Theology in Winnie The Pooh?

So Matty really loves to watch Pooh's Grand Adventure to wind down for bed. I noticed the other night that Rabbit sings a song that really sums up the Sola Scriptura position. His song stresses the importance of following exactly the map that Owl drew for the friends in their search for Christopher Robin who has gone to Skull (or School if any of the animals could actually read).

Now Traci was less than pleased that I made this connection but it seemed like the argument I have heard so many times in debates with Sola Scripturists.

Here is a sample of the lyrics from Rabbit's ode to the map.

Never trust your ears
Your nose, your eyes
Putting faith in them
Is most unwise
Here's a phrase you all
Must memorize
In the printed word
Is where truth lies

Never trust that thing
Between your ears
Brains will get you nowhere fast
My dears
Haven't had a need
For mine in years
On the page is where
The truth appears

Most proponents of SS declare the printed word of the Bible as the only acceptable rule of faith. However Catholics say that the printed word is merely one leg of the stool on which rests the rules of faith. Catholics see the many references to a continuing authority (Matthew 23:1-4 and so many others), and to the difficulty of the Scriptures Acts 8:26-40, 2 Peter 3:16) as proof of the Magisterium. We also see the continuing beauty of 2,000 years of Tradition.

Sola Scripturists insist in spite of mountains of Biblical evidence and history that Christ intended to teach their pet theory. Citing verses like Matt. 4:4 or 2 Tim 3:14-17 they find their theory defensible.  

In reality it breaks down with a mere objective look at it. Because after all if the Scriptures are so perspicuous why can't people within the Scriptures understand them clearly. After all isn't the Ethiopian eunuch merely Luther's plowboy in the first century. 

Now I don't intend to say that the Scriptures are completely out of the realm of understanding without the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and her office of interpreting and protecting them. It can however be difficult to discern their true meaning without the benefit of that wisdom.

Almost immediately after the proposal of the idea of Sola Scriptura faithful Catholics began to attack and attempt to defeat the heresy. However it lives on today and its fruits are evident in the ever growing number of Protestant denominations. After all if the perspicuous Scriptures lead your church into an error well, just move on, find another church that accurately understands the Scriptures (at least as you understand them). Instead of showing the errors of the papacy, all the doctrine has done is create as many papacies as there are heads to paraphrase Luther himself.

Does Purgatory Disprove Roman Catholicism?

Purgatory is defined by the Catholic Church as the place of the final purification of the Elect. It serves the purpose of allowing those souls whose earthly life finished while they were imperfectly in God's friendship the final purification so they can enter Heaven in a state of perfect holiness (cf. Rev. 21:27).

In a recent post on his blog, Hiram Diaz, claims that Holy Mother Church's belief in such makes her claim of being the church founded by Christ a falsehood. According to the subtitle of his post it is a scriptural refutation; however in all of his bullet points I see only one mention of scripture (Jer. 31:34), and very little refutation.

I like this particular verse which says in effect that God will forgive us all of our sins and remember them no more. However in no way does this refute Purgatory nor Roman Catholicism. It seems to me that to disbelieve in the overwhelming scriptural evidence that would seem to support Purgatory is an attempt to deny God's eternal mercy.

First let's unpack that verse from Jeremiah and show how it in no way refutes Purgatory. The idea of Purgatory is that it is intended to help cleanse a person from all attachments to sin, from love of self, so that when they enter Heaven they will have only love of God.

In 2 Sam. 12 we see the story of King David's affair with Uriah's wife. David confesses his sin to the prophet Nathan, who tells him The Lord has taken away your sin and you shall not die (2 Sam 12:13). However as punishment for that sin the child conceived of that union dies (verse 18).

We also see in 2 Maccabees that Judas Maccabeus offers prayers and sacrifices for the dead (2 Macc. 12:43-46). Now, Mr. Diaz of course would dispute the canonicity of 2 Macc. however even if it isn't canonical it is no less accurate as a historical document. Thus showing that Jews in the time of Christ believed in offering prayers for the dead. Prayers which would not be efficacious for those in Heaven nor Hell, so they must be intended for those in a third place, i.e. Purgatory.

We also see Jesus mention this third state of post-Earthly life. Matthew 12:32 sees Jesus telling the disciples that speaking ill of the Son of Man can be forgiven; but that blaspheming the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this age nor in the age to come. Which again shows that there are in fact sins which can be remitted after death, and also some sins so severe they can never be forgiven.

We also see in St. Luke's Gospel (Lk. 16:19-31) the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Now the rich man is suffering in his state, and wants to warn others. Since compassion is a gift of God's grace he is not in Hell as that would be the permanent removal from the grace of God. And he is not in Heaven since he is in fact in a state of discomfort. He must be in Purgatory.

St. Paul's epistles also feature numerous references to the idea (such as 1 Cor. 3:10-15).

It seems the flaw in Diaz's attempt to discredit Holy Mother Church comes from his poorly constructed straw man detailing what Purgatory is and is intended to accomplish.For as I have shown even scripture details that God can forgive us our sins, yet still require us to make reparations for them. Much like if a father loaned his son the car for the night and the son had an accident; the father might forgive the son for having the accident but still require him to pay for the repairs.

God is both boundless mercy and boundless justice. This is one of the many paradoxes of the faith that we must come to terms with. In His desire that all men shall be saved (1 Tim. 2:4) God is merciful. In His desiring reparations for all of our transgressions (Mt. 5:26) He is infinitely just.

Finally let's take a look at St. Augustine's writings concerning the idea of Purgatory:

"For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,--not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come."  
Augustine, City of God, 21:13 (A.D. 426). 
 
"But since she has this certainty regarding no man, she prays for all her enemies who yet live in this world; and yet she is not heard in behalf of all. But she is heard in the case of those only who, though they oppose the Church, are yet predestinated to become her sons through her intercession...For some of the dead, indeed, the prayer of the Church or of pious individuals is heard; but it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it. As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, "They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.' But when the Judge of quick and dead has said, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,' and to those on the other side, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels,' and 'These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life,' it were excessively presumptuous to say that the punishment of any of those whom God has said shall go away into eternal punishment shall not be eternal, and so bring either despair or doubt upon the corresponding promise of life eternal."  
Augustine, City of God,2 1:24 (A.D. 426).

The Early Christians are Inadmissible...

The title of today's post comes from my ongoing opponent. Who informed me that my use of the practices of the Early Church was inadmissible evidence to support my assertion that his faith was not that of the apostles as he claimed.

Seems a bit like a judge deciding to throw out potentially damaging eye-witness testimony, purely because it is damaging.

