Common Ground? Asking Jesus Into Your Heart

Protestants are all about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. They instruct potential converts on the necessity of asking Jesus into their hearts in order to be saved, and they enthusiastically sing about this relationship that they have with the Living God: “You ask me how I know He lives – He lives within my heart!” Many Protestants feel that this is what is missing from the Catholic understanding of salvation: Catholics need to ask Jesus into their hearts.

Can a Catholic invite Jesus into his or her heart?

This has been something of a misunderstanding on both the Catholic and the Protestant side. Protestants believe that the process of salvation culminates in asking Jesus into one’s heart, since this creates a personal relationship with the Lord. When confronted with the Catholic insistence on baptism for the forgiveness of sins as well as the reception of other sacraments, Protestants assume that Catholics know nothing of a personal relationship with Christ. The misunderstanding stems from the fact that these options, (1) asking Jesus into one’s heart and (2) the reception of the Sacraments, are presented as an either/or dilemma: EITHER ask Jesus into your heart like a good Protestant, OR believe, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and receive the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Eucharist like a good Catholic. Sometimes Evangelicals present this contrast as the “simple Gospel” versus the rituals and dead liturgy of a false belief system.

It’s nothing like that at all. True to the teaching of Scripture, the Catholic Church proclaims that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” and “baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” (1 Pet 3:21). The Church insists that those who want to be saved avail themselves of the Sacraments. At the same time, a glance at the lives of the saints shows how personal their relationship with Jesus was. The saints have long been advocates of asking Jesus into one’s heart. Ironically, it is the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence which has prevented many people, Catholics as well as Protestants, from recognizing that fact….

You see, Catholics have always believed that Jesus is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Eucharist. It is the teaching of Jesus as well as of His apostles. Catholics take Jesus at His word when He says:

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. …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 yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. John 6:51, 53-56

While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body. And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Mt 26:26-28

Catholics take St. Paul at his word when he comments on the celebration of the Eucharist:

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 1 Cor 10:16

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 fore you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took 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. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 1 Cor 11:23-30

Every Church Father who wrote concerning the Eucharist affirmed that it is indeed the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. Understanding this, we Catholics read the words “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him,” and understand that in Holy Communion, Jesus Whom we consume actually comes into our bodies, and we take our place in His Sacred Heart. This is what real, literal “Communion” is meant to be. There is nothing more intimate to be experienced on this earth; no relationship could be more personal.

This understanding of the meaning of Holy Communion has led some Catholics to surmise that there is no place in the Catholic belief system for “asking Jesus into your heart.” After all, when you already receive Him, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, into your body at every Mass, isn’t this “asking Him into your heart” just some sort of paltry Protestant substitute for the Real Thing?

Not at all. We all know that there are times when a Catholic cannot receive Jesus in Holy Communion. Most of us attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, so oftentimes a week elapses between communions. Occasionally we are ill on Sunday and cannot receive Him even then, and should we fall into mortal sin, we must abstain from reception until we have confessed our sin and received Absolution. But whenever we cannot receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, we can make a “spiritual communion,” asking Jesus to come into our hearts spiritually when He cannot enter our bodies physically. Many saints have recommended the practice of spiritual communion to us:

For he who believes in Jesus Christ, and conceives the ardent desire to receive Him therein [i.e., in the Holy Eucharist], spiritually eats Him, so far as He is veiled under the forms of this sacrament. St. Thomas Aquinas

I believe that You, O Jesus, are in the Most Holy Sacrament! I love You and desire You! Come into my heart. I embrace You. O, never leave me! I beseech You, O Lord Jesus, may the burning and most sweet power of Your love absorb my mind, that I may die through love of Your love, Who were graciously pleased to die through love of my love. St. Francis of Assisi

When you do not receive communion and you do not attend Mass, you can make a spiritual communion, which is a most beneficial practice; by it the love of God will be greatly impressed on you. St. Teresa of Avila

“Come, Jesus, my Beloved, come within this my poor heart; come and satiate my desires; come and sanctify my soul; come, most sweet Jesus, come!” This said, be still; contemplate your good God within you, and, as if you really had communicated, adore Him, thank Him, and perform all those interior acts to which you are accustomed after sacramental Communion. St. Leonard of Port-Maurice

My Jesus, I believe that you are present in the most Blessed Sacrament. I love You above all things and I desire to receive You into my soul. Since I cannot now receive You sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace You as if You have already come, and unite myself wholly to You. Never permit me to be separated from You. St. Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori

After the reception of the Sacraments, when we feel the love God growing cold, let us instantly make a Spiritual Communion. When we cannot go to the church, let us turn towards the tabernacle; no wall can shut us out from the good God. St. Jean Vianney

O my Lord, what a delightful way this is to communicate, without giving my father-confessor any trouble, or depending on any one save Yourself, Who draw near to the solitude of my soul and speak to my heart. St. Angela of the Cross

In the course of the day, when it is not permitted to you to do otherwise, call Jesus, even in the midst of all your occupations, with a resigned sigh of the soul and He will come and will remain always united with your soul by means of His grace and His holy love. Make a spiritual flight before the Tabernacle, when you cannot go there with your body, and there pour out the ardent desires of your spirit and embrace the Beloved of souls. St. Pio of Pietrelcina

The Catholic Church, far from neglecting the practice of spiritual communion, warmly urges the faithful to ask Jesus into their hearts, frequently and fervently! To this end we have been provided with the Chaplet of the Blessed Sacrament, in which we recite:

“As I cannot now receive Thee, my Jesus, in Holy Communion, come spiritually into my heart, and make it Thine own forever.”

