Answers to a "Pagan Christmas"

(posted previously at Ignitum Today)

Charlie gave Linus the pop quiz: what is Christmas all about? Of course, Linus proclaims the birth of Christ (was Linus named after the second Pope?)

Today it would have looked more like this:

The modern Catholic, and most Christians for that matter, has many fronts to defend, one of them being the so-called “pagan roots.” This accusation is made on many facades of the faith. For example, an objector might tell you that Christians adopted the Holy Day of Easter from the pagan celebration of the fertility goddess, Ishtar (sounds a little like Easter, right?). This time of year though, you are likely to hear the objection that Christmas is a christo-pagan holiday, a mash-up of pagan belief and Christian celebration. Here are some of the objections or accusations you might meet, and a helpful way to respond.

1. Christians invented Christmas from the winter solstice celebration of Sol Invictus.

Yes, there were mid-winter celebrations in religions outside Christianity during the time of the Early Church. In fact, like Easter, the East and the West were observing Christmas differently, while until recently, the Armenians didn’t celebrate it at all. The West led the way with a distinctive nativity-based celebration, concluding with Holy Mass. That’s the same as how you see it today. The development of Christmas was not an assimilated celebration until the 4th century. Does that mean that the Apostle John, and Sts. Polycarp and Irenaeus, three men who were apostolically connected, did not celebrate Christmas? Probably so, but there is nothing wrong with this. Merely because a Christian celebration is similar to that of a pagan one proves nothing. There is either coincidence of the celebrations in the same time period or there is influence on one another.

The objector has to ask himself the following: 1) after centuries of persecution for not observing pagan holidays, where is the proof of influence? Or/and, 2) who influenced whom? Did Christianity have the influence on pagans to begin adopting a more public and concrete celebration or did we “Christianize” a pagan event? We can observe that the two were present at the time but neither scenario is a problem with the Christian because the Church has the ability to Christianize people and celebrations alike. Light was overcoming darkness at the celebration of Sol Invictus and in Christ, darkness was defeated by the real luminousness of Christ. Paganism had a hint, but Christianity had the answer.

2. The Christmas tree comes from pagan origins and is condemned in the Bible.
The objector can have a field day with this one. Evergreens are a near-universal symbol of hope in the winter season. They represent resurrection (triumph of live over death) for the Egyptians, everlasting life for the Scandinavians and Druids, and still, agricultural anticipation (to the god Saturnalia) for the Greeks/Romans. But the tree is not recognized as a use of Christmas celebration until the time of Luther. More closely connected to the ancient church is the use of evergreen wreaths. Your objector might say that it came around the same time as the popularity of the pagan celebration Saturnalia. Let him know that Tertullian wrote as early as A.D. 190-220, that Christians hang more “wreaths and laurels” than the pagans (who hang it for the “gate gods”) at their doors. He was condemning the wreath as something worth putting hope in like the pagans did with their temples, over that of Jesus who is the true Light in which we are the actual temples of the Spirit. He wasn’t condemning the décor! He ends with, “You are a light of the world, and a tree ever green.” READ TERTULLIAN “ON IDOLATRY“ HERE (see Chapter XV)
The passage in the Bible your objector is referring to comes from Jeremiah 10:3-4.

Thus says the LORD: Learn not the customs of the nations, and have no fear of the signs of the heavens, though the nations fear them. For the cult idols of the nations are nothing, wood cut from the forest, Wrought by craftsmen with the adze, adorned with silver and gold. With nails and hammers they are fastened, that they may not totter (NAB).

Let’s get one thing straight up front: Jeremiah was not talking about Christmas trees because he was writing hundreds of years before Christmas became a celebration. He was pointing out the idolatry of the people of that day, and much like Tertullian, was warning against the idolatry of those who put there hope in earthly gods and things.

Near to this, the objector must understand that Christians are not intent on worshiping their trees and are certainly not putting them in their living rooms and entryways to deter spirits. Perhaps for some carolers and eggnog, but not for protection.

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with the Church “baptizing” certain practices of other religions. The objector is confusing the Church of deriving its beliefs from these celebrations, with the assimilation of seasonal celebrations and symbols. Like St. Patrick did with the clover to illuminate and demonstrate the reality of the Trinity. Akin to St. Paul explaining the “unknown god” at the Areopagus. Paul did not derive the idea from the Greeks that day, and Patrick did not derive the Trinity from a leaf.

