Interview with Ex-Catholic, Baptist Pastor

Matt Fradd, author, speaker, apologist, sat with Don Smarto for a discussion about the differences between their faiths. I think Matt says something to this effect below, but let me say it as well: today we rarely hear conversations where disagreements arent hostile, and argumnets that are refreshing and constructive. This talk is charitable, direct, and on the issues where either is challenged, honest.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE WEBSITE AND LISTEN

From his website:

My Interview with Ex-Catholic, Baptist Pastor

April 23, 2013 by mattfradd

 

 

Several months ago I was on my way to Chicago to deliver some talks with Catholic Answers. During the flight I had the opportunity to share the gospel with a man sitting beside me.

After the flight, at baggage claim, a man named Don Smarto approached me, he said that he was sitting behind me and had overheard my conversation.
Don went on to say that he used to be a permanent deacon in the Catholic Church with plans of starting his own religious order! He then informed me that he has since left the Church and is now a Baptist pastor living in Texas. 

Don Smarto as a seminarian.

Last month I happened to be in Texas, and I contacted Don. He arranged for me to be interviewed on his ABC program. A program normally devoted to “parenting today’s youth,” but for me he made an exception.

We had a very charitable discussion on what unites and divides us as Catholics and Protestants.
In our discussion we talk on a broad-range of topics:

• The Problem of evil
• What is the Church
• The Protestant reformation
• Why to Catholics believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
• The authority of the Catholic Church
• Pornography
• Abortion

. . . and much more. It’s about 70 minutes long, so go grab a coffee, and enjoy!

I hope you’ll share this talk with your friends (Catholic and non-Catholic alike), as an example of how we can disagree without being disagreeable, and argue without being argumentative.

* Thinking on my feet, I accidentally said that it was the first council of Constantinople which defined Mary as Theotokos, when it was, in fact, Ephesus in 431.

What is Trust?

One of my Parish Deacons spoke this as the homily this last Sunday, in response the readings, which I have also included at the end. I hope you enjoy it as much as me.  

By Joseph Laird, Deacon, Archdiocese of Omaha

What is trust? For a banker, trust is a place you put your money in for someone in the future. For a parent, trust is where you believe in your child that they will do what they say they will do by following up with an action that they actually did it. In a relationship, trust is being vulnerable, open, and honest to those closest to you where you share yourself knowing they will not take advantage of you.

Jesus, as the Good Shepherd, defined that trust in today’s Gospel in his words “my sheep hear my voice; I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.” We are his sheep that he leads. However, we need to trust him and take that first step and let him lead us.

Why is Jesus referred to as the Good Shepherd you ask? To understand this we need to know what a shepherd is to their sheep. A shepherd extremely values their sheep.  Sheep provide the shepherd wool, skins, milk, meat to eat, and are the means of their survival. However, sheep have no ability to defend themselves. The shepherd will do everything in his power not to have the sheep wander off, be snatched away, or eaten by wolves. A shepherd is dedicated and provides personal attention to each and every one. They know the ones that will stray or lag behind and they will find the missing ones and carry them back to the fold. Sheep find comfort when they see or hear the shepherd’s voice.

We have all been a shepherd at one time or another. It could be at work or as a parent. I am reminded of a time where I took my flock, who consisted of my daughter, my wife Rene’, my 3-year-old son, and Rene’s 84-year-old mom, to paradise. Ok, it really was not paradise it was actually a road trip to Disneyland. It was a nice August day where we saw every prince and princess you could image, we saw Donald, Pluto, and the star of the attraction, the mouse with the big antenna ear … yes it was Mickey. We walked all over the park, rode the many rides, and then it happened in mid afternoon; I lost one of my flock… my 3-year-old son. Rene’ and I asked Rene’s mom to sit and wait as we scurried all over looking for him. There were people everywhere and Joey could not be found. Well we did find him and when he saw us he was not in a panic because he trusted we would be there. When we went back to get Rene’s mom, we found out she also went missing. Another frantic search ended when we went to lost and found and there she was in an air conditioned room as relaxed as can be. Both trusted that I would find them.

Those who love Jesus also trust him to shepherd them. It is not by faith alone that we can be led but it is by love. It is not just by conviction but it is a willingness to want to be cared for by him. However, it’s our sin and self doubt that prevents him from caring for us. Our sin is not too great that he would turn away from us. No obstacle too big that he would not open his arms to us and call us home. May the thought of this urge us on and stir in our hearts that Jesus truly loves us. Sure there will be obstacles in our way as we journey home but we should not allow them to turn us aside from the joy of that heavenly feast. Jesus also values each and every member of his flock. No one is valued any higher than the other. He values the young to the very old.

In today’s 1^st reading Paul was preaching at Antioch, some of the Jews did not want to listen to Him. They were jealous because of the crowds that listened to Paul preach the word of God. The Jews did not see that Jesus loves all his whole flock and not just a few. However, since they rejected it, Paul turned to the Gentiles who were delighted when they heard the good news.

How can we trust and follow this mere man who taught radical things like “love your neighbor as yourself.” How can we trust a man who offers eternal life to those not like us. Do we react as the Jews in jealousy that Jesus loves those who are different than us? Do we judge those who are of different ethnic backgrounds, political beliefs, social or economic status?  Are they truly different than we are? Is it our prejudices and blindness that keep us from trusting in him?

Prior to him becoming pope, Pope Francis, once said “we need to avoid the spiritual sickness of a Church that is wrapped up in its own world: when a Church becomes like this, it grows sick.”

We are all called to go out to find the lost sheep to journey with us and experience the love of Jesus. We are all called to invite our family home back to the flock. In the words of Pope Francis, “We seek to make contact with families that are not involved. Instead of just being a church that welcomes and receives, we try to be a church that comes out of itself and goes to the men and women who do not participate, do not know much about it, and are indifferent toward it.”  Pray for all the lost sheep and invite them to a relationship with Jesus.

