October 2004 Archives

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. - - St. Ignatius of Antioch

Why this quote? It was written in 110 A.D. by St. Ignatius, who was a follower of St. John the Apostle. And it was written approximately 10 years after the death of St. John the Apostle.

Pope John Paul II has named the next twelve months the “Year of the Eucharist.” This signifies to Catholics that a special emphasis should be placed on understanding and honoring the Eucharist, both personally and as a unified church.

When we post on the Eucharist, typically we get very few comments or arguments. Protestants don’t completely understand the fact that the Eucharist is more defining and divisive than any other Catholic teaching. In fact, the Eucharist is such as difficult teaching that in the Bible when Christ explained it, He lost all of his disciples except the twelve apostles (but you can also count Judas as one lost over the Eucharist).

Why is it so controversial? Because we as Catholics worship the Eucharist. Do we worship bread and wine? No, we worship the second person of the Trinity who actually appears in our churches in the form of bread and wine. If we had but faith, we could see Christ Himself on the altar. I’ve already posted on the Scriptural proof of the Eucharist and on the miracles associated with the Eucharist. But I haven’t said enough about our thirst for God in the Eucharist.

The Catholic Church calls the Eucharist, the “source and summit of the Christian life.” When Christ was asked for a sign to prove He was God, Jesus launches into the Bread of Life discourse of John 6, where he states:

Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed.

Jesus knew this was a hard teaching, but in that discourse He made the teaching clear. Each time Christ says the word “eat,” He strengthens the term – the last instance could be translated “chew” or “gnaw.” And after this discourse all of His disciples leave, because they understand Him literally (and cannibalism is against Jewish law). What does Jesus do? Does He correct them as in other instances where He is misunderstood? Does He say “Wait, I was just speaking metaphorically”? No, Jesus lets them leave, which underlines the importance of this teaching.

We are Christian cannibals in the best sense of the word. Under Jewish law, cannibals were cut off from their people, which is exactly the point. Christ feeds us in a literal way not merely in an intellectual way, but in a personal, intimate, physical way, Christ becomes food that sustains our spiritual lives and holiness. You are what you eat, they say, and I say Amen!

Do you hunger for God? Do you want a closer relationship with Him? You cannot find a more personal relationship than the Eucharist. In the Year of the Eucharist come home to Jesus and depend on Him for sustenance. He is the Bread of Life that you may eat of it and not die. And He is calling you home.

God bless,
Jay

PS – I also created this reference to all of the Scriptures and the early Early Church Fathers comments on the Eucharist.

I’ve just read perhaps the most insightful article on our current crisis in American politics. It’s so good, you should stop what you’re doing and Go Read It Now.

The article is The King’s Good Servant: Some Thoughts at a Crossroad by Archbishop Chaput. Before you rush to judgment because of the author, I highly recommend you read it – it is an excellent article.

The first part really spoke to me in terms of my personal holiness and the need for us all to constantly strive for holiness no matter how busy we may be.

After you’ve read it, take a look at my favorite excerpts:

I haven’t really posted on this yet, but I think it’s substantial enough to provide fodder for our discussions. Basically, the US Episcopal Church that earlier ordained an actively and openly divorced homosexual man as a deacon has raised the bar on heresy: They are now advocating idol worship from the Old Testament. Once this news broke, they posted an article trying to hide the action, but the pages still exist. Christianity Today broke the news and reacted to the Episcopalians press release here. If you haven’t read the news, I recommend you take a minute to acquaint yourself.

This to me is the ultimate downfall of Protestantism. If any interpretation of the Bible is correct, then no ones’ interpretation can be condemned. Episcopalians can argue that they are the correct interpreters of Scripture, since they are being lead by the Holy Spirit to do these acts. Ultimately, as we’ve said before, Protestantism is a form of relativism; there is no absolute truth that can’t be changed.

Over the years we see this repeatedly. All Christian churches universally honored Mary. No longer. All Christian churches believed in Infant Baptism. No longer. All Christian churches condemned contraception. No longer. All Christian churches condemned homosexual acts. No longer. All Christian churches condemned idol worship . . .

