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.

Jesus and the Church Pt. 2

In yesterday's post we explored whether or not Jesus founded a church. The overwhelming Scriptural evidence would seem to show He did in fact do so. He did so seemingly to prevent said church from falling victim to error. Today let's investigate which church this is. We will also look at some of those longstanding myths regarding the founding of the Catholic church.

Of all the Christian churches only the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church say that they were founded by Jesus Christ. Both churches lay solid claim to their apostolic succession. However, as we saw yesterday Jesus said He would found his church on Peter. Since the Orthodox churches deny that simple aspect they must not be the True Church.

As an interesting aside having never attended Protestant worship services I have only secondhand testimony, but they either change the words of the Creed (We believe in One, Holy, Catholic...) to small c Catholic or Christian. Interesting dance to have to do, with words that are 1500-plus years old.

So does Jesus desire that his flock should all be one in the church He founded?

Well the most obvious answer to this question in my mind comes from John's Gospel, in Jesus's high priestly prayer. In John 17: 11, 20, Jesus asks God to grant the apostles the unity that He and the Father share. In verse 20 we see Jesus acknowledging that He isn't merely praying for the Eleven (Judas was already lost at this point). He is praying for all of the people who would believe in Him because of their testimony.

Christ desires one flock. As the Good Shepherd He reminds us in John 10:14 that He knows His flock and His flock know him.

Now Peter had been set apart; he is always listed as the first of the Apostles; mentioned more times by name than all the other Apostles combined; and given the command by Christ to tend His sheep (John 21:15-17). Since Christ is the Good Shepherd and Peter is His Prime Minister, Christ sought an Earthly shepherd to guide His flock, knowing He would return to the Father soon.

The early church recognized the Primacy of Peter and those who succeeded him. The church at Corinth sent a letter to Clement seeking his help in regard to some bishops that had been deposed. Now St. John was still alive and was right down the road in Ephesus, but the Corinthians sought the help of the man sitting in the Chair of St. Peter.

Many of the Early Church Father's put down lists of the successor's of Peter, often in an attempt to show that the current pope's decrees where valid and holy since he currently occupied the Cathedra.

St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies written in 180 AD described not just apostolic succession but the line of bishops succeeding from Peter in Rome. Now Irenaeus was a bishop himself, but he didn't try and show his line to be the most important he bowed to Rome.

The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric....

To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

But where do we see Scriptural evidence for this succession. In many places, It starts just after Christ's Ascension. Acts 1:20 shows St. Peter declaring that another person should take Judas's bishopric. In the following verses we see the Apostles pray and the lot falls to Matthias, "Who was counted with the eleven."

We also see St. Paul telling Timothy to appoint faithful men to follow after him (2 Tim. 2:2). So we see apostolic succession in history and Scripture. 

Now mind you someone has probably trotted out some whopper like Constantine and a bunch of money grubbing power hungry people founded the Catholic Church as a way to consolidate power/money, etc. 

After you finish laughing send them here, or here. 

So there you have it. Christ founded a church on Earth one that we can follow from its current Earthly leader, Pope Benedict XVI, to its founder Jesus Christ in circa AD 33. Jesus seeks for us all to be one as He and the Father are one (Jn. 17:11). 

Now the answer to our two part question: Did Jesus found a Church? Yes, The Roman Catholic Church. Does He desire His flock shall all be visibly in that church? Yes again. (Jn. 17, Mt. 10:40, Lk. 10:16). 

So whose flock are you in? 

Jesus and the Church

A recent discussion in the comment box at Shameless Popery, plus a recent Facebook discussion led me to what I want to talk about today. To catch everyone up on my train of thought, essentially Joe asked a commenter the following: did Jesus found the Catholic Church, and is it His Will for His flock to be in that Church, visibly?

What a great question right? So without further ado, let's dive into it. I will break the question up into two distinct parts.

I. Did Jesus found the Catholic Church? 

Of course He did. Next... Ok so obviously as a Catholic I believe he did, but let's investigate some of the Scriptural and historical evidence.

First off there are many references in the Old Testament to God giving His people a shepherd (The Pope) so they didn't wander off. Take a look at Numbers 27: 15-17, which tells us God doesn't want His people to be like sheep without a shepherd (h/t Joe). Jeremiah 3:15 tells us that God will send us shepherds (pastors in the DR translation) who are after His own heart to feed us with knowledge and doctrine.

So from just these two references alone we see that God desires His people have some sort of leadership to follow. Continuing in Numbers 27: 18-20 we see Moses anointing Joshua as the successor in authority over the Israelites. This is the succession of authority Christ references in Matt. 23:2. So we have in the Old Testament numerous examples of an authority to lead being handed down from one generation to the next. Through laying on of hands and anointing.