Jesus unconditionally loves and protects us. He will lead us to springs of life giving water. Jesus, as Good Shepherd, will never abandon us and in him we are safe. We will not hunger or thirst anymore when we trust in him. Open yourself up to him and let him lead you and as long as we follow him, our destiny is sure.

This week reflect on this one question… do I trust in Jesus to lead me?

Fourth Sunday of Easter

Reading 1 Acts 13:14, 43-52

Paul and Barnabas continued on from Perga and reached Antioch in Pisidia. On the sabbath they entered the synagogue and took their seats. Many Jews and worshipers who were converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to remain faithful to the grace of God.

On the following sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and with violent abuse contradicted what Paul said. Both Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first, but since you reject it and condemn yourselves as unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, I have made you a light to the Gentiles, that you may be an instrument of salvation to the ends of the earth.”

The Gentiles were delighted when they heard this and glorified the word of the Lord. All who were destined for eternal life came to believe, and the word of the Lord continued to spread through the whole region.  The Jews, however, incited the women of prominence who were worshipers and the leading men of the city,  stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their territory. So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them, and went to Iconium. The disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit.

Responsorial Psalm Ps 100:1-2, 3, 5

R. We are his people, the sheep of his flock.

Sing joyfully to the LORD, all you lands; serve the LORD with gladness; come before him with joyful song.

R. We are his people, the sheep of his flock.

Know that the LORD is God; he made us, his we are; his people, the flock he tends.

R. We are his people, the sheep of his flock.

The LORD is good: his kindness endures forever, and his faithfulness, to all generations.

R. We are his people, the sheep of his flock.

Reading 2 Rev 7:9, 14b-17

I, John, had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands.

Then one of the elders said to me, “These are the ones who have survived the time of great distress; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

“For this reason they stand before God’s throne and worship him day and night in his temple. The one who sits on the throne will shelter them. They will not hunger or thirst anymore, nor will the sun or any heat strike them. For the Lamb who is in the center of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to springs of life-giving water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”

Gospel Jn 10:27-30

Jesus said: “My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.”

The Rich Man and the Blind Man

Poor and blind, rich and good. One begs, one earns.

There are two passages in the Gospel of Mark. The Apostles are on their way with Jesus from village to village learning of the identity of Christ as the Messiah, witnessing people driving out demons in Jesus name (whom aren’t one of them), hearing of the imminent passion of their Master, and two of them, John and Peter becoming first hand witnesses to the transfigured Christ right before their eyes. Indeed a very intense point among all of the Gospel accounts.

But two stories are recalled in the middle of all of this. One featuring a rich man  (Mk 10:17-22), the other featuring a blind beggar in Jericho (Mk 10:46-52), these two stories have much more to do with each other than they might appear.

The rich man, hurrying to catch him before he leaves his district, reached Jesus, probably out of breath and gets right to the point, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus corrects him briefly and begins by deferring to the Ten Commandments, which he begins to summarize. The rich man interrupts him and explains that he has observed all of them his whole life. Nothing seems to be in the way of this young man, his actions have so far reserved a spot in heaven, or so he believes. Jesus then gazed at the man with a loving look, undoubtedly happy with the man’s moral goodness. Jesus replies, “You’re lacking in one thing, go, and sell whatever you have, and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” The man’s face fell from his hopeful grin, and the passage says he went away sad. No “but what if I”, no “what about my goodness”; not even a rebuttal “for he has many possessions”.  

In the next story, Jesus is preparing to make an exit from Jericho amid his twelve and a “sizable crowd”. As he was leaving, a bling man called Bartimaeus, sits, begging, and picks up from a conversation that they are with Jesus of Nazareth.  He immediately calls out for Jesus while some from the crown rebuked him. But he was determined to not let this opportunity pass him up. “Son of David, have pity on me” and Jesus replies “Call him”. The crowd does as the Master commands. “Take courage, get up, he is calling you.” The man throws off his coat, most likely the only possession he has, and rushes to meet with Jesus. He tells Jesus he wishes to see, and Jesus gives him sight telling him, “your faith has saved you.” The man has sight and proceeds to follow Jesus.

The rich man, though he did everything according to the law, could not sell his possessions, could not give to the poor, and could not follow the Master. He even knew Jesus was the one who could unlock the secret of heaven, which Jesus plainly did for him, but could not come to it. It must have come as a shock. Not just to the rich man but to the twelve as well. So far as they knew, wealth implied a blessing from God. Recall Job, “you have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock are spread over the land” (1:10). Isaiah reads, “happy the just, for it will go well with them, the fruit of their works they will eat” (3:10). But wealth and power generate false security, to which the blind man would rather have had. He didn’t give one of his possessions for sale, and didn’t follow Jesus even to the neighboring village. His encounter with the blind man seemed to be that of the opposite. Bartimaeus knew of this Jesus person, of his miracles, and recognized him as the Son of David. He only wished to see, not to follow, so far as the story goes and in the instant he was given the chance he “threw off his cloak.” The one thing he owned, the one thing protecting him, he was willing to give up as rubbish when compared to the glory of what he hoped to have. He was saved from his blindness. Though it stung a little, like when the lights suddenly come on in a dark room, he made eye contact with the Master. Jesus even tell him to “go your way”, contrary to the “follow me” he told the rich man. Instead, he is compelled out of his newfound joy to follow Jesus on the road.

Bartimaeus had a faith that did not waiver when mocked by others. His faith was the sort that asks with expectation, and when granted, again responds in faith.

Those following Jesus then ought to have tied these two occurrences together as they were not far apart. Those following Jesus now, ought to tie these two together, as they are not far apart. Twenty four verses separate the stories; twenty four hours exist in a day. Each day, we can choose to be the rich man, or Bartimaeus.

An unpopular opinion, perhaps

In the recent weeks and certainly the last 10 years, American have had the trial of seeing things I thought they would never see. This country is going through such radical changes within a culture war. We're also dealing with cultural changes in a religious war and this is the sort of war that takes place on our streets as well as overseas.