I think we can all follow the storyline. Moral decadence is the easy way to go – a downward spiral that’s too much fun to remove yourself from. And yet, only the Catholic Church has remained true. One of the great mysteries of Catholicism is that God can protect absolute Truth for 2,000 years despite the weakness of men. This is never more correct than now as we watch the moral decay of protestantism and the destruction of faith in absolute truth.

On a side note, it’s interesting that they have created an alternate “Eucharist.” The Eucharist is Christ and is the center of our faith. The other day, Father Sibley of A Saintly Salmagundi pointed out that when Jesus was asked for a sign from the people so that they might know He was God, Jesus launched into the Bread of Life discourse, which is His teaching on the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the one thing that must be destroyed in order to stop Christianity, thus it is the thing mocked and distorted by pagan religions.

As a protestant child, I always wondered why the satanic church and other pagans tended to be the antithesis of the Catholic Church and not the Southern Baptist church. As an adult, I understand that it is precisely because they know which Church was founded by Christ, even if others don’t.

God bless,
Jay

I just wanted to applaud Mel Gibson for fighting against Proposition 71 in California. First, he appeared on Good Morning America and spoke with Diane Sawyer, she actually suggested that it wasn’t a human, but a “clump of cells in a petri dish.” Mel’s Response:

I was never in a petri dish, but I was once a clump of cells. And so were you and so was the doctor. And so was everyone, and if you can find someone who wasn't once an embryo, I'll give you a cigar.

Southern appeal has an excellent analysis of this.

In addition, Mel Gibson is running commercials in California. The Curt Jester posted the transcript of these ads today:

Research on adult and umbilical cord stem cells have led to cures in 300,000 cases. But that’s not what Proposition 71 is about.

This is Mel Gibson and I’m concerned that the people aren’t fully informed about Prop 71.

We have a lot of questions to ask, like why are we being misled into thinking Prop 71 isn’t about cloning, when it is?

That’s what it says: "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer," and that’s a scientific term for cloning.

If cloning human embryos for destruction is so promising, why aren’t private companies paying the $6 billion?

Because in 23 years embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single human cure. All it yielded is tumors, rejections and mutations.

See, that science doesn’t atttract venture capital, so why should the taxpayers be bled dry?

This is Mel Gibson. I’m voting no on Prop 71.

Creating life simply to destroy it is wrong, particularly when there are effective alternatives readily available.

It’s nice to see someone in Hollywood who actually believes and stands up for his/her faith. Kudos to Mel Gibson for doing everything in his power to fight the good fight.

God bless,
Jay

PS - Bush is against stem-cell research and Kerry criticizes him for it at every stop. Just another reason to vote Bush.

I received Karl Keating’s (of Catholic.org fame) latest email and it asked a very provocative question: Who was more likely to have understood the teaching of the apostles correctly, those early writers we call the Fathers of the Church or the Protestant Reformers who came on the scene about thirteen centuries after the Fathers?

I think in some ways this captures one of the difficulties I have with following Martin Luther’s lead in splitting away from the Christian church started by Christ – how can he claim more authority than those who lived with and were taught by the Apostles? Many of the early Fathers were close friends and disciples of the Apostles and began writing while many of the Apostles were still alive. But there are no Apostolic writings condemning their thoughts or teachings.

You might be thinking, “Okay, what’s the point?” Well, the early Fathers were unabashedly Catholic. We’ve often quoted them here to show their faith in the Church as an institution founded by God and in the Eucharist. How can anyone claim that Martin Luther and the Reformers had a better understanding of Christ’s work on earth than those early Fathers?

I believe the answer is clear: Martin Luther led us astray (I say “us” because I was raised Protestant and only found out later the falsehoods I had swallowed). It’s time to come home to the Catholic Church . . .

God bless,
Jay

The First Catholic Carnival is now up at Living Catholicism. It's a collection of Catholic posts from various blogs. Take a look if you get a chance.

Next week's Catholic Carnival will be held at The Curt Jester and will be specifically on the Eucharist, so plan ahead.

God bless,
Jay

Today Kerry gave his big “Faith” speech in an attempt to fool the faithful into voting for him. I’ve been silent on the issue for a couple of weeks now, but if Senator Kerry feels like he’s man enough to bring it up (and make it the topic of a speech), then I guess he’s man enough to take it.

