An award winning film nobody wants to watch…

Our sad times… From the Party of Death over at Blue Oregon comes the story “How To Die in Oregon”. Winning top prize for best documentary over the weekend at the Sundance Film Festival, this indy examines Oregon’s 1994 euthanasia law. Here’s the promo featuring the producer filmmaker Peter Richardson. A Catholic teaching on end of life issues, assisted suicide, and euthanasia follows…

Declaration on Euthanasia

Vatican, May 5, 1980

His Holiness Pope John Paul II approved this Declaration, adopted at the ordinary meeting of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered its publication.

INTRODUCTION

The rights and values pertaining to the human person occupy an important place among the questions discussed today. In this regard, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council solemnly reaffirmed the lofty dignity of the human person, and in a special way his or her right to life. The Council therefore condemned crimes against life “such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful suicide” (Pastoral Constitution “Gaudium et spes,” no. 27).

More recently, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has reminded all the faithful of Catholic teaching on procured abortion.[1] The Congregation now considers it opportune to set forth the Church’s teaching on euthanasia.

It is indeed true that, in this sphere of teaching, the recent Popes have explained the principles, and these retain their full force[2]; but the progress of medical science in recent years has brought to the fore new aspects of the question of euthanasia, and these aspects call for further elucidation on the ethical level.

In modern society, in which even the fundamental values of human life are often called into question, cultural change exercises an influence upon the way of looking at suffering and death; moreover, medicine has increased its capacity to cure and to prolong life in particular circumstances, which sometimes give rise to moral problems. Thus people living in this situation experience no little anxiety about the meaning of advanced old age and death. They also begin to wonder whether they have the right to obtain for themselves or their fellowmen an “easy death,” which would shorten suffering and which seems to them more in harmony with human dignity.

A number of Episcopal Conferences have raised questions on this subject with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Congregation, having sought the opinion of experts on the various aspects of euthanasia, now wishes to respond to the Bishops’ questions with the present Declaration, in order to help them to give correct teaching to the faithful entrusted to their care, and to offer them elements for reflection that they can present to the civil authorities with regard to this very serious matter.

The considerations set forth in the present document concern in the first place all those who place their faith and hope in Christ, who, through His life, death and resurrection, has given a new meaning to existence and especially to the death of the Christian, as St. Paul says: “If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord” (Rom. 14:8; cf. Phil. 1:20).

As for those who profess other religions, many will agree with us that faith in God the Creator, Provider and Lord of life–if they share this belief–confers a lofty dignity upon every human person and guarantees respect for him or her.

It is hoped that this Declaration will meet with the approval of many people of good will, who, philosophical or ideological differences notwithstanding, have nevertheless a lively awareness of the rights of the human person. These rights have often, in fact, been proclaimed in recent years through declarations issued by International Congresses[3]; and since it is a question here of fundamental rights inherent in every human person, it is obviously wrong to have recourse to arguments from political pluralism or religious freedom in order to deny the universal value of those rights.

I. THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE

Human life is the basis of all goods, and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society. Most people regard life as something sacred and hold that no one may dispose of it at will, but believers see in life some thing greater, namely, a gift of God’s love, which they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful. And it is this latter consideration that gives rise to the following consequences:

1. No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.[4]

2. Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in eternal life.

3. Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan. Furthermore, suicide is also often a refusal of love for self, the denial of the natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one’s neighbor, to various communities or to the whole of society–although, as is generally recognized, at times there are psychological factors present that can diminish responsibility or even completely remove it.

However, one must clearly distinguish suicide from that sacrifice of one’s life whereby for a higher cause, such as God’s glory, the salvation of souls or the service of one’s brethren, a person offers his or her own life or puts it in danger (cf. Jn. 15:14).

II. EUTHANASIA

In order that the question of euthanasia can be properly dealt with, it is first necessary to define the words used.

Etymologically speaking, in ancient times euthanasia meant an easy death without severe suffering. Today one no longer thinks of this original meaning of the word, but rather of some intervention of medicine whereby the suffering of sickness or of the final agony are reduced, sometimes also with the danger of suppressing life prematurely. Ultimately, the word euthanasia is used in a more particular sense to mean “mercy killing,” for the purpose of putting an end to extreme suffering, or saving abnormal babies, the mentally ill or the incurably sick from the prolongation, perhaps for many years, of a miserable life, which could impose too heavy a burden on their families or on society.