So, an emphatic “yes” to the question of whether Protestants and Catholics agree on the practice of asking Jesus into their hearts! A spiritual communion, as the saints assure us, is a valuable, valid experience, “a most beneficial practice,” even though it is not a sacramental Holy Communion. Catholics are urged to make a spiritual communion often (St. Francis de Sales performed an act of spiritual communion every 15 minutes!) to secure our ongoing intimacy with our Lord. A personal relationship with Jesus Christ is what it’s all about, folks!

Thank goodness, that’s one issue on which Catholics and Protestants agree.

 

On the memorial of St. Polycarp

Deo omnis gloria!

Common Ground? The Sacraments

On Monday we asked whether Catholics and Protestants can agree on the all-important question of “What must I do to be saved?” Today’s question is related: Is there common ground between Protestants and Catholics on the subject of the Sacraments? Breaking this question down, what are the Sacraments, and are they necessary for salvation?

Once again, it depends on who you ask. Let’s begin with the Catholic position, since it is quite well-defined (we’ve had 2,000 years to think about it).

The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. “Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus . . . of the Fathers,” we profess that “the sacraments of the new law were . . . all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Jesus’ words and actions during his hidden life and public ministry were already salvific, for they anticipated the power of his Paschal mystery. They announced and prepared what he was going to give the Church when all was accomplished. The mysteries of Christ’s life are the foundations of what he would henceforth dispense in the sacraments, through the ministers of his Church, for “what was visible in our Savior has passed over into his mysteries.” Sacraments are “powers that comes forth” from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are “the masterworks of God” in the new and everlasting covenant. CCC 1113-1116

So, those are the Sacraments in a pretty impressive little nutshell. There are quite a few different nutshells on the Protestant side of the divide, of all shapes and sizes. Some denominations will tell you there aren’t any sacraments, most will claim that there are two, and a few denominations will propose more than that. One thing most Christians can agree on is that the Sacraments are something that God does. And therein lies the rub….

A Lutheran confessional

For Lutherans, there are two, maybe three sacraments – Baptism and Eucharist (communion), with a dubious addition of Penance (confession) – Luther originally taught that there were three sacraments, then backed off on Penance, and thus there are few Lutherans who practice “Holy Absolution.” Affirmation of Baptism (Confirmation), Holy Matrimony and Anointing of the Sick are practiced, but are considered to be non-sacramental rites. Anglicans and Episcopalians recognize Baptism and the Eucharist as “dominical” (“of the Lord”) sacraments, and may or may not offer the “sacramental rite” of Reconciliation. In Presbyterian denominations, Baptism and the Eucharist are considered sacraments; Presbyterians marry and ordain (some confirm, others do not), but do not consider these to be sacraments. Methodists recognize Baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments; while they perform the rites of Confirmation, Ordination, Holy Matrimony, and Anointing of the Sick, for Methodists those are not sacraments. In other words, all of these denominations would agree that God works (in one way or another) through baptism and holy communion; this is why baptism and holy communion are considered sacraments. On the other side of the sacramental divide, Evangelical denominations (Baptists, nondenominational churches) believe that baptism and holy communion are not something that God does – they are, rather, something that Christians do in obedience to God. They therefore prefer to refer to baptism and communion as ordinances. Thus, if you ask Evangelicals how many sacraments they recognize, they will say “none,” even though they do baptize and participate in the Lord’s Supper. Some Baptists recognize foot washing (as performed in Catholic parishes on Holy Thursday) as an ordinance, and engage in it on a regular basis. Members of the Church of the Brethren do the same, and would add anointing to their list of ordinances. Quakers and members of the Salvation Army recognize no sacraments by any name; they do not baptize, nor do they receive communion.

And so we observe a gradual paring-down of the Sacraments, from the Catholic understanding of 7 Sacraments, to the mainline Protestant belief in 2 sacraments, to the Evangelical acceptance of 2, or 3, or 4 ordinances only, to no sacraments or ordinances whatsoever. All of this hinges, as I said, on the understanding of what a Sacrament is and what it accomplishes. To the minimalists, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances, not sacraments, meaning that they are commands that believers obey. No grace is conferred; the fulfillment of the ordinance merely symbolizes something important. Let’s examine the Catholic position again. To Catholics, while the Sacraments are symbols, they are at the same time much, much more than symbols:

Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son’s Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.

