Category Archives: Ecumenism

Why are these Christian schoolchildren learning to pray like Muslims in this mosque in France?

FRENCH TRANSLATION: Awakening to religions, but also immerse themselves in the places of worship. From St. Peter's College in Essarts, students in fifth, curious and open, laid their eyes on the mosque. A rich exchange followed with Ali Bensaada, chaplain to the jails. Through this visit, the college will have a picture of where Islam is lived. A good way to understand the most of their curriculum, interested in early Islam.

…Because false ecumenism is a cancer on the Body of Christ, the Church, that’s why…

Saint Peregrine (Pellegrino) Laziosi (Latiosi) (1260 – 1 May 1345) is the patron saint for those suffering from cancer. After viewing the following pics, perhaps it’s time for a novena on behalf of the Church in France afflicted so terribly with spiritual cancer, whose adults (in great numbers) no longer attend mass, but apparently find no problem with introducing young baptized hearts into the spiritual phenomenon of Islam.

Fifth grade students from Saint-Pierre Dessessart visit mosque in La Roche

I make this defender of the faith statement my own concerning refuting perverted Catholicism, as it is in this case: “The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is and must remain the center of all Truth on earth, until He comes again. To that end, we will continue to attack falsehood wherever we see it… Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life. Please God, and live forever.” 

EDITOR NOTE: This story first appeared in October within the online mag Ouest France; was reported on by Rorate Caeli, as well as other sources I can’t recommend here, as they themselves are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

END OF POST 

Advertisements

The Church Or The Bible

“Where is the man, no matter what denomination, church or religion, that will deny that we are bound to believe what God has taught?”

The following sermon is as relevant today as it was over 100 years ago when it was first preached by Father Arnold Damen, S.J.  This message was and still is a challenge to the many who pride themselves as being “Bible-and-Bible-Only Christians.”

One cannot have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother, and likewise, one cannot have the Word of God for his faith who will not have the Church for his teacher.  It is the infallible teaching authority of the Church, as promised by Christ, which alone preserves God’s Word from erroneous interpretation.  This is the essence of Fr. Damen’s sermon.

Every sincere Bible reader deserves to know the true relation God has established between His Church and Holy Scripture.  Therefore, we invite all who love the Bible, to read Father Damen’s exposition with an open mind, lest while reading the Scriptures “… the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” [2 Peter 3:16]

The Church Or The Bible

I.

Dearly Beloved Christians, when our Divine Saviour sent His Apostles and His Disciples throughout the whole universe to preach the Gospel to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation thus: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned”  [Mark 16:16].  Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation, Faith and Baptism.  I will speak this evening on the condition of Faith.

We must have Faith in order to be saved, and we must have Divine Faith, not human faith.  Human faith will not save a man, but only Divine Faith.  What is Divine Faith?  It is to believe, upon the authority of God, the truths that God has revealed.  That is Divine Faith, to believe all that God has taught upon the authority of God, and to believe without doubting, without hesitation.  For the moment you begin to doubt or hesitate, that moment you begin to mistrust the authority of God, and, therefore, insult God by doubting His word.  Divine Faith, therefore, is to believe without doubting and without hesitating.  Human faith is belief upon the authority of men, on human authority.  But Divine Faith is to believe without doubting, without hesitating, whatsoever God has revealed upon the authority of God, upon the Word of God.

Therefore, my dear people, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes, providing he be a good man.

You hear it said nowadays in this Nineteenth Century of little faith that it matter not what religion a man professes, providing he be a good man.  That is heresy, my dear people, and I will prove it to you to be such.  If it be a matter of indifference what a man believes, providing he be a good man, then it is useless for God to make any revelation whatever.  If a man is at liberty to reject what God revealeth, what’s the use for Christ to send out His Apostles and disciples to teach all nations, if those nations are at liberty to believe or reject the teachings of the Apostles or disciples? You see at once that this would be insulting God.

If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed.  Man is bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed, for, my dear people, we are bound to worship God, both with our reason and intellect, as well as with our heart and will.  God is master of the whole man.  He claims his will, his heart, his reason and his intellect.

Where is the man, no matter what denomination, church or religion, that will deny that we are bound to believe what God has taught?  I am sure there is not a Christian who will deny that we are bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed.  Therefore, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes.  He must profess the true religion if he wants to be saved.