It is, therefore, necessary to state clearly in what sense the word is used in the present document.

By euthanasia is understood an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated. Euthanasia’s terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used.

It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.

It may happen that, by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected. The pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love, the human and supernatural warmth with which the sick person can and ought to be surrounded by all those close to him or her, parents and children, doctors and nurses.

III. THE MEANING OF SUFFERING FOR CHRISTIANS AND THE USE OF PAINKILLERS

Death does not always come in dramatic circumstances after barely tolerable sufferings. Nor do we have to think only of extreme cases. Numerous testimonies which confirm one another lead one to the conclusion that nature itself has made provision to render more bearable at the moment of death separations that would be terribly painful to a person in full health. Hence it is that a prolonged illness, advanced old age, or a state of loneliness or neglect can bring about psychological conditions that facilitate the acceptance of death.

Nevertheless the fact remains that death, often preceded or accompanied by severe and prolonged suffering, is something which naturally causes people anguish.

Physical suffering is certainly an unavoidable element of the human condition; on the biological level, it constitutes a warning of which no one denies the usefulness; but, since it affects the human psychological makeup, it often exceeds its own biological usefulness and so can become so severe as to cause the desire to remove it at any cost.

According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which He offered in obedience to the Father’s will. Therefore, one must not be surprised if some Christians prefer to moderate their use of painkillers, in order to accept voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ crucified (cf. Mt. 27:34). Nevertheless it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way of acting as a general rule. On the contrary, human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain, even though these may cause as a secondary effect semi-consciousness and reduced lucidity. As for those who are not in a state to express themselves, one can reasonably presume that they wish to take these painkillers, and have them administered according to the doctor’s advice.

But the intensive use of painkillers is not without difficulties, because the phenomenon of habituation generally makes it necessary to increase their dosage in order to maintain their efficacy. At this point it is fitting to recall a declaration by Pius XII, which retains its full force; in answer to a group of doctors who had put the question: “Is the suppression of pain and consciousness by the use of narcotics…permitted by religion and morality to the doctor and the patient (even at the approach of death and if one foresees that the use of narcotics will shorten life)?” the Pope said: “If no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties: Yes.”[5] In this case, of course, death is in no way intended or sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken; the intention is simply to relieve pain effectively, using for this purpose painkillers available to medicine.

However, painkillers that cause unconsciousness need special consideration. For a person not only has to be able to satisfy his or her moral duties and family obligations; he or she also has to prepare himself or herself with full consciousness for meeting Christ. Thus Pius XII warns: “It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious reason.”[6]

IV. DUE PROPORTION IN THE USE OF REMEDIES

Today it is very important to protect, at the moment of death, both the dignity of the human person and the Christian concept of life, against a technological attitude that threatens to become an abuse. Thus some people speak of a “right to die,” which is an expression that does not mean the right to procure death either by one’s own hand or by means of someone else, as one pleases, but rather the right to die peacefully with human and Christian dignity. From this point of view, the use of therapeutic means can sometimes pose problems.

In numerous cases, the complexity of the situation can be such as to cause doubts about the way ethical principles should be applied. In the final analysis, it pertains to the conscience either of the sick person, or of those qualified to speak in the sick person’s name, or of the doctors, to decide, in the light of moral obligations and of the various aspects of the case.

Everyone has the duty to care for his or her own health or to seek such care from others. Those whose task it is to care for the sick must do so conscientiously and administer the remedies that seem necessary or useful.

However, is it necessary in all circumstances to have recourse to all possible remedies?

In the past, moralists replied that one is never obliged to use “extraordinary” means. This reply, which as a principle still holds good, is perhaps less clear today, by reason of the imprecision of the term and the rapid progress made in the treatment of sickness. Thus some people prefer to speak of “proportionate” and “disproportionate” means. In any case, it will be possible to make a correct judgment as to the means by studying the type of treatment to be used, its degree of complexity or risk, its cost and the possibilities of using it, and comparing these elements with the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral resources.

In order to facilitate the application of these general principles, the following clarifications can be added:

–If there are no other sufficient remedies, it is permitted, with the patient’s consent, to have recourse to the means provided by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the experimental stage and are not without a certain risk. By accepting them, the patient can even show generosity in the service of humanity.