This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them. CCC 1127-1128

This is where the Protestant and the Catholic understanding of sacraments diverge. Calvin, who taught that Baptism and Holy Communion are sacraments, stated unequivocally: “The sacraments do not confer grace.” Adherents of Reformed theology found the theological concept of ex opere operato (“by the very fact of the action’s being performed”) to be superstitious, making out of the Sacraments “magical rites,” as R.C. Sproul calls them, “that people rely on for salvation instead of faith in Christ alone.” While pooh-poohing the belief that sacraments confer grace, Sproul writes that Calvinists “confess that baptism is a real means of grace wherein the Spirit strengthens our faith and reminds us of the work of Christ” (wrenching the whole discussion back to “faith alone,” the be-all and end-all of the Protestant experience). Believing that the Sacraments are outward or sensible signs instituted by Christ to give grace requires, apparently, too much faith. This Reformed devaluation of the Sacraments further devolved into the prevailing Evangelical belief that the Sacraments are not even somehow “a real means of grace,” but mere symbols that Jesus insisted that we reenact to remind ourselves and the world of His life, death and resurrection. The Lord’s Supper, as it is called, is seldom celebrated in Evangelical churches, simply because nobody quite knows what to make of this “symbol.” When I partook of the crackers and the grape juice as an Evangelical, I would become disgruntled, thinking guiltily that I could have come up with a better “symbol” than eating Saltines and drinking Welch’s. As Catholic Flannery O’Connor famously quipped, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.

The Church takes the Sacraments extremely serious, for obvious reasons. Jesus Himself stated that Baptism and Holy Communion are necessary for salvation:

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Jn 3:5

So Jesus said to them, “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 yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. Jn 6:53-54

Of course, you can mock the literal understanding of these verses as superstition, or you can admit that you lack the faith to take Jesus at His word. To the Church:

Sacraments are “powers that comes forth” from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are “the masterworks of God” in the new and everlasting covenant.

Okay, you’ve got to admit that the whole Catholic explanation sounds grand, yet Evangelicals have one very compelling objection to the Catholic understanding of the Sacraments. There are Evangelicals who live at a level of spirituality that puts many sacrament-partaking Catholics to shame. How can this be, skeptical Protestants demand, if the Sacraments confer such incredible graces, and our ordinances are mere symbols?
If the Church is right about the Sacraments,
shouldn’t things be the other way around?

From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them. CCC 1128

The subject under discussion has now shifted from the Sacraments and the graces they confer to the fruits of the Sacraments. The complaint that many Catholics bear no fruit is certainly a valid one. People can receive a sacrament and yet bear no fruit because they are not properly disposed. Let’s say I tootle into Reconciliation, confess all my sins and receive absolution, without repenting of those sins; in fact, I plan to go out and commit them all again next weekend. One thing the Catholic Church and our separated brethren can agree on is that the Sacraments aren’t magic – I can fool the priest with crocodile tears, but don’t expect to see me growing more Christ-like as a result of the sacrament! Another consideration would be that, while grace is always abundantly available in any given sacrament, sacrament-partaking Catholics are not forced thereby to automatically bear fruit. I can receive all the grace I need from my reception of the Holy Eucharist to aid me in showing forbearance towards irksome family members, but at the same time I can still choose to explode when they refuse to play Parcheesi with me. That explains unfruitful Catholics. How to explain non-sacrament-partaking, Christ-like Protestants? While the divine life of grace is primarily imparted to us through the Sacraments, it is not exclusively imparted through the Sacraments, explaining why an untold number of properly-disposed Protestants live faith-filled, God-honoring lives by availing themselves of the graces God grants them through spiritual communion, prayer and Bible-reading. Uninstructed Catholics may surmise that sacraments like Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist somehow work automatically, or that being Catholic is some kind of guarantee of being spiritually fruitful, neither fallacy being taught by the Church – or they may just not care. There are Protestants who, while rejecting the incredible outpouring of grace in the Sacraments, are at least sharp enough not to spurn the grace offered to them by other means. Those Protestants put fruitless Catholics to shame.

On the Catholic side of the aisle, the saints are the best example of the grace that flows freely through the Sacraments, wild, tumultuous, inexhaustible grace that sanctifies and produces holy fruit. With that wealth of grace available to us, Catholics have no excuse for living mediocre lives, just as the child of a billionaire has no excuse for wearing rags and eating out of garbage cans. The grace is there in the Sacraments, like a fortune in the bank, but remember – God’s never going to force you to make a withdrawal and spend it. What you do with your fortune is still up to you.

 

On the memorial of Sts. Cyril and Methodius

Deo omnis gloria!

Nag

Another First Friday, another nag – at least that’s how I feel about it. No, the priest wasn’t nagging us at Mass this morning; it was me, nagging God again. It seems that every time I receive Jesus in Holy Communion, every time I go to Adoration, every time I pray the Litany of the Most Sacred Heart, I hear myself nagging God with these words: “Change me, Lord.”

I can’t stop, although it isn’t as if He’s never obliged me. I’ve been a Christian since my infant baptism, a Catholic for nearly 11 years now, and I’m still here, stuck in the mud. God has worked in amazing ways, delivering me from sins I felt doomed to commit and recommit, teaching me to trust and obey more profoundly, granting that I might grow and mature in faith, hope and love – in other words, making possible truly undeserved progress in my spiritual life! And yet I’m still here, stuck in the mud of my self-absorption.

All of those wonderful, undeserved graces, all the deliverance, all the progress – it’s not enough, because I’m still not like Jesus. When people look at me, they still don’t see Him.