We don’t believe that Christians hold the patent on Truth. Instead, we believe that God has riddled himself to other religions. In other words, just because a specific religion does not contain the whole truth, does not mean it contains no truth. If you witness to a pagan who believes a wreath will save him, maybe you can show him how Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise of everlasting life. Then, just as with the cross that hangs from our necks, we can display a wreath to remind us what is true. In this way, Christianity has the distinct ability to assimilate the “hints” of other religions.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker writes, “If a religion is not only true but more true than all the other religions, then it should connect with all those other religions at the points where they are true.” Read “Paganism, Prophecies, and Propaganda” HERE.

- See more at: http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/12/05/answers-to-a-pagan-christmas/#sthash.L3VDBdeW.dpuf

Tradition and the Bible

When you tell your Protestant friends or relatives about the "Traditions" of the Catholic Church you're likely to receive some attention. The antithesis to a church that relies on the "Bible only" is not a church that relies on "Tradition only." That is what most objectors to Catholicism would like others to think - that we believe that Tradition somehow trumps the Scriptures. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is an authority, but not the authority. Just as the Church also teaches Tradition as an authority, but not the authority. And the Protestant must understand this and in order to make that happen effectively, the Catholic must be able to effectively communicate this.

One thing to bring up is that Protestants actually believe in Tradition more than they think. In fact, using the Bible at all is a step of faith in the Traditions of the Church. Why? Because there is no way of determining what books belong there in the first place, that is, which writings of the early Church are inspired or not. The Bible existed long before the Reformation and was trusted as "inspired" long before Luther removed certain books. Aside from that issue, the very fact that Protestants have the Bible at all is virtue of Tradition and the Authority of the Church. How else did they receive it? There is no place in the Bible itself that names which books belong there. And in addition, to assert the notion that, "we know in our hearts which books belong" as Calvin, the Geneva Reformer wrote, is the same sort of self edifying gobbledygook the Mormons use to justify their "inspired" texts.

That point has to stick in the minds of any honest reader. The celebration of Church services on Sunday is also a product of Church decisions, not Bible only teachings. If the Bible were the only source that we need to be guided to salvation, where is the unity among Protestants? The Holy Spirit is not a spirit of division! If one disagrees with a particular interpretation there is often one more division. If someone disagrees with that branch from there, another division starts. Sooner or later the religion and system is unrecognizable. One only needs to look at Lutheranism next to a modern Reformed Baptist to see the fruits of Bible only teachings. One was supposed to be the real deal, but then came along another dissident believer who saw things differently.

And here is the point: if the Catholic Church is so wrong in its authoritative structure, how come we still teach the same doctrine for close to 2000 years? That must count for something to any discerning heart.

Summa Blogologica - Question 8: The Existence of God in Things.

We are SO CLOSE to finishing the Summa Theologica's explanation on God's Essence (His Nature). I continuously labor to find fresh and easy ways to explain this without losing any of the "must know" knowledge. This all requires a couple reviews, so please don't get discouraged.

Once you get all of this it promotes a great quality in your reflections on God and you will also be able to understand Him in applications to your life. For example, once you understand that God is unchangeable, and understand that He IS love (not a selective and subjective love, but loves all of creation), we can have a deeper gratitude for His work in our lives, and less fear and worry when we sin. So stick with me!

Question 8 is next. St. Thomas answers the topic of God being "in" things. We say off hand that God is in things all the time (omnipresent), in acts of love, in mercy, etc. The explanation here can be extended to that, but is a more rudamentary in that we are saying that God is in things in basic principal. Don't get too wrapped up there. You'll see. In order to understand God's existence in things, you must understand God's existence at all. Links for that are below.