–It is also permitted, with the patient’s consent, to interrupt these means, where the results fall short of expectations. But for such a decision to be made, account will have to be taken of the reasonable wishes of the patient and the patient’s family, as also of the advice of the doctors who are specially competent in the matter. The latter may in particular judge that the investment in instruments and personnel is disproportionate to the results foreseen; they may also judge that the techniques applied impose on the patient strain or suffering out of proportion with the benefits which he or she may gain from such techniques.

–It is also permissible to make do with the normal means that medicine can offer. Therefore one cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community.

–When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.

CONCLUSION

The norms contained in the present Declaration are inspired by a profound desire to serve people in accordance with the plan of the Creator. Life is a gift of God, and on the other hand death is unavoidable; it is necessary, therefore, that we, without in any way hastening the hour of death, should be able to accept it with full responsibility and dignity. It is true that death marks the end of our earthly existence, but at the same time it opens the door to immortal life. Therefore, all must prepare themselves for this event in the light of human values, and Christians even more so in the light of faith.

As for those who work in the medical profession, they ought to neglect no means of making all their skill available to the sick and the dying; but they should also remember how much more necessary it is to provide them with the comfort of boundless kindness and heartfelt charity. Such service to people is also service to Christ the Lord, who said: “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt. 25:40).

At the audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness Pope John Paul II approved this Declaration, adopted at the ordinary meeting of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered its publication.

Rome, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 5, 1980.

Franjo Cardinal Seper
Prefect

+Jerome Hamer, O.P.
Tit. Archbishop of Lorium
Secretary

ENDNOTES

1. “Declaration on Procured Abortion,” November 18, 1974: AAS 66 (1974), pp 730-747.
2. Pius XII, “Address to those attending the Congress of the International Union of Catholic Women’s Leagues,” September 11, 1947: AAS 39 (1947), p. 483; “Address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives,”October 29, 1951: AAS 43 (1951), pp. 835-854; “Speech to the members of the International Office of Military Medicine Documentation,” October 19, 1953: AAS 45 (1953), pp. 744-754; “Address to those taking part in the IXth Congress of the Italian Anaesthesiological Society,” February 24, 1957: AAS 49 (1957). p. 146; cf. also “Address on reanimation,” November 24, 1957: AAS 49 (1957), pp. 1027-1033; Paul VI, “Address to the members of the United Nations Special Committee on Apartheid,” May 22, 1974: AAS 66 (1974), p. 346; John Paul II: “Address to the bishops of the United States of America,” October 5, 1979: AAS 71 (1979), p. 1225.
3. One thinks especially of Recommendation 779 (1976) on the rights of the sick and dying, of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe at its XXVIIth Ordinary Session; cf. Sipeca, no. 1, March 1977, pp. 14-15.
4. We leave aside completely the problems of the death penalty and of war, which involve specific considerations that do not concern the present subject.
5. Pius XII, “Address” of February 24, 1957: AAS 49 (1957), p. 147.
6. Pius XII, ibid., p. 145; cf. “Address” of September 9, 1958: AAS 50 (1958), p. 694.

Beatitudes Now!

 

On June 17, 1992 Anita Mendoza Contreras claimed to have had a spiritual vision of the Virgin of Guadalupe. She had been feeling depressed that day when she visited the oak grove and “had been sitting at the picnic table under the tree praying. A wind came up, and Mendoza looked up and saw the image.” Contreras recalled that the vision arrived in the image of the Holy Blessed Mother, in a sea shell and carrying the image of the Sacred Heart on her chest. The image spoke to her and before leaving left her mark upon the oak tree. When asked why the form of the Virgin (as well as other images sighted later) had appeared on the oak tree Contreras replied that its purpose is “so people don’t kill, don’t hit their wives, don’t abuse their children and to help people find truth.” After the spread of the news that a miracle had occurred at Pinto Lake pilgrims started pouring in from the surrounding areas.

Helping people find truth.

I’m going to contemplate today these inherent truths of every Christian, and how I’m applying them within my life…

Gospel — Mt. 5

When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain,
and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him.
He began to teach them, saying:
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the land.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you
and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me.
Rejoice and be glad,
for your reward will be great in heaven.”

Recovering Lost Truth About the Catholic Church and Western Civilization

Western Civilization read for my friend, Charles.