But what is the true religion?  To believe all that God has taught.  I am sure that even my Protestant friends will admit this is right, for, if they do not, I would say they are no Christians at all.

“But what is the true Faith?”

“The true Faith,”  say Protestant friends, “is to believe in the Lord Jesus.”

Agreed, Catholics believe in that.  Tell me what you mean by believing in the Lord Jesus?

“Why,”  says my Protestant friend, “you must believe that He is the Son of the Living God.”

Agreed again.  Thanks be to God, we can agree on something.  We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, that He is God.  To this we all agree, excepting the Unitarians and Socinians, but we will leave them alone tonight.  If Christ be God, then we must believe all He teaches.  Is this not so, my dearly beloved Protestant brethren and sisters?  And that’s the right Faith, isn’t it?

“Well, yes,”  says my Protestant friend, “I guess that is the right Faith.  To believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, we must believe all that Christ has taught.”

We Catholics say the same, and here we agree again.  We must believe all that Christ has taught, that God has revealed.  Without this Faith, there is no salvation.  Without this Faith, there is no hope of Heaven.  Without this Faith, there is eternal damnation!  We have the words of Christ for it, “He that believeth not shall be condemned.”

II.

But if Christ, my dearly beloved people commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He must give me the means to know what He has taught.  And the means Christ gives us of knowing this must have been at all times within the reach of all people.

Secondly, the means that God gives us to know what He has taught must be a means adapted to the capacities of all intellects, even the dullest.  For even the dullest have a right to salvation, and consequently they have a right to the means whereby they shall learn the truths that God has taught, that they may believe them and be saved.

The means that God give us to know what he has taught must be an infallible means.  For if it be a means that can lead us astray, it can be no means at all.  It must be an infallible means, so that if a man makes use of that means, he will infallibly, without fear of mistake or error, be brought to a knowledge of all the truths that God has taught.

I don’t think there can be anyone present here, I care not what he is, a Christian or an unbeliever, who can object to my premises.  And these premises are the groundwork of my discourse and of all my reasoning, therefore, I want you to bear them in mind.  I will repeat them, for on these premises rests all the strength of my discourse and reasoning.

If God commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He is bound to give me the means to know what He has taught.  And the means that God gives me must have been at all times within the reach of all people, must be adapted to the capacities of all intellects, must be an infallible means to us, so that if a man makes use of it he will be brought to a knowledge of all the truths that God has taught.

III.

Has God given us such means?  “Yes,”  say my Protestant friends, “He has.”  And so says the Catholic.  God has given us such means.  What is the means God has given us whereby we shall learn the truth that God has revealed?  “The Bible,”  say my Protestant friends, “the Bible, the whole of the Bible, and nothing but the Bible.”  But we Catholics say, “No, not the Bible and its private interpretation, but the Church of the Living God.”

I will prove the facts, and I defy all my separated brethren, and all the preachers, to disprove what I will say tonight.  I say, then, it is not the private interpretation of the Bible that has been appointed by God to be the teacher of man, but the Church of the Living God.

For, my dear people, if God has intended that man should learn His religion from a book, the Bible, surely God would have given that book to man.  Christ would have given that book to man.  Did He do it?  He did not.  Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said, “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

Christ did not say, “Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself.”  If Christ had said that, there would never have been a Christianity on the earth at all, but a Babylon and confusion instead, and never one Church, the union of one body.  Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, “Go and write Bibles and distribute them, and let everyone judge for himself.”  That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth Century, and we have seen the result of it.  Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another, and all because of the private interpretation of the Bible.

Christ sent His Apostles with authority to teach all nations, and never gave them any command of writing the Bible.  And the Apostles went forth and preached everywhere, and planted the Church of God throughout the earth, but never thought of writing.

The first word written was by Saint Matthew, and he wrote for the benefit of a few individuals.  He wrote the Gospel about seven years after Christ left this earth, so that the Church of God, established by Christ, existed seven years before a line was written of the New Testament.

Saint Mark wrote about ten years after Christ left this earth, Saint Luke about twenty-five years, and Saint John about sixty-three years after Christ had established the Church of God.  Saint John wrote the last portion of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, about sixty-five years after Christ had left this earth and the Church of God had been established.  The Catholic religion had existed sixty-five years before the Bible was completed.