Most Americans share a will that believes in religious liberty and we truly want people to practice their faith in freedom. I still believe that Americans are among the most caring network of humans on the planet but in the recent years we have certainly been hurt, wounded, scarred - whatever you want to call it.

In the wake of the recent attacks on the Boston City Marathon I myself am in some sense shocked and leveled by the reaction of some people but in a way I guess I'm not surprised at all. The suspects that committed these crimes are apparently Muslim and possibly al Qaeda sympathizers set against Americans and our way of life, which means they feel in their mind they need to take action and harm others. Now you'll have to react in some way too, and there are several choices in front of all of us:

We could be apathetic and think of somebody else will solve our problems. We could protest peacefully, electing community leaders and government officials that share our views, hopefully in sincerity. Others might take action to themselves during their own fits of rage and taking violence back to the people who think they think deserve it. Or other numerous option.

But we each personally have to also react. Each one of us has the desire, the innate will to act with justice in this situation. The problem is, for each of us, that justice might look different, to be one thing for one person and something completely different for another. In a recent article showing the body of the first suspect dead in his autopsy room, which leaked, there's a string of comments which are 90% hate. Yes, consider the source, consider the audience (this is not the consensus among Americans). Some people saying that pig's blood should be spread all ever body as to damn him forever in his own religious beliefs. Others making jokes about the 72 virgins suddenly bearing resemblance to Hillary Clinton. These certainly are creative ways of dealing with the suspect.

Most of us don't have that wish; most of us have the wish that these things simply don't happen again and that we take actions that would prevent the sort of thing from happening, the loss of life the death, of her children, the career of a young security officer/police, would be secured without a senseless act of violence. And that's not too much to ask because it too is justice.

So what is justice?

Believe it or not justice has been debated for a very long time. Socrates himself was prosecuted, tried, and put to death because of his radical views on justice. Much of those akin to Jesus Christ our Lord, the views of Socrates were not pacifist but nor were they vengeful. In his day, if someone did you evil, you did them 2 to 10 times the evil in return, and that was considered justice by the overwhelming majority of citizens in Greece, not just Athens. Is well known and well documented in Greek history that what you and I would call genocide was voted on and carried out by the generals of Greece against certain city-states, completely eradicating the population, and this was considered justice.

But with Christians know different was, as Socrates did. We know that the correct reaction to this are the very words spoken by Jesus: the radical phrase, "love your neighbor and pray for those who persecute you" which includes those who kill your neighbor which you loved. There is nothing wrong with labeling terrorists according to the professed religious belief, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. What is wrong however, is too wish the same hateful condemnation on those individuals who have done arm to us. And this teaching is tough. Only so many people in history have had the guts, the willpower, and the endurance to truly live it out. You and I can do our best to react in such a fashion, too, perhaps better than we already have. In Jesus' own words, "if you only love those who love you what reward is there in that?"

My charge to each Christian  is to act in a way of Christlike justice in the wake of these terrible disasters. It does no harm to pray for the souls of those that are working against us even if they wish to harm us. How are we going to change the world and bring an everlasting goodness if all we do is react in anger or perhaps violence for some. As a veteran and a Catholic, by all means I believe in a just war. By no means do I mean to say did each of us should not be appalled, but let us be stricken with the right sort to fear and let us react with the right side of justice.

And the snow continues to fall, by Jessica McAfee

"Snow! I don't even like the sound of it!" What is Christmas by Trans Siberian Orchestra

 

  Mid April and today we had more snow. It seems that this is the winter that will never end! Having lived in Alaska for 6 years, I take a lot of flack for even mentioning that winter seems long- in my defense, I have to say that in Alaska it's expected. This is the lower '48 people! Shorter winters are part of the reason I agreed to move thousands of miles south.

 



  It's hard to listen to people complain about day after day, however I can't help but love some of the creative humor it has caused. I will admit that the grey skies have gotten to my mood a little. Tanning beds beckon with their rays of warmth, and cause one to weigh the risk of getting cancer with being warm and getting a nice bronze going instead of this washed out look.

  Huge events have been going on around the world and here in the good old USA this week. North Korea's constant threats of nuking us have become slightly more civil, however it's the Boston Marathon bombings and a fertilizer plant in Waco Texas exploding that are on our minds most. When the news of amputations and children dying are playing in our minds there are two things that immediately come to my mind: 1) Evil is a reality 2) Evil is outnumbered.

 

  I can only hope to live up to the example set by the mother of Fred Rogers when my own children look to me for answers and perspective when horrible things happen. We hear people asking the question, how do we respond and not allow fear to grab hold of us? Cartoons have pictures of people simply turning off the news as one way to shut out fear. Staying informed without the medias constant spin and focus on the horror of these events is hard, but not impossible. It is a good idea to limit how many times you stare at the carnage and continue on with life as you are needed in the present.

 

  Although I believe in stepping up and doing what we can, I do believe that going on with our lives is one of the best ways to move past this. Not forgetting, but continuing on. Where do we get our confidence from to do so? Personally, I get my confidence from my faith in Jesus Christ and God the Father and the presence of His Holy Spirit. When I cross myself, I am making a commitment (as well as showing reverence to my Lord) to my purpose of being here on earth. Tragic events happen in our fallen world, however I have hope, purpose to keep on keeping on, and can trust that in the end each horrific event will be placed before a great and just Judge, whether or not we handle it correctly in the hands of our own law in the present time.

 

  I have actually found peace in watching the snow continue on. There is only so much that I can control, the weather and free will are two of the things I cannot. The world will carry on. Seasons will change in their own timing instead of ours, and I can learn to see the beauty of that. That there are limits to human control is somehow comforting. Good and evil will continue their battle until the end of the world- but eventually that day will present itself, and with it comes a victory so blindingly brilliant, that I find myself anxiously waiting for it.

 

  In the meantime, the snow continues to fall.

 

This post is written in its originality by Jessica L. McAfee. You can follow her blog at: http://godtruthfamily.blogspot.com/

Vikings; Odin, Ragnar, and Catholic Priests.

