co-worker is a non-practicing, nominal Catholic and the other was a non-denominational Christian.  

After I told them that I didn't agree with having a vasectomy.  The nominal Catholic laughed and said: “Wait, wait, lets see what the extremist has to say about this.”  When I told them that we shouldn’t ‘mutilate’ our bodies for our convenience he started giggling.  The purpose of medicine is to return our bodies to a natural state.  I said that it wasn't a natural thing to do to your body and so we shouldn't do anything to disrupt the natural functioning of our organs.   He (the nominal Catholic) just started laughing.  He thought that I'd disagree with removing a kidney stone since that was a natural thing.

My answer to that though was kinda simple.   I told him, and the other non-denominational Christian that medicine is suppose to repair or return the organs and body in general to its original purpose which is why wearing glasses is ok since it improves the functioning of the eyes and the same for the kidney stone.  The stone impedes the kidney from functioning properly hence it is ok to remove it.  The only thing he had left was to turn around and he kept smirking but he gave up the argument.  Hopefully I was able to plant a seed to both of them.  I have great hope that the other individual listening will chew on this for a while.  At least he seemed  to be receptive of this idea of the true role of medicine.  I just thought I'd share with you.  I hope they'll be more of those moments, I just hope I have a ready response when/if they do and please do not shy away from defending the Catholic position on moral issues.  Her reasons that the Church holds these positions are on very solid ground, we just need to go look them up and share them when the opportunities arise.

God Bless
Nathan

Communion of Saints, pt3

Fundamentalists often challenge the Catholic practice of asking saints and angels to pray on our behalf. But the Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. 

Thus, in Psalm 103 we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20–21). And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" 

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth. 

Angels do the same thing: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3–4). 

Jesus himself warned us not to offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10). 

Because he is the only God-man and the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4). In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16). 

As the following passages show, the early Church Fathers not only clearly recognized the biblical teaching that those in heaven can and do intercede for us, but they also applied this teaching in their own daily prayer life. 

Hermas
"[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’" (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]). 

Clement of Alexandria
"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]). 

Origen
"But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep" (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]). 

Cyprian of Carthage
"Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy" (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]). 

Anonymous
"Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins" (funerary inscription near St. Sabina’s in Rome [A.D. 300]). 

"Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year, fifty-two days" (ibid.). 

"Mother of God, [listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger" (Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]). 

Augustine
"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]). 

Adapted from: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints

God Bless
Nathan