Now, I ask you, my dearly beloved separated brethren.  Were these Christian people, who lived during the period between the establishment of the Church of Jesus and the finishing of the Bible, really Christians, good Christians and enlightened Christians?  Did they know the religion of Jesus?  Where is the man that will dare to say that those who lived from the time that Christ went up to Heaven to the time that the Bible was completed were not Christians?  It is admitted on all sides, by all denominations, that they were the very best of Christians, the first fruit of the Blood of Jesus Christ.

But how did they know what they had to do to save their souls?  Was it from the Bible that they learned it?  No, because the Bible was not written.  And would our Divine Saviour have left His Church for sixty-five years without a teacher, if the Bible is the teacher of man?  Most assuredly not.

Were the Apostles Christians, I ask you, my dear Protestant friends?  You say, “Yes sir, they were the very founders of Christianity.”  Now, my dear friends, none of the Apostles ever read the Bible, not one of them except perhaps, Saint John.  For all of them had died martyrs for the Faith of Jesus Christ and never saw the cover of a Bible.  Every one of them died martyrs and heroes for the Church of Jesus before the Bible was completed.

How, then, did those Christians, that lived in the first sixty-five years after Christ ascended, know what they had to do to save their souls?  They knew it precisely in the same way that you know it, my dear Catholic friends.  You know it from the teachings of the Church of God and so did the primitive Christians know it.

IV.

For not only sixty-five years did Christ leave the Church He had established without a Bible, but for over three hundred years.  The Church of God was established and went on spreading itself over the whole globe without the Bible for more than three hundred years.  In all that time the people did not know what constituted the Bible.

In the days of the Apostles, there were many false gospels.  There was the Gospel of Simon, the Gospel of Nicodemus, of Mary, of Barnabas, and the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus.  All of these gospels were spread among the people, and the people did not know which of these were inspired and which were false and spurious.  Even the learned themselves were disputing whether preference should be given to the Gospel of Simon or that of Matthew, to the Gospel of Nicodemus or the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Mary or that of Luke, the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus or the Gospel of Saint John the Evangelist.

And so it was in regard to the epistles.  Many spurious epistles were written and the people were at a loss for over three hundred years to know which was false or spurious, or which was inspired.  And, therefore, they did not know what constituted the books of the Bible.

It was not until the Fourth Century that the Pope of Rome, the Head of the Church, the successor of Saint Peter, assembled together the Bishops of the world in a council.  And there in that council it was decided that the Bible, as we Catholics have it now, is the Word of God, and that the Gospels of Simon, Nicodemus, Mary, the Infancy of Jesus, and Barnabas, and all those other epistles were spurious or, at least, unauthentic.  At least, that there was no evidence of their inspiration, and that the Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the Book of Revelation, were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Up to that time the whole world for three hundred years did not know what the Bible was.  Hence, they could not take the Bible for their guide, for they did not know what constituted the Bible.  Would our Divine Saviour, if He intended man to learn his religion from a book, have left the Christian world for three hundred years without that book?  Most assuredly not.

V.

Not only for three hundred years was the world left without the Bible, but for 1,400 years the Christian world was left without the Sacred Book.

Before the art of printing was invented, Bibles were rare things.  Bibles were costly things.  Now, you must all be aware, if you have read history at all, that the art of printing was invented only a little more than four hundred years ago, about the middle of the Fifteenth Century, and about one hundred years before there was a Protestant in the world.

As I have said, before printing was invented books were rare and costly things.  Historians tell us that, in the Eleventh Century, eight hundred years ago, Bibles were so rare and costly that it took a fortune, a considerable fortune, to buy oneself a copy of the Bible!  Before the art of printing, everything had to be done with the pen upon parchment or sheepskin.  It was, therefore, a tedious and slow operation, a costly operation.

Now, in order to arrive at the probable cost of a Bible at that time, let us suppose that a man should work ten years to make a copy of the Bible and earn a dollar a day.  Well, then, the cost of that Bible would be $3,650.  Now, let us suppose that a man should work at the copying of the Bible for twenty years, as historians say it would have taken him at that time, not having the conveniences and improvements to aid him that we have now.  Then, at a dollar a day, for twenty years, the cost of a Bible would be nearly $8,000.