Remember the difference between an accident (when something is belongs to a thing but is not its essence, like a hat can be black and smelly) and nature (what a thing IS). So here we go:

---------------------------------------------------------

God is in all things as that of a being of an agent, and not simply as a part of their essence or as an accident. By this “agent” we mean that God is the first act (see God's existence as "first act"), and as such must be joined or present to the continuous movement of beings. If it is a being at all, it must be attached to it effect if it should continuously exist; God is the first cause. Further, we can extrapolate that God must be everywhere, omnipresent, due to this logical conclusion. The limitless cannot be limited, and the infinite cannot be finite. He is also everywhere in three ways: essence, presence, and power. Essence by agent of efficient cause (see God's existence), presence by perfect knowledge and infinite existence, power by creator of all things. These are not accidents in other things and so He alone is not particular but universal in His infinity of presence and power.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I said in the first post on God's existence that the concepts there would be used over and over. Here, they really matter. The take-away here is that God is everywhere because as in infinite being, which is a product of His existence and infiniteness, He must be everywhere. Review Question 7 for the infinity of God.

Are you having fun yet?

Summa Blogologica - Question 7: The Infinity of God

So God is "big" right? Wrong. Big is a relative degree of size and God has no size and there is nothing relative to infinite. He has no measurement. As you're about to understand, only things that are finite can be measured.

Question 7 of the Summa Theologica deals with this topic, the Infinity of God. Its easy to understand up front, but some of the details get confusing. You will need to understand potential in relation to God. That can be found in Question 2, Existence of God.




... Try to (bear with me).











------------------------------------------------------------
God is infinite. God is not finite because things that are made of form and matter are finite. The form limits the matter, and the matter limits the form. Since God has no form or matter, He is not limited and is therefore infinite.  On the other hand, things of creation are relatively infinite as their existence is related to their potential to have an infinite number of forms. However, this is not the same infinite as that of God, who is not limited by form and matter. Bodies cannot be infinite in magnitude. Because bodies have size, they are measurable, which makes them finite. If a number has infinite potentiality, this means that a number can be divided and multiplied by any number. However, infinity itself cannot be divided and end with a real result. Infinity is limitless, endless, and is like a black hole of math and existence and power
------------------------------------------------------------

Thing that have potential = finite.
Things that are measurable = finite.
Things that have body = finite.
Things that can be divided = finite.
Finite = things are limited by all of the above.
God is not any of these by His, already discussed, nature and essence. God has no potential, He is simple (no body), and cannot be divided. God - is - infinite.

I hope that sort of simplifies things. These are necessary achievements in understanding God. If you cant understand this, we cannot move further to the "unchangeable" God, the "love" of God, and others.

Sorry Jr. Asparagus but God is not bigger than the Boogie Man. God, by His very nature, is not able to be compared to the finite, like the Boogie Man.

Larry the Cucumber would ask, "but isn't infinity bigger than finite?" No. Infinity has no measurement. Haven't you been paying attention, Larry? I can see why Bob gets annoyed with him, garsh.

JK, of course. When we say "God is bigger" we are referring to power, which He is bigger.






Do ask questions. Do read this more than once.

Go here for the Summa Question 7 text and go here for the simplified version.

"The Pope is a Flaming Liberal"

Did you know the new Pope is a far left extremist? Well he said so himself. Yeah - he will turn the Catholic Church around and finally allow abortions, promote gay equality, and even allow women to become priests. Its crazy right?

Enter meme.

Yes it is crazy. I guess the world can also be convinced that the Pope is not a practicing Catholic either. You know by now that the media is making a huge deal of the latest interview from Pope Francis (CLICK HERE FOR FULL INTERVIEW). Sorry, you'll have to read a little (a lot). Its not short. If you want to save some time here is a short bit on what he said.

You should then proceed to read Jimmy Akin's blog about.

Now... I am not about reinventing the wheel. There are many things I can discuss in this blog but I choose not to discuss things if I feel I can just link the reader to a great source. So what I want to do here is quickly talk about the situation in a contemplative sense. What's that you say? Let me bring to you wonderful mind some nuggets to consider in listening to the media and going forward with Pope Francis.

The media is on a honeymoon with Pope Francis. He gives them more firepower with his off the cuff remarks. Francis is not as, lets say precise or considerate of what he says as his predecessor or his predecessor's predecessor. It really speaks to his humility when you think about it. From day one we have witnessed a Pope that doesn't care for a lavish life. The media soaked this up early and soon turned to malign or twist anything and everything he says. Now if a Pope makes a silly comment we need to know the difference between a Magisterial document and an interview.  Each week its as if there is new material to spin. It was the "who am I to judge" comment on gays. It was the comment about the Priori. Then it was the scribble of the atheist-being-saved comment. The fact is, our Holy Father isn't as careful to explain in context what he is saying and naturally much of what he says is interpretable.