A tandem premier with "The Bible" started about seven weeks ago on the History Channel called "Vikings." Big success these two were. A double shot of awesome, these two took up a three hour block on Sunday nights. In true Viking fashion, the show ransacked and pillaged the ratings for Sunday night television.

The previews were intense and made the show appear to be a worthwhile broadcast, so I DVR'd the first show and checked it out the Monday after the premier. I was hooked. The main character Ragnar and his family draw anyone in with their charisma, will to succeed, and defy the corrupt Earl Haraldson who struggled for power against Ragnar who is a natural leader and consequently a threat to the chair. The series really got me interested with the introduction of a Catholic priest. During an unauthorized rain on England, Ragnar sacks a settlement of monk priests, stealing everything including one particular priest. He gets back to the village expecting a warm welcome but because of Ragnar's deception, the Earl confiscates all the treasure and lets the raiding party retain one item from the lot. Ragnar chooses the priest as his slave. Ragnar recognized the priest is no fool, as demonstrated with his linguistic skills, resourcefulness, and willingness to serve. The priest, in the least of words, is inspiring to any viewer; steadfast in his faith, accepting of this place God has allowed him to be, and so-on.

After an episode, the priest makes a foolish mistake though. He tells Ragnar everything about his homeland and its churches, leading Ragnar to propose a raid on the next village and subsequently, its priests.

I wont ruin the story because you have to watch it for yourself. The show is not a family oriented series by any means. The first episode contains passionate love-making with Ragnar and his wife, where his son is asked "where are your parents" and with a semi-embarrassing frown replies "they're having sex." Be careful little eyes what you see, but no nudity. This show is mature. Regular battle scenes depict gruesome deaths but do not show distinct blows or cuts necessarily. It is not the Saw or Sin City of television but attempts to bring accuracy to the brutality of war and life in 9th century Europe.

As I mentioned, the priest is easily the most dynamic and worth while part of the show, to see his faith endure though he is surely put to the test. He regularly defends his faith though mocked, threatened, and tempted by the open sexual lifestyle of pagans.

Other than ratings, it has reached the social media as well. After the recent attacks at the Boston Marathon someone commented to the effect of "they better convert, worship Thor, or they will not enter Valhalla." If they knew their Norse religion better, they would know Odin occupies the Hall of Valhalla. But anyways...  So this show is good in the sense of entertainment and the priest is a nice addition that keeps me watching week-to-week but the historical depictions in the show let me to research very briefly the historicity of the real Vikings. In America we hear of Leif Erikson having sailed here centuries before Columbus and Juan Ponce de Lion, so I had to see what the real story was.

Ragnar Lothbrok was apparently a real person, commander, and Viking. I'll let the reader educate themselves better on the details, which spoil in-part the show. Vikings though... a different depiction you and I have known our whole lives, is a whole world different from what most historians and experts and evidence portrays as a real Viking. Yes they raided, probably raped, and were generally feared by all. Roman, English, French and other European source confirm the terror of the Vikings but what you and I missed is their common willingness to settle, trade, and become partners with neighboring city-states. The feudal age was just upon the world and unless you have some historical education with you, and even then, it is tough to understand and to grasp life in the those times. Like the difference between 19th Century India and 21st Century America.

Bottom line, the historical Viking has been altered in the last 100-150 years. The only depiction of a Viking wearing horns is two drawings among hundreds or more and experts say it is most likely ceremonial in some way. The most common depictions and descriptions is of the likeness to that of decently dressed Europeans for the time. So were they they blood thirsty, ever combative nomads bearing animal skins and dressed like demons? Probably not and the experts say definitely not. Their seriousness for the Norse religion though, is true until Scandinavians Denmark and Sweden and other seafaring Germanic people were converted into Christianity.

Vikings, particularly the Scandinavians convert but not without some time and resilience. Many tried and offered their lives in the effort to preach the Gospel. It took over 400 years to convert all of the Scandinavia and until the 19th century, the Samis, a European remnant of the Norse religious populous, held out on conversion. Denmark in 1104, Norway in 1154, and Sweden in 1164, established their own Archdioceses, responsible directly to the Holy See.

Criticism exists. Some suggest a religious conversion offered a political opportunity. Kings, who like Ragnar were driven by the apparent value of Christian sacramentals and seeing this as wealth, would have converted. Others cite the reception of a bright white baptismal gown worth the conversion alone. Because of the allegiance to their lieges, lords, or vassals during the feudal age, many would have felt compelled to convert if their masters did. Either way, it happened.

 They were different times. Freedom and daily life were so far from what it means to you and me. The Vikings director commented behind the scenes, "I want it to be as if we are brushing shoulders with the real Vikings." With the proper dose of Hollywood, he might just have done that, or come close. Enslaved priests, power struggles, heavy devotion to pagan Gods mythical and contemporary are a part of each series as they were in each day circa 1000a.d.

Fr. Kapaun, Medal of Honor

A rare thing happened today. So far as my limited knowledge is concerned it has never happened before. An Army Chaplain was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. His name is Emil Kapaun and what most don't know is that he has had a cause for sainthood for some time now.

From Stripes.com:

Although a retreat had been ordered, the priest stayed behind to tend the wounded and comfort the dying, and continued to make his rounds even as hand-to-hand combat ensued. He convinced an injured Chinese officer to negotiate the safe surrender of American forces. And then, seeing a Chinese soldier about to execute a wounded GI, Kapaun calmly pushed aside the enemy and carried the U.S. soldier away.
 

He did not end his service there. Fr. Kapaun carried a wounded soldier four miles, snuck past guards to forage food in the forest for food, boiled water as dysentery ensued and was known to promote sharing. Honorable. IF you have ever heard a Korean War veteran talk about their experience, they all have one thing in common: bitterly cold. Fr. Kapaun was known to regularly give his clothes away to keep the other warm. He ultimately died as a POW in a hospital. Before this he administered sacraments, offered rosary prayers and gave hope to the other Americans. This Chaplain is a true war hero; not sniping and run-and-gunning, not Rambo, a Priest.