Suppose I came and said to you, “My dear people, save your soul, for if you lose your soul all is lost.”  You would ask, “What are we to do to save our souls?”  The Protestant preacher would say to you, “You must get a Bible.  You can get one at such-and-such a shop.”  You would ask the cost and be told it was $8,000.  You would exclaim, “The Lord save us!  And can we not go to Heaven without that book?”  The answer would be: “No, you must have the Bible and read it.”  You murmur at the price, but are asked, “Is not your soul worth $8,000?”  Yes, of course it is, but you say you do not have the money, and if you cannot get a Bible, and your salvation depends upon it, evidently you would have to remain outside the Kingdom of Heaven.  This would be a hopeless condition, indeed.

For 1,400 years the world was left without a Bible — not one in ten thousand, not one in twenty thousand, before the art of printing was invented, had the Bible.  And would our Divine Lord have left the world without that book if it was necessary to man’s salvation?  Most assuredly not.

VI.

But let us suppose for a moment that all had Bibles, that Bibles were written from the beginning, and that every man, woman, and child had a copy.  What good would that book be to people who did not know how to read it?  It is a blind thing to such persons.

Even now one-half the inhabitants of the earth cannot read.  Moreover, as the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, it would be necessary to know these languages in order to be able to read it.

But it is said that we have it translated now in French, English, and other languages of the day.  Yes, but are you sure you have a faithful translation?  If not, you have not the Word of God.  If you have a false translation, it is the work of man.  How shall you ascertain that?  How shall you find out if you have a faithful translation from the Greek and Hebrew?

“I do not know Greek or Hebrew,”  says my separated friend; “for my translation I must depend upon the opinion of the learned.”

Well, then, my dear friends, suppose the learned should be divided in their opinions, and some of them should say it is good, and some false? Then your faith is gone, you must begin doubting and hesitating, because you do not know if the translation is good.

Now with regard to the Protestant translation of the Bible, allow me to tell you that the most learned among Protestants tell you that your translation, the King James edition, is a very faulty translation and is full of errors.  Your own learned divines, preachers, and bishops have written whole volumes to point out all the errors that are there in the King James translation, and Protestants of various denominations acknowledge it.

Some years ago, when I lived in St. Louis, there was held in that city a convention of ministers.  All denominations were invited, the object being to arrange for a new translation of the Bible, and give it to the world.  The proceedings of the convention were published daily in the Missouri Republican.  A very learned Presbyterian, I think it was, stood up, and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said that in the present Protestant translation of the Bible there were no less than 30,000 errors.

And you say, my dear Protestant friends, that the Bible is your guide and teacher.  What a teacher, with 30,000 errors!  The Lord save us from such a teacher!  One error is bad enough, but thirty thousand is a little too much.

Another preacher stood up in the convention, I think he was a Baptist, and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said for thirty years past the world was without the Word of God, for the Bible we have is not the Word of God at all.

Here are your own preachers for you.  You all read the newspapers, no doubt, my friends, and must know what happened in England a few years ago.  A petition was sent to Parliament for an allowance of a few thousand pounds sterling for the purpose of getting up a new translation of the Bible.  And that movement was headed and carried on by Protestant bishops and clergymen.

VII.

But, my dear people, how can you be sure of your faith?  You say the Bible is your guide, but you cannot be sure that you have the faith.  Let us suppose for a moment that all have a Bible which is a faithful translation.  Even then it cannot be the guide of man, because the private interpretation of the Bible is not infallible, but, on the contrary, most fallible.  It is the source and fountain of all kinds of errors and heresies and all kinds of blasphemous doctrines.  Do not be shocked, my dear friends.  Just be calm and listen to my arguments.

There are now throughout the world 350 different denominations or churches, and all of them say the Bible is their guide and teacher.  I suppose they are all sincere.  Are all of them true churches?  This is an impossibility.  Truth is one as God is one, and there can be no contradiction.  Every man in his senses sees that every one of them cannot be true, for they differ and contradict one another, and cannot, therefore, be all true.  The Protestants say the man that reads the Bible right and prayerfully has truth, and they all say that they read it right.

Let us suppose that there is an Episcopal minister.  He is a sincere, honest, well-meaning and prayerful man.  He reads his Bible in a prayerful spirit, and from the word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be bishops.  For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church.  The Presbyterian is a sincere and well-meaning man.  He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters.  “Here is the Bible,”  says the Episcopalian, and “here is the Bible to give you the lie,”  says the Presbyterian.  Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.