You can read the full speech at my link above, but needless to say it is full of deceptions. First, Kerry starts out about his faith providing strength and then quotes James:

In the Book of James we are taught: "It is not enough, my brother to say you have faith when there are no deeds...Faith without works is dead."

Okay, here’s where I literally choke. When Kerry quotes “Faith without works is dead,” it bothers me a great deal. Why? Because he follows up with this drivel:

My faith, and the faith I have seen in the lives of so many Americans, also teaches me that, "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me." That means we have a moral obligation to one another, to the forgotten, and to those who live in the shadows. This is a moral obligation at the heart of all our great religious traditions. It is also the vision of America: "E Pluribus Unum." The ethical test of a good society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Who among us is more vulnerable today than the 8 million Americans who are out of work? Who is more vulnerable than the 45 million Americans without health insurance? Who is more vulnerable than the parents who have to choose between food and medicine for their children? Older Americans - our parents and grandparents - should not have to take bus trips to Canada to afford the medicines they need to live -- and live healthy lives. No mother who gets up and goes to work every day should have to raise her children in poverty. That's why we have to raise the minimum wage, ensure equal pay, and finish the job of welfare reform, so we can honor work and once again grow the middle class instead of growing the number of people in poverty. [Ed. Note: my emphasis]

Hmmm. Let’s see, John. Maybe the unborn? Maybe those who are being killed to fund embryonic stem cell research which has not resulted in anything remotely resembling a cure? Oh, and by the way, that’s over 6 million babies a year, John, not counting the embryonic research murders or the escalation of abortion you're seeking. Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me, indeed.

The simple fact that he has the gall to quote that passage of Scripture speaks to his moral blindness and decadence. That passage pushes the intellect to consider the unborn and John Kerry wants to start using Federal funding to kill more of them. Personally opposed? My @$$.

Then, this so-called “Catholic” goes after those Bishops who are actually trying to protect the “least of these”:

I have tried and so much of that effort has been nourished by my faith. I know there are some Bishops who have suggested that as a public official I must cast votes or take public positions - on issues like a woman's right to choose and stem cell research - that carry out the tenets of the Catholic Church. I love my Church; I respect the Bishops; but I respectfully disagree.
My task, as I see it, is not to write every doctrine into law. That is not possible or right in a pluralistic society. But my faith does give me values to live by and apply to the decisions I make.

In other words, I am guided by my personal morals that suggest I should vote for anything that gets me elected. Earlier in the speech he says his “values will guide [him] as President.” What? Except in the case where those affected can’t vote? Kerry sold out his pro-life stance for political power and now he’s feeding it to those who want to believe. Sickening.

He ends with:

May America always have God's blessing even when we’re killing his children at an unbelievable rate. [Ed. Note: I assumed the latter part of the sentence from his earlier remarks

I think most would prefer Kerry just come out in the open and admit that for him faith is merely a political tool. Don’t preach to me on faith, Senator, when you have none. Faith includes standing up for those positions which won’t help you get elected.

By the way, for those who aren’t aware: the Catholic church hardly ever publicly excommunicates members in our day and age. However, members can privately excommunicate themselves through certain acts and I personally believe John Kerry has done just this. Maybe I’ll post more on this later.

God bless,
Jay

PS - Forgive my anger, but the injustice of a man like Kerry drives me nuts.

Now this is funny: the actual place where the 95 theses' were written has been found.

Nothing like some good Friday humor . . . ROTFL.

God bless,
Jay

PS - No offense meant, but you have to admit, this is hysterical.

Notice to Catholic bloggers: LivingCatholicism.com is hosting the first Catholic Carnival next week. Be sure to join in . . .

God bless,
Jay

This is an intriguing question because it tries to understand the complex motives of God (which really can’t be understood by mere man). But I think it points to some very interesting ends at this point in the year.

The easy answer to this question is, “To love and serve God.” But that doesn’t answer “Why” God made us in the first place. And I think there is only one answer to that question that starts with the nature of God. We know that God is outside of time, even though we are bound to it. God didn’t simply get bored (a human emotion) and decide to create some playthings in men. God made a decision to form man and woman for some reason, but what was it.

I believe the only clear answer lies in the value of Life. Life is always a gift from God. As a loving god, God seeks to give of Himself to others in Love, which is the perfect reflection of who God is: God is Love. God created us so that we might receive the Love He offers, that we might participate in the divine life of love through our very natures. God made us in order to share with us the glories of Himself, in an odd way.