All of which brings me to Matt. 16:13-20. The great threefold blessing of Simon soon to be forever after known as Peter. Christ brought the Apostles to Caesarea Phillipi. As Deacon George pointed out at Mass last month when this was our Gospel reading this wasn't the most hospitable place.

"They are in Caesarea Philippi, a pagan area about 25 miles distant from Jewish territory, with at least 14 pagan temples representing Syrian, Canaanite, Greek and Roman deities. But, in the same location is a mountain; from a cave in it the Jordan River begins, making this location also holy to the Jews."

What an odd place for Jesus to reflect on what the crowd thinks of this "carpenter's son." The Twelve venture as to what the consensus of the crowd is. Jesus is Elijah, or Jeremiah, or John the Baptist. Hebrew tradition maintained that Elijah would return to Earth as the Herald of the Lord. We know Jesus isn't the Baptist (John 1:29) for the two are seen together on more than one occasion.

Jesus presses again "But who do you say I am?" None of the Twelve responds for a moment. Finally Simon blurts it out. "You are the Christ." Indeed Simon. Now Jesus does a couple of things.

• Gives Simon a new more meaningful name. Kephas. Rock. 
• Tells the Twelve that upon this wonderful Rock He would build His church. One of only two recorded times Jesus uses the word church.(Matt. 18:17 being the other)
• Gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom (which we know from Isaiah 22:20-23 means that Peter is now a sort of Prime Minister with the full authority of the King) and tells him whatever he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.

So Jesus will build a Church. And as Archbishop Sheen pointed out this passage reveals a lot about church governance. Consensus of the Crowd doesn't work, they didn't get it right. The unheaded episcopacy doesn't work, they all stood around waiting for a leader. So what does work a Divinely protected leader over the episcopacy. And because he said it better than I could and it would be a disservice to try and rewrite his words here is the point Joe made in a phenomenal post over at Shameless Popery:

"The comparisons to non-Catholic Christianity should be obvious.  Protestantism typically follows (i), and splits into innumerable factions as a result.  On even fundamental issues, they can't form a unified response: some say regenerative infant Baptism, others symbolic infant Baptism; still others symbolic adult Baptism. Orthodoxy tends to follow (ii), and like the other Eleven, largely stays quiet in the face of modern controversies. Without a unified head, it's hard to unify and mobilize the Body, so it too often lies dormant. Certain other groups, like Mormonism, fall into category (iii).  They have a single head, but because he's not protected by the Holy Spirit, he can't get the answers consistently right.

So Christ has just shown us why Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Mormonism won't work. And He's shown us the necessity of a Divinely-protected papacy, in order to keep Christianity (i) unified, (ii) mobilized, and (iii) orthodox.  But then He does something even more remarkable: He establishes His own Church."

So Christ has now told the Twelve He will establish a Church. Now we are getting somewhere. 

Psalm 127:1 tells us that unless the Lord built the house it is a house built in vain. Jesus just told us He was building a church, so it is precisely because the Lord built the house that it will in fact never see the gates of hell overtake it (Mt. 16:18).

Which all brings us back to our opening question, did Christ build an Earthly church? He says He did, so I take Him at His word. And since no Protestant church claims founding by Christ; Catholicism comes out looking like it might be the clubhouse leader for the church founded by Christ.

Tomorrow I will look at the second part of the question? Does Jesus desire for His flock to be visibly in the church He founded. Also we will debunk some of the popular myths surrounding other founders of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Identity...

One of the great misfortunes of the Post Vatican II church is the slow loss of our Catholic identity. How many Catholics out there know that even with the relaxation of the rules on eating meat on Friday, you are still supposed to withhold something on Fridays, be it meat or something else.

Can.  1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can.  1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can.  1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can.  1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can.  1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

However with the relaxation of Friday abstinence most American Catholics especially do not observe the Friday penance or fast. In the UK beginning next month the Bishops Conference has restored the ancient Tradition.  That was enough of a jolt for Archbishop Dolan, the head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to blog about it. He issued a think piece questioning the idea of returning to meatless Fridays in the US. 

I say, go ahead Your Excellency. And while your at it, how about ending the US inclusion in the Papal Indult allowing Communion in the hand. On a personal note, my goal is for my own family to begin honoring the ages old tradition of meatless Fridays. With the wife's blessing no less (I was worried about her opinion since she isn't Catholic) and since I will be the one cooking on Friday's at least the family meal will be meatless. She can eat meat if she chooses for lunch. 

It seems that Catholics are losing their identity at a quickening pace. How much can we do to restore some of those old traditions that set us apart. When was the last time you heard Latin at your local parish, not counting the Kyrie.