Then the Baptist comes in.  He is a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also.  “Well,”  says the Baptist, “have you ever been baptized?”  “I was,” says the Episcopalian, “when I was a baby.”

“And so was I,”  says the Presbyterian, “when I was a baby.”  “But,”  says the Baptist, “you are going to Hell as sure as you live.”

Next comes the Unitarian, well-meaning, honest, and sincere.  “Well,” says the Unitarian, “allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolators.  You worship a man for a God who is no God at all.”  And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian.  And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the Bible.

Next comes the Methodist, and he says, “My friends, have you got any religion at all?”  “Of course we have,”  they say.  “Did you ever feel religion,”  says the Methodist, “the spirit of God moving within you?”  “Nonsense,”  says the Presbyterian, “we are guided by our reason and judgment.”  “Well,”  says the Methodist, “if you never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity.”

The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire.  “Why,”  says he, “you are a strange set of people.  Do you not understand the Word of God?  There is no Hell at all.  That idea is good enough to scare old women and children,”  and he proves it from the Bible.

Now comes in the Quaker.  He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all.  He is the sincerest of men, and gives the Bible for his faith.

Another comes in and says, “Baptize the men and leave the women alone.  For the Bible says, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  “So,”  says he, “the women are all right, but baptize the men.”

Next comes in the Shaker and he says, “You are a presumptuous people.  Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all.  My brethren, if you want to go to Heaven shake, my brethren, shake!”

VIII.

I have here brought together seven or eight denominations, differing one from another, or understanding the Bible in different ways, illustrative of the fruits of private interpretation.  What, then, if I brought together the 350 different denominations, all taking the Bible for their guide and teaching, and all differing from one another?  Are they all right?  One says there is a Hell, and another says there is not Hell.  Are both right?  One says Christ is God, another says He is not.  One says they are unessential.  One says Baptism is a requisite, and another says it is not.  Are both true?  This is an impossibility, my friends.  All cannot be true.

Who, then, is true?  He that has the true meaning of the Bible, you say.  But the Bible does not tell us who that is, the Bible never settles the quarrel.  It is not the teacher.

The Bible, my dear people, is a good book.  We Catholics admit that the Bible is the Word of God, the language of inspiration, and every Catholic is exhorted to read the Bible.  But good as it is, the Bible, my dear friends, does not explain itself.  It is a good book, the Word of God, the language of inspiration, but your explanation of the Bible is not the language of inspiration.  Your understanding of the Bible is not inspired, for surely you do not pretend to be inspired!

It is with the Bible as it is with the Constitution of the United States.  When Washington and his associates established the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the United States, they did not say to the people of the States: “Let every man read the Constitution and make a government unto himself.  Let every man make his own explanation of the Constitution.”  If Washington had done that, there never would have been a United States.  The people would all have been divided among themselves, and the country would have been cut up into a thousand different divisions or governments.

What did Washington do?  He gave the people the Constitution and the Supreme Law, and appointed his Supreme Court and Supreme Judge of the Constitution.  And these are to give the true explanation of the Constitution to all the American citizens, all without exception, from the President to the beggar.  All are bound to go by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and it is this and this alone that can keep the people together and preserve the Union of the United States.  At the moment the people take the interpretation of the Constitution into their own hands, there is the end of the union.

And so it is in every government.  So it is here and everywhere.  There is a Constitution, a Supreme Court or Law, a Supreme Judge of that Constitution, and that Supreme Court is to give us the meaning of the Constitution and the Law.

In every well-ruled country there must be such a thing as this: a Supreme Law, Supreme Court, Supreme Judge, that all the people abide by.  All are bound by decisions, and without that, no government could stand.  Even among the Indian tribes such a condition of affairs exists.  How are they kept together?  By their chief, who is their dictator.

So our Divine Savior also has established His Supreme Court, His Supreme Judge, to give us the true meaning of the Scriptures, and to give us the true revelation and doctrines of the Word of Jesus.  The Son of the Living God has pledged His Word that this Supreme Court is infallible, and therefore, the true Catholic never doubts.

“I believe,”  says the Catholic, “because the Church teaches me so.  I believe the Church because God has commanded me to believe her.”  Jesus said:  “Tell the Church.  And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”  [Matt 18:17].  “He that believeth you believeth Me.”  said Christ, “and he that despiseth you despiseth Me.”  [Luke 10:16].  Therefore, the Catholic believes because God has spoken, and upon the authority of God.