And so I nag, “Change me, Lord! I don’t want much – just holiness!” Snatches from the Psalms float through my brain, the ancient cries of folks in distress:

O God, hasten to deliver me; O LORD, hasten to my help! Answer me when I call, O God of my righteousness! You have relieved me in my distress; be gracious to me and hear my prayer! Give ear to my words, O LORD, and consider my groaning! Heed the sound of my cry for help, my King and my God, for to You I pray! In the morning, O LORD, You will hear my voice; in the morning I will order my prayer to You and eagerly watch. To You, O LORD, I call! My rock, do not be deaf to me, for if You are silent to me, I will become like those who go down to the pit. Hear the voice of my supplications when I cry to You for help, when I lift up my hands toward Your holy sanctuary. Save me, O God, by Your name, and vindicate me by Your power! Hear my prayer, O God; give ear to the words of my mouth! Give ear to my prayer, O God, and do not hide Yourself from my supplication! Give heed to me and answer me; I am restless in my complaint and am surely distracted. Hear my cry, O God! Give heed to my prayer! From the end of the earth I call to You when my heart is faint; lead me to the rock that is higher than I. Hear my voice, O God, in my complaint!

Nag, nag, nag – at least I’ve got Biblical precedent! Jesus Himself endorsed the persistent widow, nagging the judge into seeing things her way. In the presence of His Most Sacred Heart in the Eucharist, I can’t help but blurt out to Jesus my importuning. I need you to change me!! Fortunately, the Act of Consecration to the Sacred Heart gives words to my longing:

As I consecrate myself to You, I ask You to create in me a new heart, one which will be free from sin and filled with compassion and love for all people.

A new heart – yeah, that’s the ticket! That’s what I need!!

And He knows it, better than I do….

That’s why the devotion is there for me, every First Friday: another chance to kneel in Adoration, another opportunity to gaze upon the Heart that so loved the world, another opening for my pesky little squeaks of a prayer to ascend with the incense before the altar. Believe it or not, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” is a tried-and-true spiritual principle! As a very saintly man once advised:

Do not ever lose heart when the tempest rages; place all your trust in the Heart of the most gentle Jesus. Pray and I might add, devoutly pester the divine Heart. St. Pio of Pietrelcina

Change me, Lord!

 

On the memorial of Bls. Anselmo Polanco Fontecha and Felipe Ripoll Morata

Deo omnis gloria!

Tell Me Again Why I Should Care?

“Muffler? – Exhaust? – what’s the difference? The point is, someone has modified the tailpipe of that car so that it’s ridiculously loud!”

Can you tell I’m not into cars? I made a comment like the one above to my son one day, my son who lives and breathes cars. He replied with a comment about me being a genuine embarrassment. He’s 19; he’ll get over it. I just don’t know anything about cars – don’t know, don’t want to know. Will the car get me from here to there? Great! I know all I need to know! Why would I need to know the oil pump from the radiator? That’s not on the driving test, so why should I care?

I’ve been thinking a lot about tests and testing lately. In my line of work, we spend a considerable amount of time inputting data into electronic data capture (EDC) systems. Unfortunately, there’s no standard, government-issue EDC – there are many of them out there, and they are all constantly updating, meaning that at least once a month I am being asked to train on some new system or new version of an old system. Training is a real timesucker; you are asked to sit through a “dynamic” presentation on how to devise a password, how to change your password, how to set up your preferences, things people really should have known before being legally allowed to even sit down in front of the keyboard. The system encourages you with peppy announcements like “Congratulations! You now know how to perform an Advanced Search!!” while you ask yourself why in the world you would ever want to perform an advanced search under normal circumstances….

It dawned on me today that in this endless training we can find hidden a pretty darn good explanation for why your apologetics efforts seem to be getting you nowhere.

No, really. Bear with me.

Keep in mind that I, the victim, already know the basics of the computer training I must take before I ever get started. I don’t want to take the blooming training; all I want to do is to be able to use the system. It’s not rocket science; it’s not even computer science. I feel fairly confident that I already know whatever the training is going to try to teach me, or that I can easily figure it out on my own when I need to input my data. Just give me my certificate so I can get to work!

Doesn’t that sound like your next-door neighbor? She’s a lifelong Evangelical. She knows the Bible backwards and forwards. She has heard all her life about those unbiblical Catholic practices like worshipping Mary and obeying the sinless pope. There really isn’t anything you, you silly Catholic, can teach her. She couldn’t possibly care any less that you think that you have discovered in Catholicism the fullness of the truth. She’s just waiting for you to pause for breath so she can interrupt your explanation of plenary indulgences with her presentation of the Four Spiritual Laws. Just shut up, would ya, so she can get to work!

What actually happens when I finish the training and begin inputting data is generally something rather different than what I had envisioned. Even when I’m using version 4.0 (meaning I’ve trained on the previous versions as well as on this one), I always seem to run into a roadblock when I want to do something I’ve never had to do before. Gee, there are a lot of options on this page… which tab do I click on?… is this option the one I need?… Leaping lizards! I erased the whole page!!!… hmm… I wonder if any of my coworkers were paying attention during training….

