Transubstantiation and Invincible Ignorance

So Saturday night I just couldn't sleep, stupid Daylight Savings Time messes me up every time. I started to cruise around some old internet faves, including Hiram Diaz's blog. I know I shouldn't go looking for a fight, but sometimes it's irresistible.

Mr. Diaz was at it again back in January attempting to refute Transubstantiation one more time. According to himself he has done it up real nice. However he still falls into the same logical pits he always has. First off stating in his post that there was in fact no scriptural basis for the most central of Catholic beliefs.

Well of course I had to respond. Citing John 6: 53-58 I reminded him that Christ in fact issued the command His own self. Five times in five verses in fact, Christ says just that. I knew what would be coming and sure enough his initial reply was a no reply. I was "question begging," sure I said I am begging you to answer to my questions.

Bottom line I still haven't gotten an answer as to how one should interpret those verses seeing as they entail a direct command from Christ. Just a lot of dancing around about how my position entails a logical contradiction, or how it violates the Levitical laws.

I'm even willing to stipulate it does violate the Levitical law, however Christ fulfilled the law. Which is another sticking point for us because we differ as to when and how the law was fulfilled.

Largely Diaz lashes about wildly kicking at a wall in a house built on rock and saying there I knocked your whole house down. Well the big bad wolf routine is amusing but ineffective.

Perhaps he fails to realize that Catholic dogmas all build and layer into one another; thus refuting Transubstantiation requires a little more than throwing around the idea that it violates the Law. It requires more than his pet theory regarding the state of Christ's body and whether the Real Presence is Christ's mortal or Resurrected body.

I have largely decided that Diaz is perhaps one of the invincibly ignorant. I thought they were a myth, like Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster.

I even attempted to reframe the question asking about whether Old Testament Jews were required to eat the Passover Lamb. He flatly refused to answer the question, I feel he probably knew (thus maybe his ignorance is a choice and not invincible) that I would lead him from the OT to the New showing how Jesus as the new lamb of the Passover had to be eaten.

It's an interesting look through the lens of salvation history one I will go even further in depth on tomorrow.

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.

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.

Musings on the Blessed Virgin

It seems to me most Catholics I know maintain some devotion to our Blessed Mother. And why wouldn't they, who better to turn to the Mary, the obedient, willing handmaiden of God. She should be and is a model of everything we should strive to be as Catholic Christians.

Her ego never puffed up and got in her way over God's divine plan. She willingly and readily accepted the things that were put on her plate. She told the waitstaff in Cana to do whatever he tells you (John 2:5), but was she really speaking to first century waiters or to 21st century Christians.

See here's the thing, she was almost certainly still alive while the Gospels were taking shape, maybe not when they were finally written down. But surely, Matthew, Mark and Luke all could have talked to her about the life of Jesus. John certainly had access to her as she was his adopted Mother, in a more certain way than she is the adopted mother of us all. Anyway, notice the only times she shows up in the story are important times. I think she was making herself small, willingly undercutting things important to her to showcase things important for everyone.

Much like Peter's smallish role in Mark's Gospel. Many scholars now believe that Mark was Peter's secretary and that the Gospel of Mark is Peter's version of events.

It speaks volumes that there is so little written about the woman who would by giving Christ a human nature become the adopted mother of all Christians. Think hard about the times she is mentioned in the Gospels:

The Annunciation
The Visitation
The Birth of Christ
The Presentation in the Temple
The Finding of Jesus in the Temple
The Wedding at Cana
The Crucifixion

So what eight times. Either she was an absentee mother, which we all know isn't true, or somebody soft-sold her importance to the story. One of the most moving moments in The Passion of the Christ is when Mary sees Jesus fall under the weight of his cross, she flashes back to seeing the child Jesus stumble and skin his knee. What a heartrending moment, every parent knows the pain you feel when your child falls and hurts themselves. Imagine watching your only child being led to his execution, not for his own crimes, and falling under the weight of that burden.

Mary, is the saint I turn to most often. Whenever I am feeling lost I almost immediately hear myself whispering "Hail Mary..." Perhaps because she was the Mother of God, perhaps just because she was a mother period seems to almost encourage a sort of homey, comfortable relationship. I find myself praying to her for guidance when I don't know what I should be really praying for, or how to pray for it if I do.

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh referred to her as the milk and cookies of Catholicism. I like the imagery and the thought at work here.

Who better to turn to then your mother with a big plate of cookies and a glass of milk to help you talk through your problems.

One of my all-time favorite "Catholic" jokes tells how Jesus was walking around Heaven one day and saw a lot of people who didn't belong. So he went to St. Peter and said hey Pete why are all of these people here. Peter tells him he has no idea he didn't let them in. So Jesus continues walking the Kingdom and sees his mother sneaking them in.

With the feast of the Assumption having just passed us by, do you talk to your mother often. She wants to hear from you.

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)"