Catholics used to be identifiable by marks like this, now it seems like we have given way to comfort or ease.  As Archbishop Dolan points out:

"Scholars of religion–all religions, not just Catholic–tell us that an essential of a vibrant, sustained, attractive, meaningful life of faith in a given creed is external markers.

The essence of faith, of course, is the interior, the inside life of the soul.  Jesus, for instance, always reminds us that it’s what’s inside that counts.

However, genuine interior religion then gives rise to external traits, especially acts of charity and virtue.

Among these exterior characteristics are these markers that the scholars talk about.

For some religions, it might be dress; others are noted for feastdays, seasons, calendars, music, ritual, customs, special devotions, and binding moral obligations....

What about us Catholics?  For God’s sake, I trust we are recognized for our faith, worship, charity, and lives of virtue.

But, what are the external markers that make us stand out?

Lord knows, there used to be tons of them:  Friday abstinence from meat was one of them, but we recall so many others:  seriousness about Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation; fasting on the Ember Days; saints names for children; confession at least annually; loyal membership in the local parish; fasting for three hours before Holy Communion, just to name a few.

But, almost all of these external markers are now gone."

Indeed they are Your Excellency. Who is in a better position than yourself to help us to reclaim some of those markers. Obviously some of them may never come back. But if we can start somewhere, even slowly, even something small, we might just begin to make inroads. And if we do that, we might just reclaim some of those souls who have fallen away in part because we stopped taking our faith seriously.

As Fr. Z says, brick by brick, friends. Also seen lately on the wonderful clerics homepage stories concerning the decision in Phoenix to restrict service at the altar to males. And a story about the growing number of parishioners in the Diocese of Madison, Wisc. who attend churches which offer the Tridentine Liturgy, the Extraordinary Form, of the Mass.

I have written in this space previously about my desire to attend a Latin Mass. I know of a parish in Couer D'Alene that is affiliated with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. They celebrate the older form, someday I will have to journey that way and investigate. I'm quite certain I would feel lost, but the idea of attending Mass celebrated in that centuries old liturgy is exciting.

One of my new tasks for myself is to learn a few of our more cherished prayers in Latin...I found a great website that has the words of the prayers in Latin along with an audio file so you can hear it said. Which I need seeing as I have been deprived of Holy Mother Church's mother tongue all my life.

My goal is to get the Hail Mary, Our Father, Creed and prayer before meals down. It may take me awhile but I want to know at least those few prayers then work on the others.

So my Catholic readers, what if anything do you miss of our Catholic identity?

When a Priest Becomes a Problem

I suspect more than a few of you know the respect and admiration I once had for Fr. John Corapi (he of the many EWTN broadcasts), he has since managed to sabotage the respect I had for him, while coming close to ensuring an excommunication for himself. 

Corapi, was suspended of his priestly faculties earlier this year while an investigation was launched to determine the validity of claims made against him in a letter to the bishop of Corpus Christi. He initially professed his innocence and maintained that it would all come out in the wash. In the wake of so many scandalous events involving priests in the last decade seeing Corapi linked to scandal was a shock, but perhaps a lesser one than it might have been 15 years ago.

Recently, Fr. Corapi has resurfaced with a new website, calling himself the Black Sheep Dog and saying he can now minister more effectively to a wider audience. In his initial launch of the new domain he announces that he is renouncing his priestly vows and essentially turns around biting the hand that fed him and made his name. He suggests that certain shadowy figures in the church hierarchy want him gone, when in fact they want him merely to return to community with his priestly order, rather than his self-imposed exile in his spendy Montana compound.

Some bloggers have compared the initial speech/announcement to Richard Nixon's Checkers speech. Nah, the Checkers speech at least had some humor to it. This speech is more closely aligned to Nixon's resignation announcement, and his whole conspiracy addled mind-set at that time.

It seems that opening announcement was merely the diving off point. I wasn't able to even finish it but has released several others evidently (h/t: Mark Shea) and he apparently continues to remove himself further from the church with each one.

It is interesting that today's Gospel reading is Matt. 7:15-20. Jesus warns us of false prophets in sheep's clothing (or in this case is it sheep dog's?). Corapi's claims of wrongful persecution are in fact leading people astray, many of his fans are so wrapped up in his neat little tale of woe, that they are allowing themselves to be led away from The Way, The Truth, and the Life by this ravenous wolf.

Certainly there have been and continue to be many false prophets. Men like Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Harold Camping and others continue to damage the Body of Christ by leading good people astray. Perhaps though the greater damage to the Body of Christ is done when it is someone who should be leading souls to Christ instead pulls them away.  

