Catholicism to Become Minority Religion in Brazil

In Latin America's largest country the Catholic majority may come to an end as early as this year according to a Wall Street Journal article.

While Pope Francis has visited Latin America more than any other previous pope, the Catholic Church is losing ground to Pentecostals. You can read the article for yourself here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-catholic-church-is-losing-latin-america-11641914388

Clearly, these Catholics do not know their Catholic Faith - or they could never leave it! There is no Real Presence in Pentecostal worship services! As John 6:53-56 clearly and repeatedly teaches us, "unless you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Son of Man, you have no life in you."

You not only don't get this from the Pentecostals - you cannot get it from them! Even if they believed in this (which they don't) they have no authority to consecrate the Eucharist to become His Body and Blood. 

Catholics, COME HOME - before it's too late! Let's talk, shall we?

AMDG,

Scott<<<

Scripture of the Week - Who Is Drawn?

From class:

Verse: In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps (Proverbs 16:9, New International Version).

Translation: He leads the way and shines light on the path of life.

Application: We can bend hearts and minds with our own will and intentions, but we are made in His image. He paves the way, as our design is divine.

The readings this week, the 19th Week in Ordinal Time (I refuse to use "Ordinary Time" but that's a topic for another discussion) were:

1 Kgs 19:4-8

Eph 4:30—5:2

and the Gospel was:

Jn 6:41-51

Part of the Gospel reading goes: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day." I tied that to the Scripture of the Week (my professor provides passages each week) as we, men (and women) make choices in life, one may choose to follow Christ while another chooses not to, but only those who are drawn can come to the Father. That used to trouble me a bit until I ran into John 12:32 - "When I am lifted up. I will draw all men unto Me." This brings us back to John 3:16 "For God so loved the world (not just a part of it) that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." In short, and tying it back to this week's Scripture, while man(kind) chooses - God has laid out the path, the groundwork, and all we need to do is heed His Word - and it is left to the free choice of men to follow or reject Christ.

Questions for Catholics - Part 5 - The Eucharist and John 6

For this section, Mr. Prasch asks about John 6 and the Eucharist and challenges that he has yet to have a priest be able to answer him and "perhaps you can?"  I hope Mr. Prasch did not mean that rhetorically and is actually looking for responses and will acknowledge them. 

But I have yet another question.

In the Gospel of St. John 6 I've heard it quoted, quoted, quoted, and re-quoted as applying to the Eucharist. We read the following, I’m beginning in verse 47…

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Notice St. John, quoting Jesus, says that Jesus said if you believe in Jesus you have eternal life. “He who believes in the Son has eternal life, he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” – the Gospel of St. John 3:36 in the Roman Catholic Bible. Jesus said, “If a man believes in Me though he die yet shall He live for he’s passed from death to life” – the Gospel of St. John 5:24 according to the Roman Catholic Bible. Belief is the key to eternal life.

A point I like to bring out in response to this argument, Prasch has brought up himself, but glosses over it.  "He who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him."  So, if the Son commands you, not once, not twice, not even five or six times, but NINE TIMES in a single context to eat His body and/or drink His blood - you should obey Him, if you want eternal life in you!  Do not try to rationalize your way out of this nine-fold command, just obey it!  What kind of belief do you have if you refuse to obey Him?  Let us continue with Prasch's question(s) and arguments.

“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.

Jesus is saying that the manna that fell in the wilderness in the book of Exodus is a symbol of Him. It is the type, He is the antitype.

Now I am told that this refers to communion, the Lord's Supper at the Eucharist. The Lord’s Supper – the Eucharist, comes of the Jewish Passover. The Last Supper was a Jewish Passover meal called a “seder”. But Jews had to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem at Passover time; this was not at Passover and it was not in Jerusalem. Whatever applies to the Lord’s Supper does not apply in the direct sense because it's not the Last Supper. It's the wrong time of year, it’s the wrong place. 