From the Amazon description, followed by an article from ALIVE! (Ireland)…

Ask a college student today what he knows about the Catholic Church and his answer might come down to one word: “corruption.” But that one word should be “civilization.” Western civilization has given us the miracles of modern science, the wealth of free-market economics, the security of the rule of law, a unique sense of human rights and freedom, charity as a virtue, splendid art and music, a philosophy grounded in reason, and innumerable other gifts that we take for granted as the wealthiest and most powerful civilization in history. But what is the ultimate source of these gifts? Bestselling author and professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. provides the long neglected answer: the Catholic Church. Woods’s story goes far beyond the familiar tale of monks copying manuscripts and preserving the wisdom of classical antiquity. In How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, you’ll learn: · Why modern science was born in the Catholic Church · How Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market economics five hundred years before Adam Smith · How the Catholic Church invented the university · Why what you know about the Galileo affair is wrong · How Western law grew out of Church canon law · How the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life No institution has done more to shape Western civilization than the two-thousand-year-old Catholic Church—and in ways that many of us have forgotten or never known. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization is essential reading for recovering this lost truth.

From ALIVE!

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization:

Before reading this book, many people will consider its general argument, stated in the title, to be completely over the top.

They would expect a more modest claim for the role of the Church in shaping the West. They will recall the contribution of ancient Greek philosophy, of Roman law, of modern science, of Enlightenment morality, and so on. Besides, what can be said on such a huge topic in a mere 225 pages?

Just how much can be said will come as a surprise and as a big revelation to many readers of the book. And Professor Thomas Woods opens further large vistas by the range of works he uses.

Certainly the reader will begin to understand why Pope Benedict keeps insisting that the West, for the sake of its own survival, must recognise and nourish its Catholic roots, the Catholic vision and principles on which it is founded.

A common anti-Catholic prejudice today, based on blissful ignorance, is that the Church always has been and still is obscurantist, opposed to knowledge and scientific research.

Yet “for the last fify years, virtually all historians of science have concluded that the Scientific Revolution was indebted to the Church,” writes Woods.

It is not just that many priests were leading scientists-some 35 moon craters, for example, are named after Jesuits alone-but it was the Christian doctrine of God that opened the possibility of scientific research.

Science did not develop in China, says Marxist historian Joseph Needham, “because the conception of a divine celestial lawgiver imposing ordinances on non-human Nature never developed.”

In this regard, it is interesting that the leading UK scientist Stephen Hawking, an atheist who sees no need for a personal God, has put science in danger once again with his absurd notion of “spontaneous creation”.

With the fall of the Roman Empire Europe was, for several centuries, over-run by marauding barbarian tribes, looting, burning, destroying. It became a virtual economic, social and intellectual wilderness.

At this time it was, in large part, the monks who preserved the great literature of the past. It was they also, who “saved agriculture when nobody else could save it,” says a former president of Massachusetts Agricultural College.

Wherever they went they introduced crops, industries and production methods which the people until then had not known. In a series of short chapters Woods explores the role of the Church in the development of the university, “an utterly new phenomenon” in history, in economic theory, in the origins of international law, in morality, in art and architecture.

One chapter is entitled, “How Catholic charity changed the world.” Even Voltaire, in the 1700s, was struck by “the sacrifice of youth and beauty, often of high birth, made by the gentle sex in order to work in hospitals for the relief of revolting human suffering.”

The famous anti-Catholic propagandist had to admit: “People separated from the Roman religion have imitated but imperfectly so generous a charity.”

Woods only touches on a few of the key points in the remarkable story of the Catholic Church’s massive role in creating Western civilisation. But his overview is a good place for any student or enquirer to begin.

A voice crying out in the desert– Lent: Season of Penance, Season of Hope By Fr. John Corapi

 

An excerpt from Father Corapi‘s book, Letters.

Another Lenten season will be upon us soon. Although Lent is a season of penance; it is a season of hope more than anything. For as surely as Easter Sunday follows Good Friday, so the hope of Lent gives way to the fulfillment of that hope which is the Resurrection.

It seems to be a law woven into creation that there must be sacrifice before there can be victory. There must be a dying to sin and self before there can be a rebirth in Christ. As we walk the path of Lent we should use this graced time to exercise discipline in the small things of life. There can be no victory in anything: sports, business, military, or life in general, without self-discipline.

Examples of this discipline are many. They can be first and foremost in the area of charity to others, and this begins at home. Perhaps there is someone in your life that rubs you the wrong way, your “hair shirt”. Deny the inclination to bicker and complain. Love the person whether you feel like it or not. Do some small act of kindness for them.