And it’s the same with your neighbor. She’s confident that she knows everything she needs to know about theology. Her Evangelical Protestant beliefs are working great for her – till they aren’t. Till her church is in the throes of a nasty split, and she realizes that the scriptural injunction to “take it to the church” has no real meaning in a Protestant context. Till her brother becomes a Jehovah’s Witness because they get all their doctrine “straight from Scripture,” and he’s never really believed that mumbo-jumbo about “three Persons, one God,” anyway – where does the Bible teach that? Till the medical bills force her to contemplate bankruptcy, and she’s confronted with the shallowness of her “health-and-wealth” approach to life. It could be one of a number of things, but people tend not to take much interest in your explanation of Catholic beliefs till they realize that they can’t figure things out by themselves. Whatever they’ve tried isn’t working, and now a timely explanation from a Catholic perspective begins to look a tad more appealing….

I first took an interest in Catholic theology when a six-grader asked me, a lifelong Evangelical, what Catholics believe. I realized that I really had no clue. It irked me that I couldn’t really answer the question. I bought a copy of Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism just to familiarize myself with the topic. It was as I was reading through John 6:35-69 to refute the Catholic arguments for the Real Presence that I was converted nearly instantaneously – I was overcome by the realization that my Evangelical interpretation of the sixth chapter of John was a pathetic attempt to explain away what Jesus was actually saying, that the Catholic understanding of His words (“if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh”) made far, far better sense of the discourse, as well as of the reaction of His disciples (many left Him out of disgust), of the corresponding verses in Matthew, Mark and Luke (“this IS My body”), of St. Paul’s comments on Holy Communion in 1 Corinthians, and of the unanimous understanding of all Christians for the first millennium of Christianity that Jesus’ words were to be taken literally. You might say that that sixth-grader “quizzed” me, and when I failed the quiz I felt forced to take an interest in a subject that I had managed to ignore my whole life long, with life-changing results….

Let’s face it: your average neighbor isn’t theologically inclined. Try and explain to her the nuances of the Catholic understanding of justification vs. the Reformed understanding, and most likely all you’ll get is an incredulous stare. I just want to go to Heaven, your neighbor is thinking to herself, not found a seminary! It’s sooooo much easier for her to just stick with the familiar prevailing wisdom which has served her so well for so long now. It isn’t like there’s going to be a test….

Ah, but that’s where she’s wrong. Life is the test, and some of the questions can be very, very hard to answer. That’s when people’s eyes start straying to the answers their neighbors have jotted down on their test papers, just to see, you know, what they thought the right answer was. Your well-intentioned offers to lend her Scott Hahn’s Rome, Sweet Home may be rebuffed repeatedly while life’s going great, but when her denomination decides to condone abortion or homosexual activity, your beliefs may finally receive a hearing. Neighbors who believe they already have the answers just don’t want to hear about it – it’s people with questions who want answers.

So when I’m standing beside my broken-down car on the side of the road on a frosty December morning, cell phone in hand, trying to reach my son, you can bet I’m all ears when he explains to me which one is the oil pump and which one is the radiator. I need to know! And when your neighbor breaks down by the side of Life’s road, make sure she has your number – and make sure you’re ready to take the call.

 

On the memorial of St. Ernest of Mecca

Deo omnis gloria!

Photo credits: An Automobile Engine by Eiko/Wikimedia Commons

Sometimes You Really Have to Wonder

I once explained to a Protestant the Catholic teaching that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved. I explained our understanding of Genesis 2:24, Malachi 2:16, Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19: 9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16: 18, and 1 Corinthians 7, and discussed the fact that no one up until the time of the Reformation felt that remarriage was ever an option after divorce. She listened carefully, asked many questions, and evinced understanding. But in the end, she shook her head and admitted that she would accept the Catholic teaching on the permanence of marriage, except for the fact that she couldn’t find another church which agreed with the Church that remarriage is an impossibility in cases where a valid marriage has previously taken place.

Not unusual for a Protestant to feel that way. Many things in a Protestant context are decided by the quasi-biblical principles of “free and fair elections” and “majority rules.” My friend simply felt that, in this case, Catholics were outvoted. What is not given due consideration, at least not in the more “modern” Protestant denominations of an Evangelical or charismatic bent, is that when Protestants are doing their polling, the vast majority of Christians are allowed no say whatsoever. You see, under their system, when you die you forfeit your right to cast a vote. The beliefs of those who have gone before are null and void.

Of course, no one thinks about it in exactly this way; no one really thinks about it at all. It simply never occurs to these Protestants to put in the time to research the historic teachings of the Christians in prior centuries on any given subject. It never occurs to them to do this because, despite their firm belief in eternal life in Christ, to them the dead are DEAD and they are GONE.

This attitude has consequences. The Assemblies of God USA has produced a statement of faith, over 2,700 words’ worth, chockfull of Scripture but absent of any references to how their understanding of the Bible matches up with what Christians have believed down through the centuries. Phooey on those dead folks – what do their beliefs matter? What we believe and teach NOW is REAL Christianity! It’s silliness like that which led Spurgeon to quip, “It seems odd that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to them should think so little of what He has revealed to others.”

Sometimes you really have to wonder….

In contrast, on the website of a Reformed Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh, you are advised that the church considers itself to be “a part of the historic Judeo-Christian Church, and our foundational vision and beliefs seek to be rooted in scripture and the history of the Church. Therefore we hold to the most basic beliefs of the church found in The Apostles’ Creed.”