Corapi is doing a masterful job of talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand declaring the Magisterium to be full of honorable men, while at the same time bemoaning how he is being cheated by those in authority. Sorry Father, but it can't be both. Either nefarious men exist in the Magisterial authority of Holy Mother Church and they are evilly preventing you from using your priestly faculties or you aren't as innocent as you profess and they are merely attempting to do their job. The job you so willfully gave up; protecting the flock from wolves.

Meantime any of his comments about his suspension being somehow unfair are so patently absurd as to almost not bear mention. Many occupations that ultimately deal with caring for people have suspension stipulations during investigations into wrongdoing. So that tune falls flat as well.

Ultimately John Corapi gave up his vows willingly, and under no duress from the bishop or the diocese of Corpus Christi, his new identity as the Black Sheep Dog was trademarked more than a year ago. It all smacks of someone who knew that the defecation was perilously close to the ventilation system so he began to form an escape plan.

What is saddest in all of this to me is that I enjoyed watching Fr. Corapi, he was a gifted speaker who certainly helped to illuminate the faith in simple terms. Now he is a lost soul who threatens to take others with him. Let us all strive to keep in mind St. Paul's warning against factions from 1st Corinthians 1:12-13.

In closing I would just like to say that the Enemy holds a special hate for the people who guard Jesus' flock. So take a minute or two today and lift your priests/ministers up in prayer asking God to give them the strength they need to continue their battles.

The Blessed Sacrament

Something to read before you read my post today. Shameful...

I (and many others) have said before that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith. For a Catholic to be at Mass and watch the priest raise the Host as he says the words of consecration, you feel awed that those words call forth the great continuing miracle of the faith. Those words cause simple unleavened bread and wine to become the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Risen Lord.

Get ready because there's a soap box coming. I can only speak of the Catholics in America because it is all I know, but far too many; deny the Real Presence, disrespect the sacrament and just generally abuse in so many small ways the greatest gift they have. Now that 70% number that gets thrown around a lot concerning lack of belief in the Real Presence is artificial, but no less telling. We as American Catholics have gotten squishy and soft we tout our faith only when we seem to perceive it as beneficial. Or we flat out ignore the parts we don't like. The bottom line is my generation was poorly catechized because our parents were dealing with their reactions to Vatican II, and other things so we got a mishmash of poor catechesis, and it is our loss. But this really is another column.

What I want to talk about today, relates right back to the theft I pointed out in the link above. I guarantee that those consecrated Hosts weren't stolen by some starving homeless person, or misguided fundamentalist.

They were stolen with the intention of using them in a Black Mass. It seems telling to me that most Protestant denominations view Communion as symbolic, but the Satanists love to get hold of consecrated Hosts.

Now this isn't an issue where dispensing the indult against Communion in the Hand would have preserved these Hosts, if someone is determined enough they will get their hands on the Sacrament. It does however cause me to look again at Redemptionis Sacramentum: "If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 92).

If you ask me ever since the indult concerning receiving on the hand was granted that was the beginning of the end of reverence to the Sacrament. I grew up receiving on the hand, but once I did research and found out that it was an indulted practice and not the norm, I stopped. I haven't received in hand in more than a year. Receiving on the tongue is no big deal and has certainly helped me to find some of my lost reverence toward the Mass as a whole and particularly the Eucharist.

Ultimately, as I said I think it is an interesting note that Satanists seem to give a lot of credence to the idea that there is something special that happens to the bread and wine at Mass. While most Protestants deny that Communion or The Lord's Supper is anything more than a symbolic memorial. 

Some Different Thoughts on Easter and Protestantism vs. Catholicism....

Just a warning this post will not likely deal with the actual events we celebrate at Easter, rather a look at the system to date the feast and why Mainline Protestantism accepts the Roman Catholic method, when they try so hard to distance themselves from anything Catholic.

In the year 725 Venerable Bede declared: "The Sunday following the full Moon which falls on or after the equinox will give the lawful Easter." While this is not perfectly accurate in terms of the description of date selection it is pretty darn close. It's also the way I always heard my Papaw say it, well without quite as much verbosity, so it's more or less how I think about the date.

Wikipedia says this about Bede's declaration: "However, this does not reflect the actual ecclesiastical rules precisely. One reason for this is that the full moon involved (called the Paschal full moon) is not an astronomical full moon, but the 14th day of a calendar lunar month. Another difference is that the astronomical vernal equinox is a natural astronomical phenomenon, which can fall on March 19, 20, or 21, while the ecclesiastical date is fixed by convention on March 21."