When man was originally made, we were perfect in many ways. We had complete control over our decisions. We had freedom, a prerequisite for the ability to Love, which we also had. Adam and Eve choose to use that freedom in a negative way that destroyed one of their greatest gifts: an intimate relationship with God. But, through the fault of Adam God gave us an even more exquisite relationship that He invites us to participate in on a daily, even hourly basis.

So what is our purpose on earth? To love and serve the Lord. By doing so, we develop this intimate relationship with all three members of the Trinity that enable us to enjoy Heaven when we arrive there. There’s an old saying that Hell has a door locked from the inside; in other words, those in Hell would be as miserable in Heaven, since they have never learned to love and serve God. After all, as Milton points out, the mind can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. So our job on earth: prepare our souls for heaven. Why are we here? Because a loving God has given us the ultimate gift of Life (in several ways) and the opportunity to choose a life with Him or without Him for eternity. What did you do today to prepare your soul for Heaven?

God bless,
Jay

I guess we do this every now and then, but I thought it was a good time to do it again. I always recommend that if protestants are interested in understanding what the Catholic Church believes and/or teaches, they should start with a Catholic author. These are excellent books explaining the Catholic position:

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism

The Scriptural Roots of Catholic teaching

The Church on Earth

I pretty much recommend them in that order - the first is very general and covers all major questions about Catholicism. Both of the first two explain how the Catholic Church interprets Scripture. The third deals specifically wtih the nature of the Church - why is there a physical Church and what is it's role in the world.

Surprised by Truth

The Everyday Apostle

Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics

The first is an excellent book of real-life conversion stories. Often it helps to hear what the motivation was for someone to convert to Catholicism. The second book is probably the most important, because it covers how you can "preach" Christ without being preachy. In this day and time its' message can't be overstated. And the third is an emerging issue that everyone needs to think about: how does a Catholic (or even a Christian) approach a Muslim? I really think these works have value, so we highly recommend them. Let me know if you recommend anything else . . . God bless, Jay

I think at this point probably everyone has heard John Edward’s downright silly remark that the Kerry administration would cure diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and help those like Christopher Reeve to walk. All of his promises tie back to what the Kerry camp calls “stem cell research.” So why talk about it here? From a Christian perspective this is one of the critical issues for this debate.

Stem cell research can be divided into two types: embryonic and adult. I believe Kerry is intentionally lumping them together to distort facts, but more on this later. Adult stem cell research is ongoing and has had great results in terms of medical answers to problems. Embryonic stem cell research is where the controversy lies. In order to get embryonic stem cells, doctors must kill unborn babies. They can either create these children in a lab and then kill them or they can use aborted babies to gather these cells. Embryonic stem cells are all about “promise,” they have yet to provide a single cure or solution.

President Bush allowed federal funding of research on the 11 or so (the figure is disputed) lines of embryonic stem cells that had already been created. However, he stopped any federal funding to develop new lines, which would require the killing of unborn babies. So the Kerry campaign is heavily criticizing Bush for being “anti-scientific” and now Edwards is promising miracle cures within four years.

This represents a distinct difference between the two presidential candidates. Do the ends justify the means, as Kerry would argue? Or is life sacred and should be protected at all costs? I think as Christians we clearly understand the sanctity of life and the need to preserve everyone’s right to life. This is just another issue where George Bush is on the correct side and Kerry is not.

Embryonic stem cell research is similar to the sick experiments Nazi’s performed on their Jewish captives. Can we advance medical technology because of it? Perhaps, but it is not worth the cost. And, scientifically speaking, the adult stem cells show as much promise and actually have achieved results. Why waste our time killing babies when the other alternative is just as good? As Christians, we should demand that silliness like this end – we should also demand that federal funding end even on the current lines of embryonic stem cells.

God bless,
Jay

I’m curious about something that protestants obviously uphold. My understanding of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is all we need to understand salvation and become “saved.” From a logical perspective, how does this work?

For example, three-fourths of the world population is illiterate. How can they become saved? They must, I assume, ultimately trust another person’s interpretation or version of Scripture verbally. They cannot verify whether they are being told the truth. Does God hold them responsible for believing someone who is incorrect?