As said, he has a cause for sainthood. In 1993 the Vatican gave him the title "Servant of God."

Many have become saints, many have received the Medal of Honor but I cannot remember a Chaplain who get it, and also has a cause for Sainthood. There happens to also be a book coming out this year by author Roy Wenzel "The Miracle of Father Kapaun."








http://www.frkapaun.org/index.html is a website dedicated to his cause and it's a good resource if you wish to learn more.

His prayer, taken from the website:

 

PRAYERLord Jesus, in the midst of the folly of war,
your servant, Chaplain Emil Kapaun spent himself
in total service to you on the battlefields and
in the prison camps of Korea, until his
death at the hands of his captors.

We now ask you, Lord Jesus, if it be your will,
to make known to all the world the holiness
of Chaplain Kapaun and the glory of his
complete sacrifice for you by signs of
miracles and peace.

In your name, Lord, we ask, for you are the
source of peace, the strength of our
service to others, and our final hope.

Amen

Coffee Break

Coffee Break

 

Perhaps the biggest piece of news this week is also the most disturbing. Not to diminish the matter, but I also feel like I was the last to know, like, why didn't more people talk about this and share it? Rick Warren's son, Matthew, committed suicide at the beginning of this week. Rick Warren is the acclaimed pastor of Saddleback Church in California. His son, who I know very little about apparently suffered a long time battle with mental illness. No doubt, this is a sad and shocking story. My prayers have been with the family. You can read the story here. The autopsy which emerged this morning tells that it was a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Very little words come to mind other than "tragic" when thinking of this issue. A kid I ate lunch with in High School did the same thing to himself.

The good people at Catholic Answers discuss the Catholic Church's teaching on suicide: http://www.catholic.com/video/church-teaching-on-suicide

An important issue, too. Little did I know, the first story I heard that led me to trust the Catholic church was a suicide story, which also led to me choice of a Confirmation Saint, St. Padre Pio.

St. Pio was a man of so many miracles and spiritual gifts. In confession he would often tell the person what they did wrong if they held anything back, or he would tell them information that would be impossible for them [or him] to know. Popular too, he would spend some 16 hours on some days listening to confessions. He had a big gift as a seer. So a married man, sick with depressions takes his life on a bridge. Padre Pio was always surrounded by crowds so much that it was tough for anyone to get through to him. The woman knew of his gifts and wanted to ask Pio to pray for the man's soul but could not get to him. The story goes that when she almost gave up, Pio came to an abrupt halt, pointed through the mass of crowd as to make a path straight to the woman and yelled, "don't be afraid, he confessed on the way down." The woman knew what he was talking about. It remains one of the most vivid stories from St. Pio's many. It was compelling to me, enough to give Catholicism a look.

One piece of news that is of specific interest is the attack on a Egyptian Coptic Christian Cathedral today. You can read that here.

A bit of disturbing news in the domestic world, a US Army Reserve picked Catholics and Evangelical Protestants as "extremist" religious groups. Read it here. Disturbing, cause they classify these next to the Klu Klux Clan and Al Qaeda.

What else happened this week?

The "Extra" Stuff

The Extra “Stuff”

Recently I had a conversation with my close friend who is not Catholic, although a sure Christian. So we get to talking about his family’s history in which denomination and such, and I find out that some of his relatives/ancestors were Catholic. On a side note, I like to think that, if Christian at all before the 1540’s, all of our ancestors were Catholic. I ask him plainly, “and why aren’t you Catholic, what made you decide otherwise?”

I got a great answer out of him. A very truthful and sincere “I don’t need all the extra stuff.  Some of my friends are Catholics, and they are happy with that but none of it matters for my salvation. What matters is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and I can add nothing to that.” A fine reply. We had some people over to our house and I did not want to start on a long drawn out conversation. I chose prudence; saying what needs to be said, only when it needs to be said, and otherwise letting people have their say. Sometimes I do really want to reply. Heck, I might even have a fantastic reply but my words don’t always need to be heard. Even if I never discuss this with this person again, there are times where people need to be listened to and not spoken at.  So I said nothing other than acknowledging his sentiment, and I do sincerely identify with his words, but not all of them.

The “extra stuff” in Catholicism might seem extra to one who is not of the faith, but to a Catholic they are vital. Likewise, take a step further; imagine this conversation taking place with a non-Christian. They might see Christmas, Easter, other holy days, going to retreats, participating in communion, and tithing as the stuff of religiosity, or otherwise “extra.” And seriously, do Christmas, Easter, and going on retreats do anything for our salvation? Do they add to the work of the cross? No, and no. But – Don’t they strengthen our faith? Don’t they have usefulness and obligation? All Christians participate in these but are they required for our ultimate salvation? No.

As a Protestant I was objecting to the same topics: if they are not required for salvation then why confess to a priest, believe in the Real Presence, and the other Catholic dogma. What I was thinking is that they were just dissimilar beliefs, like the way you and me believe or don’t believe that pepperoni is better than sausage on a pizza. What I started to consider though, is the consequences, not of the belief, but of the possible truth. I started to think, “what if that bread is really Jesus, what if it is true?” I would even tell myself, “if it is, then aren’t I consuming it no matter what, and therefore, I am not missing out or doing anything wrong.” I thought that was pretty slick, but then I read 1 Corinthians 11:29, “whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” I asked myself, if it is just a symbol, how again am I drinking judgment upon myself? Is there any other parallels instance where God judges us for metaphors and symbolism?