To be fair this was his initial quote: "My religion is the same as that of the apostles. I can prove it from the Scriptures. Yours is not." 


His words will be in blue....


I responded to that with a 10-point list of ways in which his religion differs from the one taught by the Apostles. 

My List:

1. They believed in regenerative baptism (of infants even)
2. They believed in the Real Presence
3. They quoted, used, knew and taught ergo believed in the Septuagint
4. They submitted to the authority of the Church
5. They called Mary Blessed
6. They taught 7 sacraments
7. They didn't believe Sola anything
8. They believed in a ministerial priesthood
9. In fact they had Bishops, Priests and Deacons
10. They refrained from eating meat on certain days...

This is where the discussion got funny...

His response

1. They believed in regenerative baptism (of infants even)
There is not a single verse of Scripture that (a.)teaches regenerative baptism and (b.)infant baptism.

This one made me laugh... I admit I have to give him a little credit for point b as there truly are no specific verses which say infants were baptized, there are numerous instances however of "whole households" being baptized, so is he really saying none of those households had infants or very small children...Argue from silence much...

However to say not a single verse teaches regenerative baptism, really, really, St. Paul uses the words washing of regeneration in his letter to Titus. (Titus 3:5-6) Further Acts 22:16 tells us Arise be baptized and wash away your sins...

My favorite baptism verse in Acts however has to be Peter telling the people in Acts 2:38-39 that baptism is for the remission of sins and that the promise is to "you and your children."

Seems one has to go a long way to avoid or ignore these references to baptism as a regenerative act.  

2. They believed in the Real Presence
They did not believe your doctrine of Transubstantiation. If they did, then they were deceived by the devil or Christ was a sinner, I proved this to you. You merely touted back: “bbbbbbbut the early church!” That’s not proof. That’s called begging the question.

This has been his argument all along...the apostles were deceived by the Devil or Christ was a sinner, it's a tiresome argument that I have rebutted on this blog several times.

 Here is the post in question where he supposedly rebutted my defense of Transubstantiation. As I said not much of a rebuttal. But let's look at it. 
Deceived by the Devil: Doesn't hold water Christ told his believers unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you. Jn. 6:54-55. Jesus in fact adamantly over the course of  John 6 tells his listeners some 12 times that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. I don't know about anyone else but if God tells me something 12 times I might listen to Him.

His other argument about Christ being a sinner stems from his errant belief that if Christ told his disciples to eat His flesh and drink His blood before the "fulfillment" of the law that makes Him a sinner. I pointed out that He abrogated the law by issuing the command to eat His flesh. Not so says my opponent after all the law wasn't fulfilled. His argument stems from Jesus saying It is finished must be the fulfillment of the law. I referred him to a post from Shameless Popery where Joe investigated what exactly was finished... 
I don't think he read it because he continues to parrot this argument. Regardless Christ was fully divine therefore even in the Incarnation a part of Him exists with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the eternal Now. When you are outside of time all things are currently the present so it doesn't really matter when something happens in earthly time. 
Also notice the quip here about "The early church,"
 
3. They quoted, used, knew and taught ergo believed in the Septuagint
(a.)Many people knew the Septuagint, (b.)show me where the Septuagint is quoted, (c.)show me where they show their faith in the Septuagint.

Point a here is self evident so we won't go there. Point b is something I have done many times, showing him numerous references to the sheer volume of NT quotations that come directly from the LXX canon. This link from Scripture Catholic was largely ignored, or made fun of in previous discussions. Now to point C logic dictates that the Lord and the Apostles would quote from Scripture that which they believed to be Scripture. Ergo the Septuagint was considered Scripture by the Lord and the Apostles

4. They submitted to the authority of the Church
They submitted to the authority of the Lord God Christ, not the church. Insofar as a minister of the Word of God is in accordance with the Word of God that person is to be listened to. Your religion contradicts the Word of God at many points. Therefore, it is not to be listened to. I say that on the authority of Christ, the only Head of His Church. 

Once again let's look to Scripture shall we: Acts 15 details Paul and Barnabas going to the Apostles for a decision regarding how Gentile Christians are to live among Jewish Christians. Notice here Paul was a "minister of the Word of God" appointed by Christ himself, why couldn't he merely make the decision why did he need to return to Jerusalem and meet with Kephas and James and the rest. Notice also that the council essentially ends when Kephas (Peter) says his piece. Now true James closes the council but it is Peter's words that have the entire crowd silenced. Which is of course a rebuttal to the anti-Catholic rant at the end of this point, Christ gave Peter His flock asking Peter three times to tend his sheep, feed his lambs. Jn 21:15-17.
 

5. They called Mary Blessed
Of course they did, and they called one another blessed. For the Scriptures say: “Blessed be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed US with EVERY spiritual blessing…” They didn’t pray to her – they knew that prayer to anyone but God is idolatry.
 
I won't attack this one from the Marian angle just from the Communion of Saints. I can't specifically say whether Mary was prayed to in the Early Church I would suppose she was, however I can say the Early Church did pray to the Saints for intercession. Which they continue to do today, which they did in Jesus time as well (2nd Mac. 12:42-46). Now granted the Maccabees reference is more about offering prayers for the dead.
 "Even if we make images of pious men it is not that we may adore them as gods but that when we see them we might be prompted to imitate them." Cyril of Alexandria, On Psalms 113 (115) (ante A.D. 444)." This was true then and it is true now...

 "Only may that power come upon us which strengthens weakness, through the prayers of him[i.e. St. Paul] who made his own strength perfect in bodily weakness." Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 1:1(A.D. 380).

"But God forbid that any in this fair assembly should appear there suffering such things! but by the prayers of the holy fathers, correcting all our offences, and having shown forth the abundant fruit of virtue, may we depart hence with much confidence." John Chrysostom, On Statues, Homily 6:19 (A.D. 387).

Darn it, it looks like early Christians thought highly of the intercession of Saints....No wonder he didn't want me to use them in my argument. 