At any rate the date can occur in the West any Sunday between and including March 22 and April 25. Now the Eastern Orthodox Churches all use the old Julian Calendar to select their Easter date, which pushes it to April 4 to May 8. Looking at a 30 year period from 1982-2022, the date will coincide East and West 10 times. It almost appears to be a three year cycle that reoccurs; however it skips coincidental dating between 1990 and 2001. Only to be the same date two years in a row, last year and this year.

Enough about the methodology for dating the feast. The question in my mind is why do most, granted not all, though the ones who don't use Rome's date generally don't celebrate Easter at all, of the 30,000 or so Protestant denominations celebrate Easter using the date of Holy Mother Church and not find some new method or date, seeing as most view anything Catholic as evil, or wrong, or just plain bad. 

Now, mind you, perhaps Pope Benedict can use this to his advantage somehow as the "Pope of Christian Unity," and remind these separated souls that they already use our date for Easter as well as (most) of our Bible.

I have heard Fundamentalists go on long tears about the Church being the "Whore of Babylon" or worse and usually just wonder where they think the Bible they are quoting came from. That Bible didn't fall shrinkwrapped from the sky in the King James Version, I guarantee it. It was written, collected, codified and preserved by the Holy Catholic Church. Written in that last sentence might get me in trouble, but let me say: it was inspired by God, but written by men, Jewish-Catholic, men.

And unfortunately for one of the big dividing points between Protestantism and Catholicism not one of the Sacred Authors was inspired to scribble out a Table of Contents, which would have easily settled one of the core debates. If only the Church could have pointed to a chapter and verse and explained to Martin Luther, see it says right here those books belong in the Bible, what might have been.

Yes, yes I know I trivialize Luther's contentions, some of which were plenty valid, but the man dug his own grave. Even before his death he marveled, unhappily, at what he had wrought.

As you can see if you stuck with me this far, which I doubt any of you have, I find it odd that so many Protestants seem willing to shred any traces of their undeniably Catholic roots, yet maintain ties to us in regards to celebrating Easter, Christmas, etc.

Jesus and the Samaritan Woman

This past weekend was an interesting one in the church's year. It started Friday with the Feast of the Annunciation. Because of Canon law the feast falling on a Friday dispensed the traditional abstinence from meat rules for Lent. The readings for this, the third Sunday of Lent, hit their highpoint with St. John's account of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:4-43).

We are told Jesus had to pass through Samaria. Usually the Jewish people would have avoided Samaria and gone from Judea to Galilee through Jordan. However John 4:4 says Jesus had to pass through the area. In this we see the workings of the Divine Plan as well as Jesus himself reaching out to the Gentiles.

Everything about the story breaks some convention or rule. In the first place a Jew likely wouldn't even talk to a Samaritan, especially male to female. Yet Jesus asks her for water, risking touching the same utensils as her, thus making himself ritually unclean. Besides the fact that the woman is at the well around noon, which shows her to be an outcast. Since the only people who went to the well in the heat of the day were usually travelers (Jesus), prostitutes (not her), or outcasts (bingo!)

The woman has had five husbands and is currently living in an unmarried state with a sixth man. Jesus limits rebuking her and merely asks for a drink. The two discuss the "Living Water" that Jesus will give. By now the poor woman is all sorts of confused looking for some kind of garden hose that Jesus must be hiding.

Then they get to the heart of the matter, as the woman, probably uncomfortable for being called out by a stranger switches topics. She asks Jesus about right worship noting that her people have long worshiped on that very mountain, yet the Jews say Jerusalem is the place of worship.

Jesus replies to her in John 4:21-24. In essence the Lord tells her that it will shortly be a moot point whether to worship on that mountain (Garizim) or in the Temple at Jerusalem. Because God is Spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and truth. Jesus is foretelling the rise of his new church, as well as accepting and saving the first Gentile convert.

Even in the context of announcing a change of worship Jesus tells the woman, that "Salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22).

Of course this is in fact correct as all of Salvation History is played out between God and his Chosen People. From Covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David to the New Covenant made through Christ's suffering, death and Resurrection.

I am sure that this particular passage holds even more than I have dealt with here as it is one of the meatiest parts of the Bible.

The Mass in Scripture

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has lost some of its luster and sense of wonder and reverence over the last 45 yerars, since Vatican II. Vatican II did a lot of good things for the Catholic church, but its biggest negative was that we lost a lot of our Catholic Identity. Priests no longer celebrated the Mass looking East, usually away from the people. The celebration was taken from Latin to the vernacular, with at least in the English speaking world a poor translation from the Latin. The general sense of reverence toward what was going on was lost, people let their guard down slowly about what was acceptable behavior and dress in church.

We forget that we were doing something foretold in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the new. Malachi 1:11, says: "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles...there is offered to my name a clean oblation..." at the time Malachi was written the Gentiles were a pagan bunch...most believing in a panoply of gods. So for the author of Malachi to proclaim that the Gentiles would offer a "perfect sacrifice" from "the rising of the sun even to the going down," was an interesting prophesy. 