So again I implore the consequences. One might not believe in confessing to a priest, but if they really can and are supposed to forgive sins why am I not doing that? Leading on, if they are supposed to forgive sins then that means one is expected to confess, right? As a protestant I believed I was “ever forgiven;” that once Jesus forgave my sins he forgave them all future, present, past – an idea that is hardly biblical first of all. But even if I was right, the logic and scripture do not match up. James tells us to confess our sins to one another (5:16), 1 John 1:9 says “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Why confess if you are already forgiven? Protestant websites filled me with other hope that the confession was relinquishing God’s judgment on me (see “gotquestions” website) or other illogical arguments. The fact is: the bible says we need to confess. And just for the non-Catholic, the Church does not teach that a man forgives sins. We believe God, and only God will forgive sins. The Priest is participating in the High Priests authority (see Hebrews) as an ambassador, literally, as Paul tells in Ephesians 6:20, Philemon 1:9, and an ambassador carries the will of the King with him. For more on Jesus giving the power to forgive sins check out the Gospel of John 20:19-23.

Even Jesus, God Himself was Baptized for purposes John did not fully comprehend.

There remain many other examples to pull from. Do we need to pray to saints? Do we need to pray the Our Father? I would argue the only “extra” in the Christian faith is the practice of something harmful to ourselves and others. The Catholic faith is purported to be as old as Pentecost, circa 29AD. A priest said to me, “Satan has tried to destroy us, we have tried to destroy ourselves, but it cannot be done.”

If we are really the body of Jesus Christ, not just a metaphor, how can anything we teach be extra?

The Tiger Woods quote: "Winning Takes Care of Everything"

The Tiger Woods quote.

Did anybody see it? Did anyone not see it?

If you don’t follow sports or sports news you probably didn’t see it. So let me catch-up those of you who are the latter. Nike released recently a spot add (shown above) with the quote “winning takes care of everything” with the new rating as world #1 golfer cited. What do you think?

This apparently caused a crud-storm in the media where everyone and their mom have to input their opinion on the subject: I’m offended, or, I think its fine. Cocky would be the word everyone would choose regardless of opinion. That’s the way we are in this modern age. Free speech is a right but nobody has the right to be heard. That being said let me quickly tell you about my relationship with Woods.

When I was 7 my dad, a regular golfer, bought me a 9 iron and a putter. I dug a hole in my backyard to putt the ball into; I don’t think he cared. In my family, all four of us kids played the same sports but we all also had one thing that we individually competed at be it music, wrestling, all-star baseball, golf, or hockey. My dad gave me golf and I like to think it was mine and his “thing.” So one day back in the 90’s guess who shows up all over golf – Tiger Woods – a phenom. He is responsible for almost my whole generation getting into golf that much we owe him. He won, what, 14 majors until 2008? A beast. Anyone can watch his Youtube clips and be inspired – he made it look easy.

And we all know what happened next – the scandal. I will not revisit that, we all know what happened. So then he gets back into the PGA tour a couple years ago, with a new swing, a new caddy, and … is needless to say a 50% player. Arguably among the worst. He won three times in 2012 but they were only snapshots of the stardom we saw; reminders of great chips, sand-shots, and a couple putts – oh his putting was terrible as was his driver. So this year, he has 3 wins for 5 tournaments as #1, most recently winning at Bay Hill – an outstanding performance.

Then this add comes out, “winning takes care of everything” and like I said, it has created a storm. Think Nike didn’t think of this? Think Tiger didn’t know it would? Think they care?  If anyone knows Tiger Woods they know that meticulous is an understatement: this man probably knows how many dimples are on a golf ball, or how many threads are in his laces, and can probably think through a PR response to his own Nike ads. Nike. Of course it's Nike. We know they have their times of smug cockiness. The Charles Barkley 90’s add “I’m not a role model” or whatever it was.  So does anyone who has an opinion not think they knew exactly what they were doing?

Needless to say, there are many reactions on can choose to have. Many interpretation of the meaning.

Catholic Answers has this to say.

ESPN had this.

One can find every opinion, every side to root for and better develop their take on it. I played golf with a Priest from North Dakota all last summer (2012), and when I made a bad shot he used to ask me “now Shaun, how does that shot look in eternity?” Of course the shot looked insignificant, if not completely forgettable. So I apply that though to this issue and perhaps the reader can get where I am coming from. Try taking a completely philosophical look at the quote. All of us know winning doesn’t solve problems. But really, what does it matter? What is the intrinsic effect on an individual?

Athletes are formed to think this way: I must win. Its a required frame of mind in order to serve as a motivation to win. One must accept no other alternative. Failure and the fall are imminent, they're both guaranteed but even then, the athlete must get up and tell themselves that they wont do it again. Does this not also apply to the Christian in a sense? You can tell St. Paul loves sports as a Roman citizen, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race." Can we not see our relationship with our sin as somewhat likened to a competitive spirit? "I will not sin again" or "I must not sin again." For Catholics, does our act of contrition not end with "I firmly resolve, with your help, to do penance, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin." In our minds there must be no alternative. Surely, we live with the sensbility that we will fall short and we will need help.  

I don’t think I have much else to contribute to the discussion, other than the fact that we are called to love our neighbors and pray for our enemies. I still love watching Woods. I do not have a desire to replicate or imitate his life, nor will I defend him. I, like the priest I told you about, do pray for him. I think he would make a great Christian as does anyone, really. Personally, I don’t buy into the saucy little PR tricks the world puts out there for us. My take: if you follow Tiger and his press conferences over the last two years, he has been asked over and over again, “what will it take for you to get back into #1” and he has repeatedly said “winning is how it is done, you have to win.” So this really is not anything new. Do I have some sympathy for Tiger? You bet I do. I have sympathy for everyone who fails, because I have failed countless times. Do we choose to believe those empty promisses? NO!

Point is, dont prey; pray instead.