6. They taught 7 sacraments
lol. Where? Show me from the Scriptures. 

Evidently he thinks the Sacraments are funny...Curious. This one I think will be merely Scripture references without comment.
Baptism: Already covered but St. Paul details how baptism is the new circumcision many times in his epistles. 
Eucharist: John 6, Luke 22:19-20, Mk. 14:22-24, Mt. 26:26-28, 1st Cor. 11:23-26
Confirmation: Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6, Heb. 6:2, Rev. 9:4
Marriage: Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18
Ordination: Acts 6:6, Numbers 27:18
Confession: Jn 20:20-23
Anointing of the Sick: Mk. 6:13, James 5:14-15
 
7. They didn't believe Sola anything
They believed in Sola Scriptura (2 Tim 3:14-17, Ps 119, etc),
 
No, Protestant proof text be damned, they didn't. Reading the passage from 2nd Timothy it is clear that St. Paul is encouraging Timothy in knowledge of the Old Testament as he directs him to the Sacred Writings he had known since childhood. Seeing as the New Testament was as yet unfinished this can't be an appeal to Sola Scriptura. Nice try. Ps. 119 is great let your words be a lamp unto my feet, light unto my path sure...but it doesn't preclude other things. Also St. Paul makes numerous references to Traditions (paradosis in Greek) which are unwritten and handed on by word of mouth. 
 
Sola Fide (Gen 15:3, James 1:18, James 2:23, Eph 2:8-10, Romans 3-4, John 3:16, etc), 

When Paul speaks of works, he is generally referring to "works of law" (read also Galatians) which refer to works done under the Mosaic law. The Jews believed that they still had to perform their ritual works to be saved (e.g., circumcision). In Acts 15, Peter declared that circumcision was no longer required for salvation. We are saved by grace, not works. When Paul refers to "works," he is also referring to any type of work where we attempt to obligate God and make him a debtor to us. The Jews were attempting to do this in their rigid system of law. 

http://scripturecatholic.com/justification_qa.html#gracevworks 

James's poor misunderstood, proof-texted, epistle also doesn't teach Sola Fide no matter how much anyone wants it to. James 2:20-24 in totality repeatedly says that faith needs works. In fact vs. 24 says Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
So if you torture the Scripture you can make it say Sola Fide, that doesn't make it right.
To be fair I edited his comment here and chose merely to address the two most heretical solas. 

8. They believed in a ministerial priesthood
Scripture please. You’ve asserted this before and when I asked for Scripture you ignored me. “Show me the [Scripture]!” 

Mt. 28:19 Baptism is a priestly function, The Last Supper instruction to do that in remembrance of Him is a priestly function...Forgiving of sins was a priestly function...
 

9. In fact they had Bishops, Priests and Deacons
Those words are used in the New Testament, but they don’t refer to what you think they refer to :/
 
Oh really Inigo Montoya...Why because you don't want them to? Or do you have an actual argument here? Have those offices changed in 2000 years, certainly. Has the office of President changed in the US over the last 300 years, certainly. Does that mean Barack Obama is more or less President than George Washington (politics aside), no of course not.
 
10. They refrained from eating meat on certain days...
I’m sure some of them did. Paul admits this much in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10, you know, those passages where he explicitly refutes your religion on this matter and says:
 
Again not much more to report here than his anti-Catholic rantings. These verses do not refute Catholicism, they merely show that judging others for what they chose to do in regards to eating is sinful. But I suppose it's a nice try....

It is more than clear that the only reason to refuse to entertain the thoughts of early Christians is purely because it undermines his argument that he somehow holds the faith of the Apostles. It shows an intriguing amount of intellectual dishonesty.

Tying Up Some Loose Ends....

In recent posts I wrote a defense of  Transubstantiation and showed some writings from Ignatius of Antioch. It occurred to me today that the two dovetail nicely into a third topic. That topic being the idea that one of Catholicism's bedrock claims for Transubstantiation relies on John 6. Ignatius was a student of John's and he was so blatantly Eucharistic in his thinking so clearly a defender of the Real Presence that that should speak volumes to us about the topic.


Now if John was the last living apostle (tradition says he was), and one of his students teaching from one of his texts says that we are to take Christ literally in the account of the Bread of Life Discourse (Jn. 6:48-70); wouldn't he (John) have done something (written something against Ignatius, counseled others that he (Ignatius) was "off the reservation", something, anything).

It stands to reason it's not like the early church was free of disagreement or that the Church Father's didn't know how to call someone out for teaching what they thought was heresy. I mean I realize this was a couple hundred years later but just look at how St. Jerome hands Rufinus his ass:

"I have learned not only from your letter but from those of many others that cavils are raised against me in the school of Tyrannus, "by the tongue of my dogs from the enemies by himself" because I have translated the books Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν into Latin. What unprecedented shamelessness is this! They accuse the physician for detecting the poison: and this in order to protect their vendor of drugs, not in obtaining the reward of innocence but in his partnership with the criminal; as if the number of the offenders diminished the crime, or as if the accusation depended on our personal feelings not on the facts. Pamphlets are written against me; they are forced on every one's attention; and yet they are not openly published, so that the hearts of the simple are disturbed, and no opportunity is given me of answering."

So clearly church fathers knew how to disagree. Now returning to the topic at hand, men of goodwill can and have disagreed mightily about the Lord's words in John's Gospel as well as other passages Catholics proclaim as teaching the Real Presence; however if a student of the last living apostle was already that far afield how can any of us proclaim the Truth, unless of course that was Truth.

After all John was (to borrow from the six degrees of separation idea) one degree from Christ; ergo Ignatius was only two. Now if someone two degrees from Christ was preaching, teaching and expounding on the idea that He was fully, truly present in the Eucharist. If that wasn't the catholic view, then when did such heresy began and take such root to be the Catholic view.

After all if Christ couldn't maintain His promise to lead us into all truth (Jn. 16:13) or that the Gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against His church (Matt. 16:18). Then He also failed to be with us always even unto the end of the age (Mt. 28:20).

After all Ignatius was as I said living mere decades after Christ and he taught a Real Presence. If that was false then, it would still be false today. However as we see in John 6:55. Christ promises to raise us up on the last day if we "eat His flesh and drink His blood."

ChurchFathers.org has a great selection of quotes from the Early Fathers discussing the Eucharist and the Real Presence. Some of which have been mentioned in this space before.

And if you missed Joe's recent post at Shameless Popery about the Early Church remaining silent in the face of this "heresy" check it out.

Another great post of recent vintage is this one from Brantley over at Young, Evangelical and Catholic.

So if this is such a grave heresy, where is the evidence? Has that big, evil, monolithic Catholic church merely destroyed it all in order to maintain power? Is it hidden in some wing of the Vatican Archives, or could it maybe, just maybe be that Catholics have held the same view for lo, these 2,000 years because the Apostles handed that view on and succeeding generations maintained it as part of the Deposit of Faith.

A Defense of Transubstantiation

Buckle up everyone as we are about to take a tour through perhaps the oldest doctrine of Roman Catholicism. In our tour I will define, explain, defend and prove that the idea of Transubstantiation is not only biblical, historical and necessary, but also truth itself.