When God instituted the Passover for the Jews he told them that the Paschal Lamb had to be eaten (Exodus 12:8,46), and interestingly that not a bone of it shall be broken. Jesus when He was crucified didn't have his legs broken because the centurion could see he was already dead. Jesus is the spotless lamb of sacrifice (1 Peter 1:19), his cousin John foretells his purpose at Jesus' baptism when he hails him as Lamb of God (John 1:29). 


In the types and shadows of the Bible, the Jewish sacrificial lamb is a direct prefiguring of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross. To a Catholic the Mass re-presents that sacrifice at Calvary. It is a step out of our time and space and into the Eternal. It's an amazing feeling to be present at Mass and feel like you are watching Christ instituting the ministerial priesthood as well as the Eucharist as the priest acting In Persona Christi recites the Eucharistic Prayer. 


Jesus sitting at the table with the Apostles gave them a command to always do what he was about to do in remembrance of him. In Hebrew the word is Zikaron....it means to make something present, to participate in a past event.


The Eucharist has been called the Source, Summit and Center of the Faith. Of course it is, Jesus is giving us the Living Bread and telling us that all who eat it will not perish. How could that not be the most important thing. 


I have heard it said that the people who walked away when Jesus gave the Bread of Life lesson, were people who understood Christ literally and he wanted them to walk away because he was speaking in metaphor. That is utterly laughable, Christ came so all would believe if people were walking away because they misunderstood Him, He could have called them back and set them straight. He didn't, merely because they couldn't yet accept that He would be slain for us and leave us His flesh as True Food and His blood as True Drink.


If the Eucharist was merely intended as a symbol, why would St. Paul, the Didache, Justin Martyr and nearly every single Church Father specifically mention not partaking of it "unworthily." 1 Corinthians 11:27 warns us that if we take the Body of the Lord or drink of His Blood while not worthy (i.e. with unconfessed sins, or other reasons) we are guilty of nothing short of murder. Pretty steep talk if we are to take it as just a symbol, it's also worth noting that St. Paul's first letter to Corinth is among the earliest written manuscripts of the New Testament, thus showing how early the Catholic belief is visible. 


In short despite many attacks, such as claims that Catholics worship bread, are cannibals, etc. The Mass has its very roots deep in the Bible; from the readings during Mass; to the fact that many of the prayers are lifted right out of the Bible. The Mass is saturated in the Bible. That is one reason I always laugh when Joel Osteen is telling people at the end of his broadcasts to get into "A good Bible based Church." I always just think, done and done. I was fortunate to be born into it and I will die a Catholic.

"Do Whatever He Commands You...."

You might recognize the title of this post as being from John's Gospel, (John 2:5). It is something Jesus' mother, the Blessed Virgin, tells the servants during the wedding feast at Cana. I think it applies to anyone who calls themselves Christian.

We hear very little about Jesus' earthly parents in the Bible. Some believe Joseph, his stepfather was likely an old man who married his mother to give her a place. One tradition holds that Mary was likely a temple virgin, thus consecrated to God, her whole life. As for myself I tend to sort of mash both of these traditions into a single lump. It is my belief that Joseph took Mary in intending to live a chaste life with her; as she was a temple virgin and he was an old man. Regardless I think the life of the Blessed Virgin has much to teach us.

Mary was the world's first Christian. She believed in her Son, even before the world had beheld Him. But more than that, her existence does nothing but "magnify" him, as she says in the beautiful Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55).

Catholics are bound by the teachings of the Church to believe that Mary was conceived free of sin and remained in so pure a state throughout her whole life. I know a lot of people that hear that and it raises their hackles. A lot of people think it means that Mary is somehow equal with God or that she didn't need a Savior, but she even says her soul glories in God her Savior.

The ways I always try to explain this bit of Catholic dogma, are concerning Mary's role as the Ark of the New Covenant and the pit analogy.

The Bible can very easily be read with an eye toward types. Something in the Old Covenant routinely prefigures something in the New. The holiest thing in the Old Testament was the Ark of the Covenant. It housed the tablets on which God wrote the Commandments, the manna from the desert and the rod of Aaron. When God told Moses to build the Ark, he instructed him in complete detail as to every inch of its design. The Ark was to be made with pure acacia wood and pure gold. It was so pure and holy that God smote a man for touching it merely to keep it from falling off an ox cart (2 Samuel 6:6-7).