Pray the Rosary every day (or once a week, or 3 times a week, etc.) of Lent, or the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. If you love chocolate, exercise discipline and don’t eat it through the days of Lent, offering your sacrifice to Jesus through Mary for the salvation of souls.

Assist at holy Mass herhaps one or more days during the week as a preparation for the great gift of the Paschal mystery which unfolds during Holy Week. Discipline yourself to be more recollected and reverent at the Eucharist, realizing that this is nothing less than the same sacrifice of Calvary offered in a sacramental manner.

The discipline of Lent always opens the door for the bright light of Easter. The pain of Good Friday is at once the joy and triumph of the holy Cross. No passion and death, no Victory. In Jesus we walk through the trials and frequent darkness of this life to the unending joy and light of heaven. It is the Cross that wins that victory we know as Easter.

May this Lent be a time of true hope for you, a time of self-discipline and spiritual battle that leads to great personal triumph in Jesus Christ at Easter. Dying He destroyed our death, rising He restored our life, come, Lord Jesus, come!

With God’s blessing,

Fr. John Corapi, SOLT, STD

Siskiyou Crest National Monument: Stop Siskiyou Land Grab Coalition sponsors community Forum — February 5th at 10 a.m

Facebook Group: People Against the Siskiyou Crest National Monument

Stop Siskiyou Land Grab is a community based coalition dedicated to stopping the Siskiyou Crest National Monument.  This is our backyard.  Our property values are at stake, as well as our usage and access rights.

As residents of this region, we are well aware the SiskiyouCrest is an environmental gem.  We wholeheartedly support sound environmental stewardship, where all constituencies can have a seat at the table.  A national monument designation by the President is a sloppy executive order style creation.  In previous cases, monument designations have failed to fully reflect local community interests.  Sadly, environmental advocacy groups approach the subject from an ideological perspective above all else, often distorting the historical record on the impacts to property value and access and usage rights.

Community Forum:

Join us February 5^th at 10 a.m.

Location:  Applegate Community Church at the intersection of North Applegate Road and Highway 238 (18960 North Applegate Road).  Click here for the event flyer PDF.   Feel free to print a few copies for friends.  For driving directions,click here and replace “Medford” with your town and State and click “get directions” to create a personalized route and map.

Stop Siskiyou Land Grab is a new organization.  In the near future our website will host additional information.

If you wish to contact us, email Info@StopLandGrab.Org or call us at (541) 862-1486.     .

Related Articles

• Wyden says he’ll defy secret monument plan (bendbulletin.com)

END OF POST

Bishop Vasa to Santa Rosa

“My 11 years in the Diocese of Baker have been a grace and blessing for me, and while I have experienced a number of challenges in the diocese, I can say that I have never regretted saying ‘yes’ the first time the apostolic nuncio contacted me.”

The Most Rev. Robert Francis Vasa, 59, Catholic bishop of the Baker Diocese, will become coadjutor bishop of the Diocese of Santa Rosa in Northern California on March 4. Eventually, Vasa will succeed Bishop Daniel Walsh, 73, who requested the help of a coadjutor bishop. Catholic bishops submit their resignations at age 75. When Walsh resigns, Vasa will become bishop.

The announcement was made today, Jan. 24, by the papal nuncio in Washington, D.C. The Diocese of Baker, with its headquarters in Bend, includes about 40,000 Catholics.

Vasa has been bishop of Baker since 2000. He’s known as a defender of orthodox Catholic teaching, which some consider under attack from within and outside of the church. He required lay ministers within the Baker Diocese to sign an oath of fidelity. In February 2010, he endedCatholic sponsorship of St. Charles Medical Center in Bend because doctors there performed tubal ligations, a sterilization procedure, on women.

A spokesman for the Diocese of Baker said an apostolic administrator will be named while the church searches for a bishop to take Vasa’s place.

– Nancy Haught, OregonLive.com

A Psalm for Mary Ellen and all her relatives…

 

Today I offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on behalf of my Grandmother, Mary Ellen, and for all the spiritual needs of her surviving relatives…

 

Thanksgiving to God for his mercies.

1 For David himself.

Bless the Lord, O my soul: and let all that is within me bless his holy name.

2 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and never forget all he hath done for thee.