Let's start with definition of a few key terms:

• Transubstantiation: The belief held by Catholics (and all Christians until the Protestant Era) that during the words of consecration the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper become truly His Body and Blood, in a real and sacramental way. 
• Real Presence: The belief that Christ is really and substantially present in both species of the Eucharist. 
• Consubstantiation: Martin Luther's teaching that the bread and Christ are both present in the Host. Rejected by Catholics and later "Reformers" alike. Those reformers after Luther maintained a strictly symbolic view of the Eucharist.

I have mentioned in this space an ongoing debate I was having on Facebook. My opponent quit the debate but posted his refutation of the doctrine at his blog here. 

So in many ways this shall serve as my answer to him as well as just a good chance to examine a core Catholic belief.

The crux of the whole argument comes down to a few key passages from Scripture.

For starters John 6: 48-70 is a passage known as the Bread of Life discourse. It is one of Jesus' longest teachings in John's Gospel. In the course of that teaching Jesus instructs his followers that if they desire eternal life they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus counterweighs this radical, and obviously scandalous new teaching by discussing the manna in the desert. We know from Scripture that the manna was considered among the holiest of holy things as the Jewish people kept a jar of it in the Ark (Heb 9:4).

In Psalm 78: 24-25 we see the manna called the bread of Heaven; the bread of the angels. This was indeed special bread. Reading from a strict typological perspective the New Testament bread from Heaven must be even more spectacular. Indeed Christ tells us He is the new bread of life, the new Manna from Heaven.

Now some raise the point that Levitical law prohibited the drinking of blood. Indeed it did, however Christ as the fulfillment of the old law abrogates that, as He commands the people that if they wish to be raised on the last day they must eat My flesh and drink my blood. Christ clears this up at the end of the discourse after many people "drew away and no longer walked with Him... (John 6:67)." Christ looks to the Twelve; asking them will you also go away? St. Peter answers Him in the negative. The apostles have heard and don't quite understand but again they know that Christ is the "Son of God."

There is a similar passage in Matthew 5:21-35. Wherein Jesus abrogates or in some cases strengthens portions of the Mosaic law.

With those points out of the way let's investigate some claims made against the doctrine by my opponent. He cites Luke 24:38-39 as somehow proof that Christ had no blood in His resurrected body. An interesting claim, but one without an exegetical basis. For in Genesis 2:23 Adam refers to Eve as flesh and bone...does that mean she has not blood within her? After all this is before the fall she is immaculately created, so her body should in fact be every bit identical (save basic gender differences) to Christ's resurrected body.

Further St. Ambrose of Milan uses those very verses (Lk. 24:39) to defend Transubstantiation:

123. If, then, there has neither been a time when the Life of the Son took a commencement, nor any power to which it has been subjected, let us consider what His meaning was when He said: Even as the living Father has sent Me, and I live by the Father? Let us expound His meaning as best we can; nay, rather let Him expound it Himself.

124. Take notice, then, what He said in an earlier part of His discourse. Verily, verily, I say unto you. He first teaches you how you ought to listen. Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you. John 6:54 He first premised that He was speaking as Son of Man; do you then think that what He has said, as Son of Man, concerning His Flesh and His Blood, is to be applied to His Godhead?

125. Then He added: For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed]. John 6:56 You hear Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, you perceive the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord's death, John 6:52 and you dishonour His Godhead. Hear His own words: A spirit has not flesh and bones. Luke 24:39 Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, do show the Lord's Death.

When I pointed this passage out to my opponent I was accused of proof-texting. Right, because I need to pull one quote by one father to support my view. He also submits that there is a "disagreement" on what Ambrose meant, I submit it is no disagreement it is merely Protestant academics attempting to cast shadows to support their theologically novel doctrines. Ambrose is evidently being targeted now as they failed to do the same with Augustine.

Further to dispel his biggest argument, hardly merits discussion other than to quickly correct his false explanation. Reminds me of what Abp. Sheen once said "There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be." I think the late Archbishop even expanded on that frequent remark adding that even Catholics would hate the church if it was what it was purported to be.

Now Catholics as I say do believe in the Real Presence of Christ. However while that Presence is Real it is a Sacramental presence. Meaning that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is contained in that consecrated bread and wine. In other words He is not physically present, but that Presence is still literal.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood...the Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.¹⁵³

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"¹⁵⁸ The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. "Will you also go away?":¹⁵⁹ The Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"¹⁶⁰ and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

...

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."¹⁹⁹ In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."²⁰⁰ "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."²⁰¹

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."²⁰⁴

My opponent also claims that this doctrine cannot be true because Christ or the Apostles did not teach it. This is a rather weak case of arguing from silence and I believe he knows that to be true in his heart. For if they did not teach this doctrine where was the outrage when certain of the father's taught it to be true. Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr. Ignatius is especially damning of his argument since he learned from the Apostle John. Yet he proclaimed the truth of the Real Presence. If someone who learned from an Apostle held and taught this to be true and there were no cries of heresy from the other bishops or fathers to be heard than in fact that must have been the universal teaching of Holy Mother Church.

Edited to Add: For another thing if  the Apostles didn't teach a Real Presence/Transubstantiation view, then St. Paul's warning to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:27) is ridiculously overblown. To in essence be called guilty of murder for unworthy consumption of  a symbol is a bit much.

As to the supposed moral dilemma presented by my opponent:

"The Lord tells His people that He does not change;[3] therefore, the command to literally eat literal flesh and literally drink literal blood cannot be a command from God. For the Lord expressly forbids the eating of meat with blood still in it, as well as the drinking of blood; both of these practices were pagan abominations which the Lord strictly commanded Israel to not engage in."

Has he ever eaten a piece of meat cooked short of being charcoal? For that would be a sin as he points out. He is trying to have it both ways. Either we are still under the Mosaic law or we are under the New Covenant. We can't be both. Further, if God cannot change then the Mosaic law still applies, period. As to his opinion that the Jerusalem Council kept the Mosaic law for the new Gentile converts that seems to stretch the text to an unusual degree.

Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1–10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/15/

However regarding one other point here it is crucial to note that while Christ instituted the Eucharist while He was still in his incarnated flesh, it was not celebrated by the Apostles until after the Resurrection. Thus the law had been fulfilled. Moreover this view doesn't in any way preclude the institution at the Last Supper from being identical to the Sacrament celebrated to this day, confected by the successors of the Apostles, the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church.