So if the Ark was that holy and it held stone tablets, a rod and a jar of manna, how much more holy the ark that carried the Incarnate Word. Mary was kept from sin by a special grace of God. Unmerited, undeserved grace. God in his ineffable plan, took the victory of the Cross from Calvary and extended it back in time by about 50 years and infused Mary's soul as one without sin. Catholic theology says that in essence God baptized Mary before he infused her soul; however Mary unlike the rest of us was so devoted to God that she was able to remain free from the stain of all sin.

The pit analogy would be that if someone is walking along in the woods they can be saved from a pit in two different ways. A person could fall into the pit and be pulled from it, thus being dirtied from the fall into the pit. Or the person can be told "hey there's a pit there don't go into it." That person wouldn't be stained from falling into the pit.

Mary shows up routinely in the Gospels at important moments. As I said in John's Gospel she is the one who kick-starts Jesus' ministry by having him turn water into wine. Notice what He calls her during this scene. "Woman" (John 2:4), He does it again in John's Gospel, it's hardly an accident. When Jesus is dying on the cross he turns to his mother once again and address her and "the beloved disciple" (John 19:26-27).

St. John is making a connection, from Genesis to Jesus. In Genesis Eve is called Woman. See Genesis 2:20 and compare it with Genesis 3:23. In Christ we have the new Adam, if we have a new Adam we must have a new Eve. Eve was created immaculately in the Garden from the old Adam. Mary was Immaculately Conceived to bear the new Adam in Bethlehem.

St. John again uses "Woman" to identify Mary in Revelation 12:1-6, compare that with Genesis 3:15. It's clear from the Johannine literature in the Bible that John views Mary as an integral part of salvation. He makes her the Ark of the New Covenant and the Woman against whom the Dragon wages war during the end times.

Which brings me back to my original point. Mary has an important part to play in our salvation and it is more than just bringing Christ to the world. All her efforts, all of her life continually point to her Son and are best summarized in the quote from the beginning of this post. If indeed we "Do whatever He commands of us we shall find our eternal salvation. If we say it's too hard, or not worth it, or we serve ourselves we can easily lose out on that salvation.

On a side note I find it interesting that two of the most famous and most venerated Marian apparitions highlight some of these things. When the Blessed Virgin appeared to St. Juan Diego, on a hill outside of Mexico City in 1531, she appeared as a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and crowned with stars.

Three Hundred years later, in 1858, she appeared to St. Bernadette Soubirous outside of Lourdes, France. When the young peasant girl asked her who she was, she was told "I am the Immaculate Conception." Blessed Pope Pius IX had formally declared the Immaculate Conception as dogma, just four years before the apparition 1854. It was Pius IX who also declared the apparition at Lourdes to be authentic.

Web Links Wednesday

It's Humpday, everybody and I feel like I unintentionally started something last week due to a Spokane trip that will be a Musings tradition. Web Links for Wednesday. Without further ado.

• Saw this today, gotta love this kid's exuberance. Gotta say I might be hard pressed to avoid doing the same if I was that close to Benedict XVI
• A great piece on the unconstitutional health care law. Usually read this blog for the Catholicism but a great piece by my favorite blogger/law student at Shameless Popery. 
• The English text of Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Issued in 2007 it is basically calling for a return or at least no impediments to some of the older forms of worship including usage of the Tridentine Mass....for all of you who grew up before Vatican II that would be the Mass you remember from your childhood. Unfortunately the Vatican website doesn't have the document in English yet, so I had to dig a little. 
• Great blog from the Heritage Foundation about the 100th birthday of the greatest president of the 20th Century.
• Rush's take on Roger Vinson's ruling about Obamacare.
• All Things Super Bowl and NFLish from Sports Illustrated. My own prediction is on the way I made one last week, but may contradict it this week, tune in and find out. 
• The homepage of America's favorite quiz show. Looking forward to taking the test again next week. Here's hoping I pass again and get on the show this time.
• If at least one of the many websites covered in the blanket of this link doesn't make you laugh, check your vital signs.

Strength Through Weakness -- St. Peter

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).  Origen

As I said in my previous post on the topic St. Peter was probably the most "human" of all the apostles. He was a man prone to fits of emotion. When I read the Gospels I see myself in him a lot. Wanting to step out onto the water and walk to Jesus, like we are told he did in Matt 14: 28-32, but as soon as I get my feet out of the boat, I start sinking. I think Jesus knew exactly what he was doing in giving Peter the keys of the kingdom. If the weak link could stand after Jesus' death then surely his church would survive through all time.

Jesus knew Peter would be tested mightily not just by temporal authorities, but by Satan himself. In Luke 22: 31-33, we see Jesus telling Peter that Satan has asked for the Apostles to sift them like wheat. Jesus tells him, that He has prayed for Peter to be strong and to strengthen his brethren. That is one of my favorite verses. Jesus tells him all of this just before telling Peter he will deny Christ three times. Peter always seems to need a little urging from Christ, just a little nudge to get his head right. After all it's Peter who draws the sword, showing his emotions once again, when Judas comes with the Romans to arrest Jesus.