One can certainly make the case that one’s beliefs are “rooted in Scripture and in the history of the Church” by referencing the Apostles’ Creed:

We believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

We believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended to the dead.

On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,

The holy catholic Church,

The communion of saints,

The forgiveness of sins,

The resurrection of the body,

And the life everlasting. Amen.

The Apostles’ Creed is a good place to begin. In using one of the ancient creeds as their statement of faith, this church is demonstrating an interest in continuity, admitting that what the early Christians believed actually mattered. This is not unusual for the spiritual descendants of Calvin, a Reformer who often referred to the Church Fathers and their teachings (although Catholics would take issue with how he understood them).

So what does one of the more modern Protestant denominations (nondenominational, charismatic, independent) do should it be brought to their attention that the beliefs of 2,000 years’ worth of Christianity ought to count for something? They can do what the churches that I formerly attended did – they can simply claim that what they are teaching is exactly what the early Christians believed. That is what the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada has done. Their statement of faith reads in part:

“The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada stands firmly in the mainstream of historical Christianity.”

Of course, I can claim that I’m a direct descendant of St. Augustine of Hippo – but that doesn’t make it so. Let’s look at some of the PAOC’s beliefs:

1. The Lord’s Supper is a symbol, memorial and proclamation of the suffering and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. This ordinance of communion is to be participated in by believers until Christ’s return.

2. Water baptism signifies the believer’s identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection and is practised by immersion.

3. Assurance of salvation is the privilege of all who are born again by the Spirit through faith in Christ, resulting in love, gratitude and obedience toward God.

The denomination is serving up a purely symbolic Lord’s Supper, a baptism which “signifies” something rather than actually effecting something (and which MUST be by immersion), and eternal security – three beliefs/practices which the group claims are rooted “firmly in the mainstream of historical Christianity.”

The mainstream of historical Christianity in an alternate universe, perhaps?

Let’s let the early Christians explain their beliefs concerning the “Lord’s Supper” (Holy Communion). Jesus said “This IS My body.” Did the early Christians have the faith to believe what He said?

They [the Gnostics] 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. – St. Ignatius of Antioch, 107 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the Gentiles, that is, of the bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. – St. Justin Martyr, 2^nd century

He taught the new sacrifice of the New Covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. – St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 2^nd century

“Eat My Flesh,” He says, “and drink My Blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! – St. Clement of Alexandria, 3^rd century

He Himself warns us, saying, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” Therefore do we ask that our Bread, which is Christ, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. – St. Cyprian of Carthage, 3^rd century

Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: “Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread [of life], and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. – St. Ephraim. 4^th century

Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine — and thus is His Body confected. – St. Athanasius, 4^th century

The bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ. – St. Gregory of Nyssa, 4^th century

You may perhaps say: “My bread is ordinary.” But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ. And let us add this: How can what is bread be the Body of Christ? By the consecration. The consecration takes place by certain words; but whose words? Those of the Lord Jesus. – St. Ambrose, 4^th century

After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood. – St. Jerome, 5^th century

“But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the salvific Sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. – St. Augustine, 5^th century

The historical record goes on and on in this vein; every Christian up until the Reformation was taught that the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Jesus. Those Christians took the words “This is My body” quite literally. So in what sense is the PAOC belief in the bread and wine as mere symbols “mainstream”? Perhaps by “historical Christianity” they mean Protestant Christianity? Sorry, Charlie…

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that it is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous. – Martin Luther, 16^th century

Okay, so the claim about being in the “mainstream of historical Christianity” is bogus as far as Holy Communion goes – the PAOC teaching on that subject wasn’t invented until very late in the game; even Martin Luther thought it was tommyrot. How about their belief that baptism merely signifies the change that takes place in the believer when he is baptized into Christ, and that baptism must be by immersion?

Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [i.e., running water]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. -The Didache, 1^st century

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” – St. Justin Martyr, 2^nd century

Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. – St. Hippolytus of Rome, 3rd century

There is absolutely nothing which makes men’s minds more obdurate than the simplicity of the divine works which are visible in the act, when compared with the grandeur which is promised thereto in the effect; so that from the very fact, that with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner, the consequent attainment of eternity is esteemed the more incredible. – Tertullian, 3^rd century

As [Novatian] seemed about to die, he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring… – Pope Cornelius I, 3^rd century

Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal… This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing. Washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly. – St. Clement of Alexandria, 3^rd century

For prisoners, baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, the death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a royal protector, a gift of adoption. – St Basil the Great, 4^th century

… for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism…. “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” – St. Ambrose, 4^th century

Good luck finding anyone among the early Christians who believed that baptism is just a symbol. They believed that “baptism… now saves you” (1 Pet 3:21). And don’t look to the Great Reformer for any help on this, either:

This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever. Martin Luther, 16^th century

Strike two! Now, what are the chances that the idea of “assurance of salvation” is “in the mainstream of historical Christianity”? Romans 11:19-22 warned the early Christians that “You may say ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’ Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” How did the early Christians interpret passages such as these?