Is It Merely Bread? A Look At The Holy Eucharist (Communion)

Is It Merely Bread? A Look At The Holy Eucharist, The Blessed Sacrament

I am unsure where to begin with this entry. Always, I make it a point to be polite, gentle, but also convincing, reasonable, and faithful to the claims of the Church. But really, I want to be helpful, eye-opening, and I want to show the world what I have discovered, but I realize with the subject that I am going to write about, it can only be a revelation from the Lord. We can discern with our reason as humans and Christians, but ultimately God will have to write this claim on your heart. But let me insert this caveat before I end that thought: just because God does not noticeably place this on your heart does not mean it is not meant for you. Ever think about that in your walk? That we use this rationale when thinking about the lost of the world, and how to them God does not exist; that doesn’t make that a fact. Facts are facts because they are unalterable; our thoughts, beliefs, and what-nots, don’t change the facts. So consider that when you read this; that even thought it might be convincing, or a nice exegetical analysis of scripture and history, and just because your emotions or in pray your don’t think you receive anything, does not mean that this is not for you – because if you get this, you will see that this is the whole summation, the whole enchilada, the very gift from God to the Church: his flesh and blood. It really will change everything for you.

What the scriptures say:

The Evangelists, AKA the Gospel authors all discuss this important topic. Now, commonly, the Gospel writers would speak of separate issues. For example, Luke, a physician, noted the many actual names for the diseases that were healed; or Matthew the tax collector kept an accurate tab on numbers such as the miraculous feedings; or Mark, which is traditionally called “the Q” is said to be co-written with the testimonial input of Peter and thus records a massive account of the Passion more than any other Gospel (don’t forget how much his denial meant afterword to Peter). So you see the Gospels are sort of written differently cause of the occasions that meant much to that writer. But in each of the Gospels, specific account is given in reference to the conversation and events that took place with the Holy Communion. I will use the account in John for this though (Chapter 6):

“²⁵ When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You get here?”
 ²⁶ Jesus answered, “I assure you: You are looking for Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were filled. ²⁷ Don’t work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal of approval on Him.”
 ²⁸ “What can we do to perform the works of God?” they asked.
 ²⁹ Jesus replied, “This is the work of God—that you believe in the One He has sent.”
 ³⁰ “What sign then are You going to do so we may see and believe You?” they asked. “What are You going to perform? ³¹ Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”
 ³² Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Moses didn’t give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the real bread from heaven. ³³ For the bread of God is the One who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
 ³⁴ Then they said, “Sir, give us this bread always!”
   ³⁵ “I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “No one who comes to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be thirsty again. ³⁶ But as I told you, you’ve seen Me,^[i] and yet you do not believe. ³⁷ Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me. ³⁹ This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
 ⁴¹ Therefore the Jews started complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” ⁴² They were saying, “Isn’t this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can He now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
 ⁴³ Jesus answered them, “Stop complaining among yourselves. ⁴⁴ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me— ⁴⁶ not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is from God. He has seen the Father.
   ⁴⁷ “I assure you: Anyone who believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. ⁵⁰ This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that anyone may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
 ⁵² At that, the Jews argued among themselves, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
 ⁵³ So Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. ⁵⁴ Anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day, ⁵⁵ because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink. ⁵⁶ The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives in Me, and I in him. ⁵⁷ Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the manna your fathers ate—and they died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.”

Above the Manna

I have done the pleasure of underlining the important phrases here in John 6 that are the focus of the study. First of all, understand how cultured the Jews were in this time. For the past 1300 years or so, Moses was their prime Patriarch, giving them the Law, the revelation of the Lord, the Promise land, and all of this through a miraculous, slow to anger God. Jesus quickly inserts his teaching that the multitudes ought not to look for mere food, but to look for the bread of heaven. Yes, Jesus was referring to himself and then seconds later declared this as a fact, not a mere metaphor (v 27 & v 35). But he makes a sharp comparison between the manna, given to the Hebrews to survive, and himself, a bread that will give eternal life. Again, first, he declares that he is above the manna in stature and nature. Ever thought of what a super claim that was? He was saying that the bread of life is more powerful, more vital for survival eternally than the manna. How can a metaphor be superior to a supernatural gift from God? He says that Moses gave them the manna, but the Lord gives a superior meal. You see plainly where Jesus says that eating the bread of life is a real act, and a real substance. That Greek word there in verse 50, “… anyone may eat of it and not die” in the Lexicon means “to consume a thing, to take food, eat a meal, to devour.” Thayer’s Lexicon says that this word literally means to chew on a substance to satisfy ones hunger and thirst. The reference gives other versions of the word for poetical use, like a metaphor, but that is not the word here that Jesus used. 

Just Plain Offensive

Let us move on. The Jews then began to argue and contemplate his words because they were offended. But… how could they be so offended by a metaphor. They were literally convinced that he meant what he said, that if they wanted to follow him any longer, they must chew on his flesh and drink his blood. Even his disciples (some of them) said it was tough teaching. But notice that Jesus never corrects that it is a mere “teaching” but that it is a requirement. Jesus was always happy and helpful in explaining his parables. But the one reference that Jesus makes that offends the entire multitude, he simply repeats his message and commands them to stop arguing – they have no rebuttal. “Unless you eat… and drink…”

I am sure at this point they are all thinking, “please clarify!” and he does. “My flesh is real food… my blood is real drink…”  The academic Greek in blood and drink are very convincing. The reader really has to pray and ask themselves why all the people would leave Jesus over a metaphor? Why would he not correct them? All he needed to say was “wait! Here is what I was really saying.” All he says is “there are some among you who don’t believe”(v 64) “will you leave me too.” (v 67) I was astonished at what I had missed in this the first million times I read it. Sort of makes you think, no?  But this is the promise, next comes the institution.

The Institution

 As a devout and defensive Protestant, I always went to the institution of the Lord Supper as a defense for the metaphorical viewpoint. I thought it was spotless. I now believe I was very wrong.  I’ll use Matthew Chapter 26 first:

“²⁶ As they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take and eat it; this is My body.” ²⁷ Then He took a cup, and after giving thanks, He gave it to them and said, “Drink from it, all of you. ²⁸ For this is My blood that establishes the covenant; it is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. ²⁹ But I tell you, from this moment I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it in a new way in My Father’s kingdom with you.”   