In California there’s an extremely popular protestant minister who insists that if you’re good, God will reward you with material riches. Of course this is absurd and completely anti-Biblical, but suppose this guy convinces others of his beliefs? Not everyone has the mental acuity to analyze Biblical passages, even if they are literate. Where is the line drawn?

To take this further, all protestants must trust completely in St. Jerome. Why? He translated the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is what most translations are based upon (some are apparently based upon English versions, which takes them even further from the source material). Most of the original writings of Scripture have been lost and there are numerous discrepancies even in the oldest texts. After Jerome, King James had his minions translate the Bible into English and from there it has been translated numerous times. What happens when the translators make a mistake?

What I’m getting to is this: If you can believe that the Bible you have was kept infallible or “protected” by God so that you could have the truth, then why couldn’t God have done the same with the Church? Is it a further reach to suggest that God protects his Church from error? I don’t believe it is. Furthermore, this provides a trustworthy opportunity for the illiterate to learn infallibly about God, whereas the written Word does not.

Don’t misunderstand: I believe the Bible is infallible, but I believe this because the Church has told me, not because I’ve gone back and analyzed the evidence. I’ve read some of the works that were not deemed canonical and, frankly, I have to trust in the Church to know the difference (some are easy, obviously). Ultimately, this is why God gives us a living institution: to protect Truth. And He does it infallibly for “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

God bless,
Jay

I recently had the pleasure of reading a book called "Leadership and Self Deception: Getting Out of the Box" published by the Arbinger Institute. It is directed towards managers and leaders in business, and those of you in such positions may have heard of it. I may write a review of the book at some point, but this is not that article. Rather, I found an interesting parallel between the main point of the book and the debate over faith and works. The book is focused on how we "get into the box", stay in the box, and get out of the box. Basically, the box is a condition of the mind where we cannot see the world objectively. We deceive ourselves into believing that we are good upstanding people and that when we encounter difficulties with others it is because they are jerks, insensitive, lazy, etc. and so on. Moreover, while in the box, we not only fail to see our own failings, we are more likely to recommit those failings because we have justified them as being good and necessary. The bad reactions to our poor conduct, choices, and attitudes are not only viewed as being inherent flaws in others, but such poor conduct invites additional bad behavior by those we find so distasteful and flawed. And oddly enough, that is precisely what we desire when we are "in the box" because it makes us feel that much more holy. It allows us to continue seeing the fault in others.

According to the authors, the only way out of the box is to change our perspective. We must stop seeing others as problems and begin seeing them as people. Equal in stature, equally deserving of dignity and respect. We must see them as thinking, feeling, loving, hurting, needing beings no different than ourselves. And we must be prepared to acknowledge our own shortcomings regardless of how faulty others are. As soon as that perspective changes, we are "out of the box." However, just as quickly we can re-enter the box. Entering the box occurs when we know what the right thing to do is (change the baby, take out the trash, shut off the TV, prepare the memo today, clean up the spill on aisle 5, etc.) but we fail to do it. In that moment, we fall into the practice of self-deception by justifying our failure to do the right that we know we should have done.

“Catholic” is actually a Greek term meaning “universal”. The Catholic Church was the one, universal church until the Eastern Orthodox schism in 1054 A.D. (the Protestant schism is relatively young in comparison). So, it was naturally referred to as the universal Church founded by Christ. Initially the early Church Fathers began using the term “catholic” to describe the Church in A.D. 110:

Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
- - Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrneans

Ignatius was a bishop and note that this is relatively close to the time of the Apostles (St. John was still alive) and the New Testament was recently finished, but it still was almost 300 years away from being pulled together into one book. Also, note that Ignatius is using the term “universal”, but he’s using it in a way to define the Catholic Church – he doesn’t merely mean “all Christians” (he is also referring to the Eucharist, which those outside of the Catholic Church don’t have).

There are numerous other references to the Church as the “Catholic Church” in the early Church fathers, but I thought I would just point out the first one.

God bless,
Jay

PS – we’re getting back to posting. Sorry for the delays!

Our apologies once again for the light posting. We're almost through with some other projects that have been consuming our time and we'll return to posting asap. Thanks for your patience.

God bless,
Jay