He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also – if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness. – St. Polycarp, 2^nd century

I hold further, that those of you who have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back for some reason to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have not repented before death – you will by no means be saved. – St. Justin Martyr, 2^nd century

Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons. – St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 2^nd century

We ought indeed to walk so holily, and with so entire substantially of faith, as to be confident and secure in regard of our own conscience, desiring that it may abide in us to the end. Yet, we should not presume. For he who presumes feels less apprehension; he who feels less apprehension takes less precaution; he who takes less precaution runs more risk. Fear is the foundation of salvation; presumption is an impediment to fear. More useful, then, is it to apprehend that we may possibly fail, than to presume that we cannot; for apprehending will lead us to fear, fearing to caution, and caution to salvation. On the other hand, if we presume, there will be neither fear nor caution to save us. – Tertullian, 3^rd century

Certain ones of those who hold different opinions misuse these passages. They essentially destroy free will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost. – Origen, 3^rd century

Let us press onward and labor, watching with our whole heart. Let us be steadfast with all endurance; let us keep the Lord’s commandments. Thereby, when that day of anger and vengeance comes, we may not be punished with the ungodly and the sinners. Rather, we may be honored with the righteous and with those who fear God. – St. Cyprian of Carthage, 3^rd century

You kind of know what’s coming, don’t you?

In my judgment, we must believe in the mercy of God, but remain uncertain about our and others’ future perseverance, or predestination. As he said: ‘if you think that you are standing, watch out that you do not fall,’ (1 Cor 10:12). Martin Luther, 16^th century

Only by radically redefining the meaning of the words “historical Christianity” can one claim with a straight face that these modern-day teachings are what Christians down through the ages have believed. And not to pick on the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada – every “Bible-believing church” I was ever a part of taught me that I was being faithful to the teachings of historical Christianity. How so? Simple – I believed what the Bible says (I believed my own private interpretation of Scripture) and the early Christians believed what the Bible says, and therefore my modern-day beliefs, whatever they happened to be, were exactly the same as those of the early Christians. There was simply no doubt in my mind that this was true. That sincere belief was simply taken on faith; I never tried to demonstrate its historical accuracy. I just knew it was so.

Sometimes you really have to wonder….

 

On the memorial of Bl. Maria Angela Truszkowska

Deo omnis gloria!

How Can I Say This?

Quite some time back, my director stunned me with an announcement. “The head of Department “X” is requesting that you be transferred to her department.” “She wants me?” I squeaked. “Sure looks like it,” he told me. “Wow…” was my eloquent reply.

To say that I wanted to get into Department “X” was an understatement. It had been my goal for a long time, and now it looked like it was becoming a reality. So I went back to work, and I waited.

And waited. And waited. Disturbingly, it began to look to me as if Department “X” had forgotten me. I plugged away at my longtime job, waiting and hoping, and hearing nothing.

I began to fret. Having practiced all my life, I am a consummate fretter. If Department “X” wanted me, why was I still here in my old position? It had been weeks since I was told the news; surely they would have contacted me by now if it were true. Had I misunderstood? How long was I going to have to wait? What if I waited, and waited, and nothing ever happened? Had I misunderstood??

Reason kept trying to contact me – on the fourth or fifth call, she finally got through. “What did the director say?” she whispered. “Didn’t he say that ‘Department “X” is requesting that you be transferred? How many ways are there to understand that?”

I couldn’t fight against that logic. The director’s words had been unambiguous. Seriously, if he had been trying to tell me that a change of departments was in my future, how could he have put it any more clearly?

I relaxed. And sure enough, I was soon transferred to Department “X”.

I remember that story when I read Protestant explanations of John 6: 48-69:

“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “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 yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

Ask yourself, if Jesus was trying to tell us that we must really eat His flesh and drink His blood in the Holy Eucharist (which He elucidated in the Upper Room with the words, “This
is My body,” and “This is My blood”), how could He have expressed Himself any more clearly? He repeats over and over again, “Eat My flesh! Eat My flesh! This bread which comes down out of Heaven is My flesh – eat this bread and live!”

Sounds pretty serious – at least, his 1^st-century audience thinks so. When they question Him (how can this man give us his flesh to eat?), He insists more emphatically that unless they eat His flesh, they have no life in them. He uses the same construction to phrase John 6:53 as He used in John 3:3 –

“Unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

His listeners actually take His words so seriously that they are disgusted. When they naturally understand Him to be making a cannibalistic proposal, He admonishes them that “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” – eating My flesh as I stand here before you will profit nothing, but the Spirit will make possible the miraculous transformation of the bread and wine upon the altar into My very body and blood.

So at this point, with His disciples scattering because, as He puts it: “There are some of you who do not believe,” we would expect Jesus to do what He did whenever He spoke to the crowd in parables: He would dismiss those crowds, and then sit down with His disciples and explain the meaning of those parables, for “to you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.” After all, letting those folks walk off in unbelief was tantamount to allowing them to die spiritually in their rejection of Him – over a “misunderstanding”? Yet in this instance He neglected to clear up the “misunderstanding” engendered by His strong words. Instead, He asks a poignant question of His disciples: “Are you leaving Me, too?” As Jesus said, there were some who did not believe, but thanks be to God, St. Peter answered for the other apostles with his credimus: “We believe.”