3 Who forgiveth all thy iniquities: who healeth all thy diseases.

4 Who redeemeth thy life from destruction: who crowneth thee with mercy and compassion.

5 Who satisfieth thy desire with good things: thy youth shall be renewed like the eagle’s.

6 The Lord doth mercies, and judgment for all that suffer wrong.

7 He hath made his ways known to Moses: his wills to the children of Israel.

8 *The Lord is compassionate and merciful: long-suffering and plenteous in mercy.

9 He will not always be angry: nor will he threaten for ever.

10 He hath not dealt with us according to our sins: nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

11 For according to the height of the heaven above the earth: he hath strengthened his mercy towards them that fear him.

12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our iniquities from us.

13 As a father hath compassion on his children, so hath the Lord compassion on them that fear him: 14 for he knoweth our frame.

He remembereth that we are dust: 15 man’s days are as grass, as the flower of the field so shall he flourish.

16 For the spirit shall pass in him, and he shall not be: and he shall know his place no more.

17 But the mercy of the Lord is from eternity and unto eternity upon them that fear him:

And his justice unto children’s children, 18 to such as keep his covenant,

And are mindful of his commandments to do them.

19 The Lord hath prepared his throne in heaven: and his kingdom shall rule over all.

20 Bless the Lord, all ye his angels: you that are mighty in strength, and execute his word, hearkening to the voice of his orders.

21 Bless the Lord, all ye his hosts: you ministers of his that do his will.

22 Bless the Lord, all his works: in every place of his dominion, O my soul, bless thou the Lord.

The Source and Summit of Our Lives is the Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist

Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist

By Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Eucharist is my foundation, my grounding in the Catholic faith; Jesus truly present in the Eucharist is what keeps me sane, on the path and in the Way, no matter what I encounter in this world.

How can I so willingly accept the disdainful title of “bread worshiper” and openly state that I truly believe that that little wafer up there at the front of the church is God?

Well, Jesus said it. That’s good enough for me.

---

Let’s begin at John; open your bible to John 6:30 (or, go to Bible Browse (RSV) (Opens in a New Window) and browse down to John 6:30 in another window) and follow along. We will look at the actual words of Jesus on the subject. He repeatedly refers to Himself as come down from Heaven, asmanna from Heaven, as food, as drink, as required for life, and as offeringeverlasting life to those who accept what He says.

Verse 30: The followers ask Jesus for a sign, indicating that Moses gave bread to the people in the desert, so what could Jesus do. Our Lord told them it was not Moses, but God who gave them the manna, and that the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.

Jesus as Eucharist: 1

He then told them, the first time, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.”

Jesus as Eucharist: 2

In verse 38 He said, a second time, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; . . . “

At this many murmured at Him because He said He was the bread which came down from heaven.

Jesus as Eucharist: 3

And He said, a third time, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, `And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.”

Jesus as Eucharist: 4

And He said, a fourth time, “Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.”

Jesus as Eucharist: 5

And He said, a fifth time, “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.”

Jesus as Eucharist: 6

And He said, a sixth time, “This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.”

Jesus as Eucharist: 7

And He said, a seventh time, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Then they disputed among themselves, saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Jesus as Eucharist: 8

And He tied the teaching to salvation, when He said, an eighth time, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;”

Jesus as Eucharist: 9

Then He said, a ninth time, “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Jesus as Eucharist: 10

Then He said, a tenth time, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”

Jesus as Eucharist: 11

Then He said, an eleventh time, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Jesus as Eucharist: 12

Then He said, a twelfth time, “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.”

Jesus as Eucharist: 13

Then He said, a thirteenth time, “This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

At this many of his followers said this was a hard teaching, and questioned who could follow it. He spoke again, as He did many times in Scripture, about choosing between the flesh (meaning the world and death) and the spirit (meaning the Kingdom and life) but many of His followers left Him and followed Him no more.

He didn’t call them back. He turned to those remaining, including the Twelve, and issued them the stinging challenge: “Do you also wish to go away?”

And Simon Peter answered for them, saying “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Note well that Peter didn’t say that he understood what was taught; how could anyone understand such a mysterious, other-worldly thing? But, what Peter did understand was exactly Who was doing the teaching. He accepted it because Jesus taught it, pure and simple.

And, it must be remarked, Jesus taught it in no uncertain terms. Thirteen times He referred to Himself as food, drink, demanding to be eaten, as coming down from Heaven, as being sent by the Father, in ever increasingly strong terms.