After all Christ doesn't tell His Apostles after my Resurrection this will be my body. And as St. Augustine pointed out the Psalms speak to this moment:

" 'And was carried in His Own Hands:' how 'carried in His Own Hands'? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, 'This is My Body.' "

As I mentioned even Martin Luther maintained a belief in some sort of Real Presence. He merely taught a heretical, theologically novel position on it. However certain other "Reformers" chief among them Huldrich Zwingli taught that the lesson in John 6 was intended merely as a symbol. Zwingli to prove his case pulled a single verse, Jn 6:63 and declared that Christ's teaching that the flesh was of no avail clearly intended a symbolic reading of all the preceding text.

This is absurdly false for several reasons; not the least of which is that Christ didn't say His flesh was of no avail. For we know it avails much, after all it was Christ's flesh through which it was prophesied "By His stripes we are healed. (Is 53:5)" It is also false because it presupposes the word spirit to mean symbolic. If that is the case then Jesus tells us God is merely a symbol in Jn. 4:24.

Finally perhaps a poetic defense is in order. The Angelic Doctor Thomas Aquinas wrote numerous poems and hymns about the topic, which even his own massive intellect couldn't rationally explain. My favorite happens to be the Adoro Te Devote:

 Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore,
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at Thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived:
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth Himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.

On the cross Thy godhead made no sign to men,
Here Thy very manhood steals from human ken:
 Both are my confession, both are my belief,
And I pray the prayer of the dying thief.

I am not like Thomas, wounds I cannot see,
But can plainly call thee Lord and God as he;
Let me to a deeper faith daily nearer move,
Daily make me harder hope and dearer love.

O thou our reminder of Christ crucified,
Living Bread, the life of us for whom he died,
Lend this life to me then: feed and feast my mind,
There be thou the sweetness man was meant to find.

Bring the tender tale true of the Pelican;
Bathe me, Jesu Lord, in what Thy bosom ran
Blood whereof a single drop has power to win
All the world forgiveness of its world of sin.

Jesu, whom I look at shrouded here below,
I beseech thee send me what I thirst for so,
Some day to gaze on thee face to face in light
And be blest for ever with Thy glory's sight. Amen.

Which Came First?

The chicken or the egg? Ok, so today's post will not be about that at all. Rather let's look at which came first the Church, or the Bible and how that informs how denominations view themselves in light of that.

According to the Catholic viewpoint, the Church, Christ's spotless bride came first. In fact Christ Himself instituted it by according Peter a share in the powers He Himself holds in Heaven. In Matt. 16:13-20 Jesus blesses Simon, changes his name and gives him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Pretty weighty stuff, followed in a couple chapters by Christ conferring some of that same authority on the other eleven bishops (Matt. 18:18) of His church.

Christ before His death promised to send another (The Holy Spirit) to guide the church into all truth (Jn. 16:13). The Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles at Pentecost and they began to go out into the world preaching the Good News (Gospel) that the Messiah had come, been crucified and had risen again.

On that first Pentecost St. Peter urged repentance and baptism for the gathered crowd and 3,000 people were added that day(Acts 2:38-41).  

"Only five out of the twelve wrote down anything at all that has been preserved to us; and of that, not a line was penned till at least 10 years after the death of Christ, for Jesus Christ was crucified in 33 A.D., and the first of the New Testament books was not written till about 45 A.D. You see what follows? The Church and the Faith existed before the Bible." An important point as Henry Graham noted more than 100 years ago, in his collection of essays Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church:

"Thousands of people became Christians through the work of the Apostles and missionaries of Christ in various lands, and believed the whole truth of God as we believe it now, and became saints, before ever they saw or read, or could possibly see or read, a single sentence of inspired Scripture of the New Testament, for the simple reason that such Scripture did not then exist. How, then, did they become Christians? In the same way, of course, that Pagans become Catholics nowadays, by hearing the truth of God from the lips of Christ's missionaries."

Graham goes on to make the point that Neither St. Paul, nor any of the other writers of what became the New Testament would likely have felt all that great about their work being intended as the sole Regula Fide of Christianity (as the leaders of the Protestant Rebellion would attempt to make it 1500 years in the future.

"And we can imagine St Paul staring in amazement if he had been told that his Epistles, and St Peter's and St. John's, and the others would be tied up together and elevated into the position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines of Christianity, to be placed in each man's hand as an easy and infallible guide in faith and morals, independent of any living and teaching authority to interpret them...

No one would have been more shocked at the idea of his letters usurping the place of the authoritative teacher—the Church, than the great Apostle who himself said, 'How shall they hear without a preacher? how shall they preach unless they be sent? Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ...True, he [St. Paul] was an Apostle, and consequently inspired, and his letters are the written Word of God, and therefore are a final and decisive authority on the various points of which they treat, if properly understood; but that does not alter the fact that they nowhere claim to state the whole of Christian truth, or to be a complete guide of salvation to anyone; they already presuppose the knowledge of the Christian faith among those to whom they are addressed; they are written to believers, not to unbelievers; in one word, the Church existed and did its work before they were written, and it would still have done so, even though they had never been written at all."

Graham goes on to make the Catholic Church's point that the totality of Scriptures (particularly the New Testament) are Her book, to Her alone was it entrusted.

"What follows from this is self-evident. The same authority which made and collected and preserved these books alone has the right to claim them as her own, and to say what the meaning of them is. The Church of St. Paul and St. Peter and St. James in the first century was the same Church as that of the Council of Carthage and of St. Augustine in the fourth, and of the Council of Florence in the fifteenth, and the Vatican in the nineteenth—one and the same body—growing and developing, certainly, as every living thing must do, but still preserving its identity and remaining essentially the same body, as a man of 80 is the same person as he was at 40, and the same person at 40 as he was at 2."

"Rome claims that the Bible is her book; that she has preserved it and perpetuated it, and that she alone knows what it means; that nobody else has any right to it whatsoever, or any authority to declare what the true meaning of it is. She therefore has declared that the work of translating it from the original languages, and of explaining it, and of printing it and publishing it, belongs strictly to her alone; and that, if she cannot nowadays prevent those outside her fold from tampering with it and misusing it, at least she will take care that none of her own children abuse it or take liberties with it; and hence she forbids any private person to attempt to translate it into the common language without authority from ecclesiastical superiors, and also forbids the faithful to read any editions but such as are approved by the Bishops."