Where with Blessed JPII and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI we were in a season of scholarship, we could and should consider the season to have changed to a season of humility and love. In Patrick Madrid's "Envoy for Christ", his other book "Search and Rescue" and still the newest "On a Mission" he re-re-re-re-re, and still more emphasizes LOVE, GENTLENESS, PRAYER, and HUMILITY. In Madrid's eyes, even if you would learn the world over and become a perfect Apologist and were capable of converting Satan himself, if you had not love, you are null, ineffective and all your efforts would be like a cake without icing. It just wouldn't be a cake. You'd have a convert, but not a real convert of the heart. There has to be both.

We are among very few generations who will live to see more than 2 or even 3 Popes. Let us be accepting and understanding of the benefits of that. 

Now what about the Catholics who are dissident to the Church? Those "rebels" who are public figures who claim the title of "Catholic" yet pick and choose which parts of the faith fit their lifestyle? For those faithful Catholics, these people at times anger us. But let me offer this to you if you think like that (which we all do from time to time): what about the vineyard workers who worked all day and earned the same as the hand hired in the last hour? Yes, this is a parable about those who are life long religious vexing those who convert in their last hour, but it works the same for those who accept and submit their entire lives to the Magisterium and those who just barely cut the quick. It might be a shame for them and an embarrassment to the Church but it says a great deal about the power of the first principal of the Church - Jesus is Lord and He has saved your life. The Kerygma.

There is so much more to say but I promised a friend I would make these short. You get the point though. There is a change of season. The Pope is not a far-left liberal Catholic. We must challenge wrongful teaching, but do so with humility and love. And finally we must first remember the power of truth and that some will get much of it and some will get little of it. What you must do is pray for them and if the opportunity comes you must love them.

Facebook - a rant

Many of us have Facebook profiles and if you don’t; good on you. You’re not missing out on anything. Many people would argue that Facebook is a tool that allows us to keep contact and up-to-date on our friends, relatives, and such. No objection there. But I wouldn’t place money on anyone ever saying that Facebook has enriched their life, because it hasn’t.

Facebook might be a convenient tool for keeping up with people but it actually diminishes the value and depth of our relationships. It actually reduces our ability to communicate effectively. It also makes cowards of most of us. We either say too much and hide behind our computer screens, or we say too little because it all becomes a news source and proper discussion manners have become seemingly lost or forbidden. We have grown into this online world in which our lives are virtual. It’s all an intellectual train wreck if you ask me. But I will digress and discuss something I saw today.

It didn’t disgust me. I pitied it at first. It didn’t make me happy either. I reminded myself that people have free will. Okay, here it is, this picture:

Please tell me I’m not the only one who immediately grows sad when I see this. Does anyone else see the problem? The bass-ackwards philosophy that Facebook has created? That “likes” are akin to prayers. That the votes some picture gets will determine someone’s personal decisions about their spiritual life? Where is the freedom in that? Where is the heart yearning for God or his Church? Going back to church is about more than sitting in a pew, smiling and acting like a good person. It’s about seeking God as a community of believers.

The problem is this: Going back to church is great, and there is no set template or diagram to show the proper way to get there. Neither is there with God. But one part of the equation must be ones heart and ones will. What is the worth of a decision that had no intention of being made without force of personal discretion. Legally, if someone else held my hand while I held the pen, and proceeded to mark my identical signature on a check, it would appear I did it. But that’s still not good enough. It’s not my intention to make that commitment. And in this case it appears to the entire audience that it is not the intention anyhow. But let me bring in an example we all might remember.

Angels in the Outfield.

Remember the plot? The family was broken up and the son asked his dad if/when they ever would get back together. The dad, said “when the Angels win the Pennant.” Now, the dad might have meant that. He certainly did not know when the Angels would, and from the story, it seemed clear that it was not going to happen soon if ever, and the team was so pitiful it needed divine intervention to occur. So the kid prayed. It happened. The Angels won despite the odds. His dad made a deal and even thought he probably didn’t think it would happen, he intended to keep his end of the bargain. But you see, it was his dad’s wish that things could work out in a way to make it happen, but cited an improbable narrative in order to stress the unlikelihood of it occurring.