Make no mistake: Jesus did not say “there are some of you who do not understand” – no, He warned them that “there are some of you who do not believe.” And that remains true to this day; there are many who do not believe His words, choosing to take them metaphorically and declare that “Eat My flesh! Drink My blood!” means “Believe in Me!” – and then serving up a sorry hash of Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-30 (Jesus gives thanks, holds up the bread and says “This is My body – so believe in Me, you guys!” Does anyone smell a thoroughly rotten “metaphor” here??)

I can imagine Jesus asking Himself “how can I phrase this so they will understand that I plan to give them My very flesh and blood as their spiritual food and drink?”

I am the bread of life!

I am the living bread!

The bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh!

He who eats Me, he also will live because of Me!

This. Is. My. Body.

Maybe that’s why everyone in Christendom for 1,000 years believed that it literally was His body and blood that they received in Holy Communion.

This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?

It is difficult. Maybe that’s why, to this day, “there are some of you who do not believe.”

 

On the memorial of St. John Gabriel Perboyre

Deo omnis gloria!

Ultrasound

The world passed one dubious milestone in the year 1958 – my birth – and another far more significant one with the publication of the article entitled Investigation of Abdominal Masses by Pulsed Ultrasound by Ian Donald in the British medical journal “The Lancet.” Dr. Donald was a pioneer in the field of diagnostic ultrasound, and although ultrasound technology was in its infancy (as Dr. Donald put it: “…we are very far from satisfied with the crude results so far obtained”), it was evident that great things lay ahead.

If only Dr. Donald could see us now!

A colleague of mine recently conceived, and she shared with us the ultrasound images taken in her doctor’s office. I could not believe how the art of ultrasonography has progressed since my two pregnancies 20 years ago. Back then, when the technician presented me with a copy of the ultrasound, she had to explain to me, “Here’s the head, and here’s the left arm,” and I simply took her word for it. Looking at the ultrasonic images my colleague showed us, I could interpret them all by myself – they were that clear. What a priceless gift for the parents-to-be!

Of course, the ability to share ultrasound images with expectant mothers has proved priceless for the pro-life movement as well, for now a woman can actually see the baby whose life she is considering terminating. And that makes her decision in one way easier, and at the same time more difficult – easier because she is making a more informed decision, and harder for the same reason.

When Roe v. Wade went into effect 40 years ago, women who wanted to abort their offspring had it easier. It was easy to convince oneself that what one was doing was not wrong, because what was being aborted was a clump of cells, the products of conception. Nowadays at 2 months into the pregnancy, in other words, about the time that it’s dawned on a woman that she is pregnant, an ultrasound can introduce her to the baby she’s carrying inside her womb. It’s pretty hard to argue with those ultrasound images. It’s a baby, all right, not a clump or a product. And so the people who previously would have convinced themselves that on this side of the womb it’s – of course – a baby, but on that side of the womb it’s – of course – tissue, have had the issue clarified for them. Folks used to suspect that they might be killing somebody. Now they can see that “somebody” for themselves.

None of this would be necessary in a perfect world, but human beings have the most insane ability to deny whatever they don’t want to be true. This is not limited to the sin of abortion, however – hiding from the truth goes back as far as Adam and Eve ducking for cover when they heard the Lord asking where the apple went. If facing the truth can be avoided, human beings will somehow find a way to do it.

“You were gossiping,” your conscience informs you. “You need to go to confession.”

Who, me? Gossiping?
Okay, in the first place, I’m a good person. Everybody knows that. Several people at work have mentioned that I’m a kind of role model to them, and my neighbor credits my influence with convincing her to go back to church. So it hardly seems possible that I was committing the sin of gossip. I mean, define “gossip.” I was discussing my coworker’s marital situation, or lack of it. It’s not like I went looking for people to discuss this with; they came to me. And I wasn’t the one making the snide remarks. Everything I said was strictly factual. And didn’t I end the conversation with a pious “Well, I’ll pray for her; that’s all I can say”? And while we’re at it, define “sin”! It was venial at most. I’m lectoring at the Saturday Vigil Mass. I’d be embarrassed to stand up there and lector after confessing to Father that I was a gossip. What would he think? Other people commit far worse sins, and you never see them at confession! I’m not going to sweat this – I just have an overactive conscience. Maybe I need a vacation….

If facing the truth can be avoided, human beings will somehow find a way to do it….

It seems to me that what we sinners need is some kind of spiritual ultrasound, an experience that would serve to show us what is really going on inside of us, making it much, much harder to deny what we already suspect may be true….

 

Et voilà! Spiritual ultrasound.

Lay your life out before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, and ask Him to show you what’s really going on. Truth penetrates to the heart of the issues that we prefer to keep hidden, and Light illumines the dark corners of the soul. Eucharistic adoration isn’t just about us telling Jesus how much we love Him; it’s also about listening to Him tell us how much He loves us. If you listen, He’ll love you right into the confessional, where you can get some of those wrinkled perspectives of yours ironed out.

Eucharistic adoration will make your life easier, and more difficult – for if you ask Him, Jesus will tell you what He sees when He looks at your heart. Then you will have to make some choices. For those yearning to follow more closely after the Truth and the Light, Eucharistic adoration is waiting. Don’t miss your chance – get your spiritual ultrasound today, and may His grace bestowed upon you be not in vain.

 

On the feast of the Nativity of Mary

Deo omnis gloria!