Luke’s Gospel accounted the “do this in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19)”

I haven’t underlined anything because this whole paragraph is so important to the doctrine of the Eucharist and how the Church celebrates it now and always. First look at that word in verse 26, that Jesus blesses it. This is no mere thankful blessing; that one comes in the next verse. The word here actually means “to consecrate.” From this moment on, it is never referred to as bread and wine again by the utterance of Jesus. He tells them after that what in fact they are. Interesting point here that the same words he used in Johns Gospel for “eat” and “drink” are the very same Greek words. His promise was fulfilled before their very eyes.  And in Luke, “remember” is not anything other than what he says it is. I mean to say that Him (Jesus) saying this does not make it a metaphor. In fact, once again Jesus is only explicit about the contents of the wine and bread being now blood and flesh, only commanding us to remember Him when we do it. Then I consider this: Jesus says the “blood” which they are to drink is the blood that was shed for the eternal covenant. Jesus dies a real death, he bled real blood. He didn’t metaphorically die, and did not metaphorically believe, so what else what He referring to?

The Two Views

There are two views about this topic and it would not be important if it did not have a very dogmatic sounding name, right? No laughs? Okay. The first is Transubstantiation which is the belief that the real presence of Christ is present within the bread and wine under the appearance of bread and wine still. You could say: it transforms in everything besides appearance. This is a matter of “substance” over appearance. The other is Consubstantiation, which is the belief that it is still bread and wine, period. Yes these are two medieval words. As with several other doctrines, the words were given to clarify what the Church officially believes. In fact, this teaching was not questioned for 1000 years and didn’t enter into any form of Christianity for 1600 years! Much like the “Trinity,” modern words are not given until heresy presents its ugly face. Trinity was a word given to fight the Gnostics and later the Arian heresy.   

Consider this: "Substance" here means what something is in itself. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its color the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. Whereas the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.

Examination (what else does the Bible say?)

Are there any other references in the bible that support the Catholic doctrine? Why yes, there are, thank you so much for asking. Let me show you.

Chapter eleven of the first letter to the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11), Paul is quite displeased about the abuse of this sacrament, the Eucharist. ***Click this sentence to go to the chapter. *** This chapter starts out pretty scary for a Bible-only Christian when Paul mentions “you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Now… hmmm. Paul is “delivering traditions” which means that the delivery had a starting point. He did not make this up all by himself. Anyone who makes a delivery receives it (whatever it is) and carries it and hands it off to the intended receiver. Well, that leaves an awful lot to consider. It means we have no idea what he delivered. But that Catholic Church remembers what he delivered very well, this is the application of Apostolic Succession.

Paul has a few things to get out of the way but then starts on the point in verse 17. He says that he heard that they eat in division, and they act as if the Lords Supper (he calls it this, not me) is any other event, getting drunk, and getting their stomachs full. He is upset because they eat it as if it is not the Eucharist, as if it is just bread and wine, while when they are supposed to be coming together to remember Jesus as a community in cohesion as a body! Remember Jesus’ words “when you do this remember me.” He then recounts the story (remember this is another tradition cause it was not “scripture” until 394ad). Well, it that same “eat” word again, esthio. It pays to discover. Read on about the judgment and condemnation they will receive for this unholy act.

“²⁷ So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. ²⁹ For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. ³⁰ That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. ³¹ But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. ³² Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world” (NIV).

I cannot see how if we are condemned for “not discerning the body of Christ”, it can’t just be a mere metaphor. Is there any other example you can think of where God condemns us for not believing a metaphor? I cannot think of one. Use your reason; the authors intent is much more serious than metaphor.  

Paul consecrates the bread in Acts 27:35. The actual Greek word used in Acts is eucharisteō. What word does that appear to look like? It is the Eucharist. Its biblical proof that, so far as the objector is concerned, the word exists in the bible.  

It really is an important issue, too. Do not convince yourself that this is another rag bag spine issue that we don’t have to really understand. This is one of the things that we find in every Gospel account. Jesus said to us that “you do not have life in you” and Paul tells us that if we do not discern His body when we take it, that we are damned and condemned. Even more so, Paul told us that we must reflect deeply as to not accept it unworthily. I was too offended when I was “trying out” or “checking out” Catholic Mass and I was instructed not to take it. I was thinking “but I am a Christian! Half these people in this room aren’t as devout as me.” But they were right, and I was arrogant.

A Possible Conclusion

The straightforward name of this sacrament is “Communion.” Well if it is a metaphor, what are you in communion with? Nothing. This is a difficult teaching, the disciples were right. But Jesus made a way for us to literally be at one with Him while on Earth. He made possible what we don’t see as possible or probable. Will we believe that one chapter before his promise of this, that he made a few loafs into many, but cannot believe this? Will we believe that at Cana he turned water into wine, but cannot accept that he can turn wine into blood? So why don’t we believe it? I think there are three reasons: 1) we don’t want to believe it, it offends us, 2) we don’t think we need to believe it, or 3) we don’t think God is actually asking us to drink blood and eat flesh. If yours is #1, the consequences, let me remind you are grave. If yours is #2, again, how can you be condemned for a metaphor? And #3, God made it how He wants it to be, and be thankful that it didn’t actually turn into blood or meat, God is so merciful! If you have a reason other than this, like you’re not convinced, okay, but keep reading on the subject I urge you. All of the evidence isn’t even here, there is much more to be said and discovered.

I want you the reader to consider the following. I have laid out some common evidence that many consider extremely convincing. If it is or it isn’t for you, either way, consider this: if it isn’t true, no big deal, but if it really is Jesus, don’t you want some?! Wouldn’t you want to take Him in every day? And if it is true, you should really consider the rest of what Catholics teach. This is the one part of Catholicism that either pulls people in or bounces them away.

History is the greatest demonstration of evidence. All Christians believe that "truth is truth" and is not subject to change. If that's so, then why the change in the 16th century for Protestants? There is not teaching contrary to that of Catholicism before this time. So I ask again, why the change? If it was truth once, it is always truth.

I really hoped you enjoyed this. Comment if you have a question, a thought, or a rebuttal.