But our Protestant friends say, “We believe in the Bible.”  Very well, how do you understand the Bible?  “Well,”  says the Protestant, “to the best of my opinion and judgment this is the meaning of the text.”  He is not sure of it, but to the best of his opinion and judgment.  This, my friends, is only the testimony of a man.  It is only human faith, not Divine Faith.

It is Divine Faith alone by which we give honor and glory to God, by which we adore His infinite wisdom and veracity.  That adoration and worship is necessary for salvation.

I have now proved to you that private interpretation of the Scripture cannot be the guide or teacher of man.  In another lecture I shall prove that the Catholic Church is the only true Church of God, and that there is no other.

END OF POST/SOURCE

Josephine County Christians: What would John Calvin and Martin Luther think of Evangelical Protestantism(s) today?

Martin Luther by Lucas Cranach the Elder, pain...
Image via Wikipedia

Always keeping in mind and heart the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Speaking of the separation of our brothers and sisters, paragraph # 818 states, “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these community [that resulted from such separation’ and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” (C.C.C. # 818)

I’m embarking on a new series of posts for the unity of the one Church Christ the Lord prayed for, and all responses towards that end or welcomed–Today’s first post asks the question:

What would John Calvin and Martin Luther think of Evangelical Protestantism(s) today?

END OF POST

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

Poll — Is an Archdiocesan Mass to honor non-Catholic and non-canonized Martin Luther King, Jr. appropriate?

 

I’m a bit twisted on this one, what’s your vote?

From the St. Louis Catholic…

Quick quiz:

How many Catholic saints had their names legally changed by their parents to pay homage to arch-heretic Martin Luther, [MY LINK] and then lived and died as a preacher in the Baptist sect?
Answer: None.
And yet, again, we face the looming date of the annual Archdiocesan Mass to honor non-Catholic and non-canonized Martin Luther King, Jr.
Neither delving into the accusations of certain sinful behaviors in his personal life, and likewise neither delving into the wonderful things he accomplished in the field of civil rights, it remains a fact that it is grossly inappropriate to celebrate a Mass “in honor” of a non-Catholic. Period.
When will this end?
Not this year, as the Review notes.

As is customary, the Archbishop will also award the “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Model of Justice Award” to area students. Right religion is a duty under the virtue of Justice; God deserves proper worship. This worship comes from the one and only true Church, the Catholic Church.

When is the Reagan Mass, or the Lincoln Mass, or Washington Mass, or the Gandhi Mass?

With all due respect to the intentions of those involved, reflexive political correctness does not justify the continuation of this event. But, this is the third year I’ve written about this, so you can see the pull this blog really has.

FINAL NOTE BEFORE THE VOTE: On Saturday, January 15th, at St. Mary’s in Portland, Oregon, Archbishop Vlazny will lead the Celebration of the Sunday Vigil Eucharist in Commemoration of the birthday of D. Martin Luther King, Jr.

END OF POST

JCRL March For Life: Sunday, January 16, 1:00pm – 3:00pm



Time
Sunday, January 16 · 1:00pm – 3:00pm

Location In front of the Josephine County Courthouse

6th and B Streets
Grants Pass, OR

Created By


 

More Info
Please join us for the annual March for Life in Grants Pass, Oregon.

Date: Sunday, Jan. 16, 2011
Place: Meet at Jo. Co. Courthouse 6th and B Sts
Time: 1pm March to begin at 1:30 pm to Riverside Park Rally,
…Refreshments at the Park. Music provided by the Emmons Sisters
(If you can’t walk, please join us at the park at 2:15 PM.)

Renew your commitment to help those who have no voice — the 4000 innocent babies who are killed each day in America by abortion!

Please invite your family, friends and church members to join us as we prayerfully witness and affirm the value of all of God’s children. Your witness and prayers will help save mothers and babies from the horror of abortion and provide comfort to those who regret their abortions or who have been involved in abortion.

We regard this as an extension of our regular worship on the Lord’s Day.

Contact Myrna Shaneyfelt 541-479-9827 or Steve Raycraft 541-621-2538 for more information.
http://www.jcrighttolife.blogspot.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Josephine-County-Right-to-Life/237633951654

Please continue to pray to end the tragedy of abortion.