There is absolutely no way to misinterpret what He was saying here. Such sentences as my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink most certainly do not present the language of metaphor. Neither is the term “he who eats (Greek: trogon)” the language of metaphor; it is very crude and direct, and the only reasonable translation is literal.

If He were speaking figuratively, then, in accordance with Hebrew culture at the time, eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood was figuratively meant to say to injure someone’s character by slander or libel or calumny; speaking figuratively here makes no sense.

He meant what He said. You can’t get around it.

If you want to understand the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, this is the Scriptural beginning point. Read and re-read the Eucharistic discourse in John 6 until you are fairly comfortable with the information it gives you. Then you will be ready for the next step.

Jesus said that He was “Bread from Heaven,” that His flesh was food, that His blood was drink, and that, unless we eat of Him and drink of Him, we do not “have life.” So, according to His teaching, we are called upon to actually eat His flesh and to drink His blood.

And the question naturally arises, how, exactly, are we going to do that little trick?

With that question firmly in mind, we are now ready to explore the other Eucharistic passages in the synoptic Gospels, and in the rest of the New Testament. Keep the question in mind; write it down on a note pad if necessary.

Some Protestant objections to the universal Catholic teaching on the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist stem from the “do this in remembrance of me” passages attached to the Eucharistic discourses in Luke and 1 Corinthians. Which, in their interpretation, makes the Eucharist merely some kind of memorial not involving in any way the flesh and blood of our Lord. What they totally ignore is the literal interpretation of the word “is” each time our Lord says “this is my body” and “this is my blood”. Interestingly, many of them interpret so much of the Bible literally, but cannot accept the literal interpretations of the Eucharistic discourses.

Keep the question in mind. You’ve been instructed by Jesus to eat His flesh and drink His blood, if you want life in you, else you do not have life. Exactly how are you going to do as instructed by Jesus Himself? That’s the question.

Turn to Matthew 26:26. Here it is:

“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.”

Then, turn to Mark 14:22. Here it is:

“And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.”

Then, turn to Luke 22:19. Here it is:

“And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

Then, turn to 1 Corinthians 11:24. Here it is:

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

Now, the very next verses undo the Protestant claim that Eucharist does not contain the sacred body and blood of our Lord. From verse 27 on:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

So, if we come to the altar not discerning the body of Christ, we eat our own judgment. Consider also Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 10:16:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

Now, I’m no great Scripture scholar, I’m just a Catholic layman; but Protestants I’ve discussed this with seem to know a lot less Scripture than Protestants are publicly touted to know. If Christ meant that all the different Eucharistic discourses were meant to be taken as “this issymbolically my body” then why didn’t he explicitly say that, at least once, somewhere? What He said, repeatedly, was, this is my body. If He didn’t mean that, then, just exactly what did He mean?

Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present — body and blood, soul and divinity — under the appearances of bread and wine. The biblical foundation for this doctrine is so solid as to be irrefutable. The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages quite literally.

Ignatius of Antioch, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]): “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible”.

(Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]): “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”.

Justin Martyr, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]): “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”.

Irenaeus, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]): “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?”

(ibid., 5:2): “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?”

Clement of Alexandria, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]): “’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children”.

Tertullian, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]): “[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God”.

Hippolytus, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]): “‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]“.

Origen, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]): “Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]“.

Cyprian of Carthage, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]): “He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and condemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord”.

Council of Nicaea I, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(Canon 18 [A.D. 325]): “It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]“.

Aphraahat the Persian Sage, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]): “After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink”.

Cyril of Jerusalem, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]): “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ”.

(ibid., 22:6, 9): “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul”.

Ambrose of Milan, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]): “Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ”.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]): “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit”.

Augustine, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]): “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands”.

(Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]): “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ”.

(ibid., 272): “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction”.

Council of Ephesus, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

(Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]): “We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving”.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the true presence in the Eucharist:

1373 “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many ways to his Church:[195] in his word, in his Church’s prayer, “where two or three are gathered in my name,”[196] in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,[197] in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But “he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species.”[198]

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

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.[202]

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed…. Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.[203]

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

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.[205]

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.”[206]

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us “to the end,”[207] even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us,[208] and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love.