 Because of the facts of history (namely the Church existing before the writing, compiling and codifying of what Graham terms the Christian Scripture) we (Catholics) have two fountainheads of Divine Revelation (Scripture and Tradition). Neither one contradicts the other and neither one contains the totality of the other. As then Cardinal Ratzinger (now of course Pope Benedict XVI) notes in God's Word (pg. 71)

"We can further note that the New Testament Scriptures do not appear as one principle alongside apostolic tradition; still less (as is the case with us), do the New Testament Scriptures, together with the Old Testament, stand as one single entity “Scripture”, which could be contrasted with “tradition” as a second entity. Rather, the complex of New Testament event and reality appears together as a developing dual yet single principle, that of gospel; as such, it is contrasted, on the one hand, with the Old Testament and, on the other, with the specific events in the subsequent age of the Church."

So Catholics have as Pope Benedict pointed out a concept of "gospel" that encompasses not merely Scripture but also all of those things that weren't written down (Jn. 21:25). St. Paul speaks many times of these traditions and urges his charges in various letters to carry on those things.  

It wasn't until Martin Luther in the 1500's when those Traditions came under attack as somehow less than the true deposit of Faith (2nd Tim. 1:13-14). Luther and those who followed after him tried to divorce the book from the church "The pillar and foundation of the Truth" (1st Tim. 3:15). We can see how well that worked out for them by the sheer number of Protestant denominations all claiming they follow the Bible alone.

Pope Benedict answered the idea of Sola Scriptura in God's Word:

"Trent had established that the truth of the gospel was contained “in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus”. That was (and is to this day) interpreted as meaning that Scripture does not contain the whole Veritas evangelii and that no sola scriptura principle is therefore possible, since part of the truth of revelation reaches us only through tradition." (Ratzinger pg. 48)

Beyond that however, we see in the disunity of Mainline Protestantism how Scripture is not perspicuous, especially given the wide ranging disagreements on things like infant baptism, communion, and the number of sacraments. 

As Graham noted the Protestant idea quickly devolves into absurdity: 

On the Catholic plan (so to call it) of salvation through the teaching of the Church, souls may be saved and people become saints, and believe and do all that Jesus Christ meant them to believe and do,—and, as a matter of fact, this has happened—in all countries and in all ages without either the written or the printed Bible, and both before and after its production. The Protestant theory, on the contrary, which stakes a man's salvation on the possession of the Bible, leads to the most flagrant absurdities, imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years, and indeed ends logically in the blasphemous conclusion that our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth.

Clearly the Church antedates the Bible and as such holds a certain authority regarding the Bible. None of this disputes the material sufficiency of the Scriptures if read without the aid of Holy Mother Church to effect salvation; however it is not the way that was intended in the Divine Plan.

As Pope Benedict points out after all:

"What kind of meaning does talk about “the sufficiency of Scripture” still have, then? Does it not threaten to become a dangerous self-deception, with which we deceive ourselves, first of all, and then others (or perhaps do not in fact deceive them!)?" (ibid. pg 49)

So if the church precedes the Bible, doesn't it then make sense to be in communion with the church that begat the bible; the one church appointed to preserve, protect and defend it as it were.

What Can We Learn From Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist and philosopher during the 1600's. He famously stated a thesis that has come to be known as Pascal's Wager. It states essentially that since one doesn't lose anything by living as if God exists one should strive to do just that.

It has been widely criticized through the years even by contemporaries of Pascal, but can we learn anything from it today. Or is it merely a weak attempt at a bare-bones case of apologetics.

I got to thinking about this topic the other day, when I overheard some of my fellow vendors having a discussion about living your whole life for something, only to find out it was wrong. When I asked what they were being so philosophical about so early in the morning I was told they were discussing whether or not it made sense to believe in God. One of the guys was expressing his lack of desire to follow the rules of a billion dollar industry.

I immediately said that's Pascal's Wager, does it make sense to believe in God, in the face of a lack of proof. It's a topic I have wrestled with somewhat myself. Let's just say there is a reason I love the name Thomas. When I read the story of Thomas's unbelief at the Resurrection I see a lot of myself in that tale.

First let's take a look at Pascal's intended audience, he was a skeptic writing for skeptics and yet he comes away from this argument taking the view that it is strong indeed. He finished his argument with this thought: "this is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it."

Peter Kreeft one of the preeminent apologists alive today used a series of examples to demonstrate the near absurdity in not taking Pascal's Wager, writing the following:

Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free—wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to?

Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?

Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million?

No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to "bet" on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win. (From The Argument From Pascal's Wager)

Mind you as Kreeft points out, even Pascal realized this was a low ladder, but perhaps a necessary one for those on the fence. For if you live the faith without having it you may one day realize you had it all along.

Anthony Hopkins priest character in the film The Rite has a couple of great lines on skepticism and faith. One in which he talks about more or less walking through the darkness lost, then he feels something like the fingernail of God scratching away the dark and bringing him back into the light.

The other one is: "You know, the interesting thing about skeptics, is that we're always looking for proof... the question is, what on earth would we ever do if we found it?"

Chalk that one up as another amazing line in a career full of them for Sir Anthony. 

Pascal's strongest piece of his argument hits the skeptics hardest. In dealing with the idea of agnosticism he comes out blasting. Kreeft again has perhaps the best summary of Pascal's argument against agnosticism likening us to ships needing to pull into port in a storm (God) or waiting for the weather to clear so we can be sure it is the right port. Kreeft rightly says we cannot sit at anchor we are actively moving in the stream of life decisions must be made. There is no room for agnosticism's measured know-nothingness.

Pascal implores those reading his argument with a simple philosophy toward accepting it:

"If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith, and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have. . . . They behaved just as if they did believe."

It is this last that even today nearly 400 years later still holds a lesson for us. Whether you already believe or you doubt act as though you do believe and in time you will likely find that you do in fact. Whether or not you have multiple proofs of the existence of God. 

Even if you merely act according to the moral precepts and ideas of what C. S. Lewis once called Mere Christianity you will be a step ahead. Because in living a Christian life you will inspire others to be better people.

Not to get all let's gather in a circle and sing Kumbaya, but seriously what is so foul about trying to fashion your life to more closely resemble the example Jesus gave us all.

Perhaps that is what we can learn from Pascal's Wager, that it doesn't take all that much to live up to the Christian ideal and it sure won't cost you anything. But could in fact benefit you beyond measure.

Finishing Up My Thoughts on Easter

I hope everyone enjoyed a truly blessed Easter. We had a great one here at the Musing's Mansion. Made Easter Baskets for the boys, went to Mass, a truly beautiful celebration with the full choir and a great homily from Fr. Brian. Just when I decry the lack of good Catholic homilies all three times I made it to Mass during Holy Week we had exceptional ones.

Alleluia He is Risen!!! I think that the Mass is beautiful every time but there sure is something special about the Liturgies during Holy Week, particularly Easter.