What’s the point? The point is, the son in this case ought to have a real desire in his heart if/when he comes back. If the dad is doing it as a way to coax his son into making a decision against his will this will have very ill consequences. The individual needs to have personal freedom in order to love and believe in God, or not. “Likes” are not prayers. Prayers are prayers. If someone says “I will pray one rosary for every like” that is quite different. But let me say that the “like” is still a dull means of supporting someone in spiritual growth. They don’t need likes alone – they need prayer too. If you choose to like something like this I urge you to pray for it too.

It’s like the chain emails that guilt you into sending. I see it all the time but these days it’s on Facebook. A picture will be there with something like “if you love Jesus, share this” or “I am not afraid to say I love Jesus,  like if you agree.”

No thanks. God doesn’t need to see that I shared something in order to see that I am contrite and acknowledge his dominance over my life.

Preachy enough? Hope so. Kidding. Now share this blog or suffer the consequences!

How did the Gospels come to be?

When a biographer wants to tell the world about a special individual that author will do everything in their power to create a character for thr reader to imagine. Not just a person as a description; he had a dark beard, about 6’1”, and had laugh as bright as the sun. the biographer will instead create a different sort of picture involving stories, reactions from followers, phrases, and expressions that give a unique understanding of not just who the person was but what that person was like. The Gospels are no different. They each approach the same man, and tell the story through their own eyes. They will each tell of the same story, but might also tell it just a little different. Just as a group of people might gather around a coffin and tell stories about the deceased, the Gospel Evangelists set out to tell the world of the Jesus they knew, as accurate as possible, and as personal as possible.

Hence we come to the synoptic dilemma. Three Gospels, Matthew Mark and Luke sharing over 600 verses. Plagiarism? Common folk tales? Perhaps a bit of both. Inspired? Yes. Apostolic? Confirmed. There had to be a means of differing between the three though, and after a decade or two late than Matthew, Mark and Luke, John had to be distinguished as well.

The Gospels were written for different purposes for their intended audience but we can also tell that Christianity is the fruit of the Old Testament vine. In order to distinguish between these differing messages and tones, the early Church Fathers used symbolism in the book of the prophet Ezekiel (1:10). The four creatures we find here are also found in the book of Revelation; a post-Pentecost writing. It seemed fitting for the Fathers to use the prophetic figures in order to better communicate the characteristics of the Gospels. Matthew would be the Human Face, Mark would be the Lion, Luke would be the Ox, and John would be the Eagle. Each depicting one and the same being, but with separate features. The order was a jumbled early on thought.

Irenaeus of the second century gives a very early commentary of the use of multiple Gospels in his writing Against Heresies he provides that no one Gospel is perfect and it took four no more no less to tell the whole story. He gives poetical inference to the four corners of the world, four directions, and four covenants of God. He allocates the Ox to Luke, the Human Face to Matthew, the Lion to John, and lastly the Eagle to Mark. This order is known as the “Old Latin”, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark in order of the vision of Ezekiel.

The order we find in our bibles in the 21^st Century is obviously not that of Irenaeus. The Muratorian Canon, a fragment of the second-third Century gives Matthew, Mark, Luke, John in order, and Human, Lion, Ox, Eagle, respectively. This becomes the dominant version.

What’s the message of the Church Fathers though? How did they use this order to better communicate the Gospel? The meaning came from the opening verses in each Gospel. Mark starts with a voice calling out in the wilderness, like that of a Lion. Matthew starts with a genealogy giving reference to the human history of the newborn Jesus.  Luke mentions the priestly office in Zachariah and since the Ox is a dominant icon for sacrifice Luke becomes appropriate. For Jerome, who translates the entire bible into Latin, John is the Author who is “hurrying to the heights born aloft on eagles wings” and names John the eagle who promptly calls out Jesus’ divinity as high as the heavens themselves.

The teaching points were somewhat lost and most of us never learned these aides. We go to our Cathedrals and find depictions of the four creatures and don’t know what they represent. In each we find them clinging to a book or a scroll, a holy text they crafted and display for the world.  

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.”

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.

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 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.