After the Resurrection and before Jesus' Ascension he and his prime minister, Peter have a quiet little chat where Our Lord instructs Peter to watch over His flock in His absence (John 21: 15-17). This and the keys of the kingdom verses in Matthew are among the bedrock of the Catholic Church's belief that Jesus installed Peter as the head of his earthly ministry.

Returning to our links in the chain analogy. I have always thought that most of the other apostles probably looked at Peter and wondered what he might do when the rubber met the road. Always a little unsure of how Simon son of Jonah would react. I think most of us are that way we believe, but we occasionally let our doubts swallow our faith whole.

Reading the Gospels several of the other disciples seem like more logical choices to head Jesus' earthly kingdom. John, the disciple Jesus loved, the youngest (?) apostle he lived beyond the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. James or John, the sons of Zebedee, so full of spit and vinegar Jesus calls them Sons of Thunder (Mark 3: 17). Jesus however relies on his "Rock" to anchor the faith through the ages. Indeed Peter always seems to have the answers for the apostles when Jesus questions them directly. See John 6: 68, Matthew 16: 16.

Even to the end of his life we see Peter not wanting to endure his trials. I speak of course of the beautiful tradition that says Peter was fleeing Rome to escape martyrdom when he saw Jesus going into Rome. Peter turned to him and said Quo Vadis Domine? (Where are you going, Lord). Jesus tells him to Rome to be crucified again. Peter's strength is once again buttressed and he returns to his martyrdom, crucified upside down.

Between 1939-50 an archaeological expedition dug out the Vatican Necropolis under St. Peter's Basilica and found many catacombs and tombs as well as many previous structures dedicated to the saint. What they found at the end of their excavation however was a grave which had been marked with attributions of being Peter's resting place. The Vatican website has an awesome virtual tour showing the many tombs and shrines, the tour ends at Peter's grave.

St. Peter and Jesus

If you are new to my blog and don't know me, you might not know I am Catholic. Yesterday's links probably let the cat of the bag in that regard. Being Catholic has always been a part of who I am but to varying degrees. In my early years I only vaguely had a knowledge of it as we didn't always attend Mass as regularly as we should have. In my teen years it was a HUGE part of who I was. To the point that I was seriously questioning if I was being called to the seminary. Through my 20's it held varying degrees of importance as I allowed work or football or any of a number of things to keep me from being faithful. 

As I hit my 30's it has become a big part of me again. I have always loved my Catholic faith, but I haven't always been able to defend it or define it. I decided to change that and have consumed a ton of books on apologetics as well as determining to read my Bible and Catechism this year.

As part of this journey of strengthening my faith I have been perusing the discussion forums at Catholic Answers and taking part in many discussions. A routine discussion on the forums is whether or not Jesus intended to found a church, which church it was and whether St. Peter holds any special place in that discussion. Protestants and Catholics line up on the appropriate sides and hurl scripture, dictionary definitions and other sources at each other attempting to sway the other side.

Obviously being Catholic I believe he did intend to found a church. The Catholic Church traces her hierarchy from Benedict XVI back to Peter through an unbroken line of succession.

Now Peter is an interesting guy. A simple fisherman Simon son of Jonah. perhaps the wobbliest link in Christ's chain of Apostles (aside from Judas- the son of Perdition). Peter was prone to anger, doubt, fear and passion.

Yet Christ gives him a special mission:

[13] And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? [14] But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. [15] Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20] Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

Jesus was a Davidic King. Kings in the line of David had many servants there are 12 in 1 Kgs 4:7. There was always a chief between the king and the other ministers. That Prime Minister if you will held all authority as if he were king himself if he was disobeyed it was tantamount to disobeying the king. Isaiah 22: 15-25 directly prefigures Jesus' giving Peter that authority and is in fact quoted by Jesus in the above verses from St. Matthew's gospel. 

Now in Acts we see Peter taking charge of the 11 and the first thing that is done, even before Pentecost (the birthday of the Church) is naming a successor to Judas. The assembled apostles relying on guidance from the Holy Spirit, appoint Matthias as his successor.

Peter also issues punishments in Acts and plays a leadership role at the Jerusalem Council, the Church's first ecumenical council.

The evidence that Jesus intended Peter to steward his ministry after his Ascension becomes overwhelming. All this without even touching on the "Feed My sheep, tend My lambs" discussion.

And so this was a very long way to get around to saying everything I hold in faith, germinates from this one central idea.