For it is on Easter Sunday that we can truly say we no longer need fear anything. Our Lord has conquered death and sin and in his dying has united us unto himself as Sons and Daughters of the Living God. There is a passage in the Exsultet which is sung at the Easter Vigil that always gives me chills:

This is the night
when Jesus Christ broke the chains of death
and rose triumphant from the grave.

What good would life have been to us,
had Christ not come as our Redeemer?
Father, how wonderful your care for us!
How boundless your merciful love!
To ransom a slave you gave away your Son.

O happy fault,
O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

Watching The Passion of the Christ on Saturday, I was struck as I always am by the notion that He suffered that terrible pain all for my failings and my faults.  That in itself is always enough to make me weep, but it's when I realize, even if I were the only one who needed saving He would have endured all that pain just the same.

Watching the opening scenes of the Agony in the Garden and seeing Jesus just about choking under the weight of all He is about to bear. You can't help but be struck by the fact that Jesus is probably feeling the burden of the sins of the world for all time on his shoulders. He that knew not sin, was made sin so that we might experience the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21).

During this Holy Week every year Holy Mother Church celebrates Her birth, Her true calling (evangelization and bringing people to the knowledge of Christ) and the beginnings of Her great Sacrament.

For on Holy Thursday we celebrate the night Christ "Carried and held Himself in His own hands," as St. Augustine said.

It was on that night that Christ gave his Apostles Himself in a future tense showing them what they were to do and instructing them to do it always ..."in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25).

As I have mentioned before it is worth noting that St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians was one of the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament and he seems to plainly believe in a Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist from the words of institution to the Real Presence, warning the Corinthians not to eat the sacrifice unworthily (1 Cor. 11:29).

It was special this year to get to the Liturgy on Good Friday and to walk up the aisle and kneel before the Cross, venerating the "Wood...on which hung the Savior of the World." Always moving, but this year it just seemed especially more so.

I hope you all had a blessed Holy Week and Easter. I love this time of year because most of my favorite Gospel readings are clustered into it. The story of Thomas, The road to Emmaus, The post-Resurrection Jesus seems more like he is drawing everyone into himself.

He is risen Alleluia, Alleluia!!!!

A Few Links For Maundy Thursday

So a trip to Spokane for Tommy's doctors kept me from getting to Mass tonight and pulling together my own thoughts on the importance of the day. Remember according to the ancient Jewish Calendar, Jesus effectively shared his last meal with the apostles and died on the same day. Today in our modern calendar marks the beginning of the Lord's Passion, with the institution of the Eucharist and a hint toward the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Anyway on to the Links:

• Today's Readings for the Mass of the Lord's Supper.
• A great post from Joe over at Shameless Popery on the meaning of Holy Thursday
• The Holy Father's Homily from the Mass at St. Peter's. Benedict XVI had two important days this last week, his 84th birthday and the sixth anniversary of his election.
• Fr. Z has some thoughts for you on Holy Thursday as well...If you are sniffing around his site be sure to look at his take on the pope's sermon from the Mass as well.
• A great blog from Dr. Scott Hahn's website on whether there was a Paschal Lamb at the Last Supper.

Well that should be some good reading for you on why we celebrate Holy Thursday. Have a blessed Good Friday everyone...

Bless Me Father, For I Have Sinned....

Even if you know nothing about the way Catholics practice reconciliation you have surely heard the title phrase in movies and TV. I didn't use to be a fan of the Sacrament of Confession, but that has changed lately. There is something to be said for the squeaky clean feeling of one's soul after receiving the grace of the sacrament.

Protestants think Catholics are almost sacrilegious in how we make our confession, but in truth the whole process is soundly rooted in the Bible. Perhaps the best one stop shopping answer as to why Catholics go to confession is found in John 20:19-23. Jesus appears to the apostles after the Resurrection and sends them forth as the Father has sent Himself. We know from Matt. 9:6 and Mark 2:5 that the Son of Man was given the power to forgive others their sins, ergo it follows that Jesus is giving the apostles that same power.

And how will they know whose sins to forgive if those sins aren't told to them? Many times in the Gospels as Jesus works his healing he starts by forgiving people's sins, often that in itself is the necessary cure for the person freeing them from their malady.

Jesus gave that same power to his apostles. In addition to commissioning them to preach the Gospel (Matt. 10:5-10), govern the church (Matt. 16:16-20, Luke 22:29-30) and make it holy through the sacraments, especially the Eucharist (John 6:54, 1st Cor. 11:24-29).

Let's take a look at some Old Testament passages that seem to contradict Catholic teaching and see how they in fact compliment it nicely. In Isaiah 43:25, we see that it is God that forgives sins, as an aside Catholics don't deny that God is the efficient cause of forgiveness we just see that he is merely working through his priests to do so. Evidence of God using a priest in the cause of forgiveness can be seen in another Old Testament passage Leviticus 19:20-22 shows a penitent sinner seeking forgiveness by the priest sanctifying his offering.

Jesus is the High Priest of the New Covenant (Heb. 7:22-27) you say. The one mediator between God and man (1st Tim. 2:5). Indeed He is those things. But are we not all called to mediate in Him to one another. When we share the Gospel are we not mediating in the one true Mediator. Now 1st Peter 2:5,9 demonstrates that we are all by virtue of our baptisms called to be "A Royal Priesthood," but that doesn't remove the ability that Jesus gave to his priests, the apostles, that they in turn handed down to others perform the sacraments.

But what about James 5:16, it merely says to confess your sins to one another, why do we need to go through a priest? First off to take just that one verse removes the context of that which came before it. Let's look at James 5:14-16 as a whole.

St. James implores his readers if they are sick to call on the elders of the church to receive laying on of hands and prayers (Extreme Unction or the Anointing of the Sick). Now he says if he has committed sins they will be forgiven. He starts verse 16 with the word therefore, linguistically tying it back to the verses preceding it and thus making the idea of confessing your sins to one another mean that you should confess them to the elders (presbyters, from which we get the word priest).

Perhaps the most interesting point regarding the sacrament of reconciliation come from St. Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians. in 2 Cor. 2:10 we see him say "What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake, in the presence of Christ."

A packed statement to be sure. It gets even more packed when you unpack it and look to the Greek. The Greek word used for presence is prosopon, the Latin word persona comes from it. Interestingly the KJV Bible usually translates the passage as "In the person of Christ," or in Latin In Persona Christi. That is important insofar as that is how a Catholic describes the work of a priest. They act in the Person of Christ.

Now if you are Catholic you have a few days before Easter to examine your conscience and follow the Church's guidelines by confessing your sins during the Lenten season. Do it. It will make you feel better. If you need an examination of conscience to get started check this one out.