The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease.[209]

1381 “That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’”[210]

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? That shall be believed;
What God’s Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there’s nothing true.[211]

True Presence in the Eucharist: Conclusion

If anyone out there has or can point out a longer, or more solidly documented, or more consistent historical teaching on the subject, show me. If the Roman Catholic teaching consistently goes back to and through the apostolic era and right on into Scripture, then it looks like it hasn’t ever changed, in the Church Christ founded. Any other interpretations are coming out of denominations that didn’t even exist until relatively modern times, long after the doctrine was solidly established and consistently practiced for many, many centuries.

By coming forward to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, we make three important statements of profound significance:

1. We state not only that we are not in a state of mortal sin, but we consider ourselves to be in a state of grace worthy of even approaching the Lord.
2. We state that we fully recognize the true Presence of our Lord, body, blood, soul and Divinity, under the appearances of common bread and wine.
3. We state that we are fully and completely Catholic, as we participate in Communion and become what we eat – the Body of Christ – his whole Church. Which means that we fully accept all that the Church He founded safeguards, teaches and hands on to us.

One Protestant I remember arguing with (and, I learned later, many other Protestants in many other arguments have said virtually the same thing) said, Vic, if I really believed that was God up there, I would crawl on my belly down the aisle to receive Him. He had that part right.

Most of us take for granted the presence of the Lord, perhaps too much; it becomes a commonplace, a ritualized thing to do on Sundays and Holy Days.

But, sometimes, we need to take stock. That’s God up there. We ought to be crawling on our bellies down the aisle to receive Him.

Coming forward in the Eucharist to experience Communion with the Lord is, all at once, the most daring, the most humbling, and the most glorious thing any Catholic man can ever do.

Where are you in your walk, and how well do you recognize the miracle we participate in, involving as it does, actual, physical Communion with Jesus Christ, the Lord thy God, in the Eucharist? Have you fully recognized that we become what we eat, which is, the Body of Christ, His Church, with which we openly profess complete unity by daring to come to the Communion Rail? Do you make certain to have reconciled with any you have sinned against and with the Lord before you come forward to receive?

When I was a boy, an old nun told me that Jesus Christ – body, blood, soul and divinity – remains wholly within and part of me, personally, until the last fragment of physical Host is dissolved and gone. Which makes me, during that time, an actual Tabernacle of the Lord. This is, for me, the holiest of times; a time of silent contemplation and thanksgiving. I cannot sing during that time, or further participate in any other activity. Communion is the reason that the Mass has become my deepest prayer. Meditate upon the significance of it. And come worthily to the Receive the Lord, and live forever, as He faithfully promised. And He will raise you up on the last day.

Blessed be God forever; and thank you, Lord Jesus.

---

Recommended Reading

Encyclical Letter: Ecclesia De Eucharistia, of his holiness John Paul the Great.

Apostolic Letter: Rosarium Virginis Mariae, of his holiness John Paul the Great.

(In this letter, John Paul the Great introduced five new mysteries of the rosary, the Mysteries of Light. They include 1) His baptism in the Jordan; 2) His self-manifestation at the wedding at cana; 3) His proclamation of the Kingdom of God, with His call to conversion; 4) His Transfiguration; and, finally, 5) His institution of the Eucharist, as the sacramental expression of the Paschal Mystery.

All of these mysteries deserve attention in study, meditation and contemplation. His holiness gave us, in the fifth mystery, the sacrament of sacraments, ready to be plumbed to the depth of our souls, in recognition of the Truth of His Presence.)

God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart Of Life; Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, currently Pope Benedict XVI; Ignatius Press.

Reference Material

Related Articles

• Reflections on “7 Secrets of the Eucharist” Part 1 (icatholicfaith.wordpress.com)
• The Eucharist and Culture (insidecatholic.com)
• The Meat of the Eucharist: Defending the Real Presence (Part 1) (trustinjesus.wordpress.com)

Bill O’Reilly’s False Facts of Life…

Need to get this one right Bill…

Bill O’Reilly’s False Facts of Life | Catholic Exchange.

END OF POST

A simple chant version of the Gloria using the new mass translations

Hat Tip/The Anchoress

Corpus Christi Watershed, a nonprofit organization, has uploaded a video on YouTube of a version of the Glory to God that uses the Missal translation that will debut Nov. 27. The composer, Jeff Ostrowski, explained his intention here:

My intention was to create a dignified setting that was not too long, would not become tiresome over the years, yet was easy enough for an average congregation to sing well.

Check it out:

END OF POST