If you aren't Catholic I hope this post has helped you to see the very Biblical basis for the sacrament.

The Meaning of Holy Week....

Just a little note Dear Reader: expect the posts this week to be heavy on that Old Time Religion, as we enter the most profound week of the Liturgical year.

I have always loved Palm Sunday. You get to hold a branch and wave it around as you sing Hosanna to the Son of David. You process from outside the church into it, imagining what it must have been like to see Jesus riding on an ass as he entered the holy city. It always had a little more audience participation and excitement to it. Plus when I was younger I knew Palm Sunday meant one last week of my Lenten Sacrifice.

The events that the day celebrates resound even today. Jesus, the Son of the Father, is entering to a chorus of cheers and adulation that within the week turn to mockery, scorn and hatred. He comes willingly knowing what he must do. But first he has much to accomplish.

Before His death, he knows he must teach the apostles what it means to be great. He must give them the New Covenant in His blood. He must be betrayed by one of his own, and see another deny knowing him. He must lay down His life, "For Many. (Matt 26:28)" I won't delve into the argument here about "many vs. all," except to address it as such, Jesus in fact died for all, but some would not accept his sacrifice, so the blood is shed for many but not all.

Returning to the depot of my original train of thought.....

I always like attending all three parts of the Triduum. Holy Thursday is a beautiful Mass which is marked by the washing of feet and the Gospel story of the Last Supper, the institution of the Mass. As we close Holy Thursday we go into a night of Eucharistic Adoration, full of prayer and wonder. Sitting with the Lord in the small hours as Holy Thursday becomes Good Friday is amazingly spiritual.

Ah Good Friday the only day in which Catholics don't celebrate Mass. As part of the Ritual of Holy Thursday a significant amount of Hosts are consecrated so we can have communion, but without consecration there is no Mass.

Good Friday is when the Church really goes dark, the Lord is dead in the tomb, the Apostles are still scattered, probably slowly coming back together, the world groans on Good Friday. The Gospels tell us of earthquakes, eclipses, dead folks returning from their graves. But most significantly the veil of the Temple is rent asunder.

The time is now to worship in Spirit and Truth (John 4:24).

From there we return to the "new fire," and the light of the Easter Vigil. Christ has broken death, defeated sin and risen again to fulfill the stories we hear on this night of Salvation History. From the "Happy fault" of Adam to the flood, to the Passover.

The Passover is now perfected Jesus has Passed Over death and returns in glory. In his book Jesus of Nazareth vol.2, which covers Holy Week, Pope Benedict sheds light on the likely historical accuracy of the timeline in St. John's Gospel rather than the Synoptics.

It was en vogue to denigrate the historical accuracy of St. John for quite some time. Pope Benedict says that even with the heavy theological aspect to his Gospel, John's timeline reveals something startling.

Essentially the Synoptic Gospels all have the Passover Feast moved ahead a day to make the Last Supper a true Seder meal. St. John's Gospel makes Good Friday the preparation day for the feast. A seemingly minor detail until you realize one thing.

When Jesus gives up His spirit it is 3 o'clock. As he dies on the hill outside Jerusalem, the lambs for the Passover feast are being slain in the temple (Matt 27:46).

In His final human act, Jesus replaces the original Passover lamb, with the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the World. (John 1:29)

There's something about that moment during Palm Sunday and Good Friday when we read the Passion Story and we kneel silently as we come to the part where our Lord dies. It hits me every time, I always stare at the Crucifix and think to myself, he knew all about me as He hung on that cross, dying. Knew and willingly accepted punishment for every sin that I would commit. Indeed by His stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:5).

"Hosanna to the Son of David. (Matt 21:9)"

Do Catholics Still Get It?

Let me preface this post by saying that I have only attended a Non-Catholic worship service four times in my life two weddings and two funerals. So keep that in mind as you read.

I recently linked to a story about Archbishop Sheehan's pastoral letter concerning cohabitation. In it he urges his flock to consider the gravity of sin. Respectfully, Excellency, perhaps it is because for too long the clergy have been: afraid, cowed, bullied, or abused by: parishioners, governments, media, fellow clergy, for preaching on the gravity of sin that has gotten us into this mess.

Now mind you my only point of reference to Protestant preaching stems from Hollywood, but they sure seem to have the Hellfire and Brimstone down, don't they. John Lithgow in Footloose, railing against dancing, rock music and drugs. Tom Skerrit's quiet, homespun, frontier-fisherman preacher in A River Runs Through It, teaching his sons all about the evils of the world outside their Montana homefront.

Now, Catholics on the other hand, are treated to mostly mealy-mouthed, watered down, sometimes outright heretical homilies on a weekly basis. Occasionally we get good homilies but most of the time if it's good it has little to do with doctrine or a call to avoid sin and more to do with a good explanation of the culture or history in question.

However, this was one thing that Fr. John Corapi is quite good at. I know he has been involved in a bit of a scandal lately but his lecture/sermon on giving a good confession should be required viewing for all who hold and teach the Catholic faith.

At the recent mission for my parish, St. Mary's, we had a brilliant priest from the Fathers of Mercy who spent the mission talking of the need for healing, especially spiritual. He was quite good and his discussion, seemingly tangentially touched on the need for understanding the damages of sin. In reality he spent his whole time teaching about the damage of sin.

After all why else would we need healing were it not for the effects of sin. But rarely do we see any real meaty discussions on the topic during a weekly homily. In fact Fr. Crotty, who led the mission told us of a priest he knew who had been stripped of his duties for merely mentioning the potential damage from Harry Potter.

So if those are the kind of things Catholic clergy are up against in warning of the dangers of sin, then of course they will shy away from it. It seems to me that good homilies were one of the cruelest victims of the curse of Vatican II. Priests began to turn to pop psychology and other things as part of their teaching and increasingly left the Truth behind.

Forgetting Hellfire and Brimstone when was the last time you heard a homily about Jesus. Not just one that mentioned him but one that really delved into the Incarnate Word and showed you a new way of thinking.

As the Church has become scandalized by errant priests and politicians who profess Catholicism with their mouths to win votes, only to avoid it in their own voting record, and a media that turns every minor Catholic slip into a massive crisis, the people are led further away from Truth.

The liberal wing of the Catholic Church would love to remake Holy Mother Church in their own image, fortunately we have had two amazing popes that have done all they can to stem that tide. One of these two men will be beatified in about two weeks time.

Unfortunately their hard work hasn't flowed downhill quite the way it should. But alas, we carry on and we defend Her.