Let us get something straight here and correct Prasch's view of history.  Yes, John 6 is at the wrong time of year, but that while being the time/place He issued the nine-fold command to eat His body and/or drink His blood but that was not the first time He administered the Eucharist.  The first celebration of the Eucharist was during the Passover Seder.  Jews also celebrate Passover wherever they are.  
The manna in the desert prefigured the Eucharist.  Both are "bread from Heaven" but the manna was a physical meal while the Eucharist, while also being "real food" is a spiritual meal. 

It is, first of all, talking about how the Exodus was a symbol of Jesus – the manna.

“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.”

He would give His flesh for the life of the world.

Then the Jews…

…that means the Judeans, not all Jews but the religious establishment,,,

…began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Those influenced by the Pharisees would have had this argument.

Actually, "the Jews" refers to those who were with Him and the Apostles at the synagogue in Capernaum during this sermon.  It is important to note what it is they are grumbling about - it is about the reality of Jesus being able to give them His flesh to eat - exactly the type of argument Prasch is giving us now!  Let us continue...

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.”

Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you cannot live.  I'm told this is the Eucharist and it is the key to eternal life. That's what I was taught in Catholic school. The context, however, going all the way back to verse 32 is the Exodus. No fewer than three places Jesus says in the same passage that the key – the key – to eternal life is belief.

Again, it is "no fewer than three places," it is actually nine places in this small section.

But I am told the bread and wine was transubstantiated, turned into His literal body and blood and then eaten. How do I account for this? Well, the first problem I had as a Catholic looking at this was this: Just reading on…

These things…

…in verse 59…

…He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum”…

…not at the Last Supper in Jerusalem when the Lord’s Supper communion was instituted.

This has already been address, He taught it at Capernaum and instituted it at Jerusalem during the Passover Seder.  This is not a troublesome reference so I am not sure why Prasch has difficulty with it, unless he just never thought of it this way.  How do you account for the teaching of transubstantiation?  Jesus Himself said, "This IS My body" and "This IS My blood..." those who "believe" Him don't doubt these words and/or try to rationalize their way out of them.  In John 6, nine times Jesus commands we partake of His body and/or blood stating His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink - not symbolism or parable.

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…

How can eating His flesh be the key to eternal life if “the flesh profits nothing”? “Eating the flesh” meant believing His words. I will prove it.

While I appreciate Prasch's confidence, his "proof" is yet to be seen and I am just as confident that my counter arguments will "disprove" Prasch's conclusions.

We have to read this as a literary unit, as a “gospel”. In John 1 of this same gospel St. John writes that “the Word became flesh” (Jn. 1:14) – the Greek word “sarx”. “Logos” became “sarx”. Jesus is the Word of God incarnate.

I'm really okay with reading John's Gospel in the context of John's Gospel as a whole.  John 1:14 is an excellent connection to John 6, for "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."  This is completely complimentary to the literal reading of John 6 as it exemplifies that God Himself became incarnate, by the Holy Ghost through the Virgin Mary.  Going to other contexts, even by the same writer, does not so easily compliment the Gospel message.

Look at the New Testament, first of all in the book of Revelation 10:10. This Same St. John, the same apostle who wrote this in the Apocalypse, says…

I took the little book out of the angel’s hand and ate it…

Belief equals eating the Word of God; you make it part of yourself. He was the Word incarnate, it becomes incarnate within us, it becomes part of us. He ate the Word.

The little book which, in John's vision, the angel has is not the Gospel, it is not the Word made flesh and back to Word again, it is an eschatological prophecy.  These are not the same context and are not arguing to the same point.  Apples and oranges, Mr. Prasch.  That being said, we DO believe that in partaking of the Eucharist that Christ becomes part of us and dwells within us.  So, there is tangential relation here but it actually would go against Prasch's position.

Let’s look at the book of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel 3…

Then He said to me, “Son of man…

…just as Jesus is called “Son of Man”…

…eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll.

So he ate the Word of God.

And so Ezekiel, like John, eats the scroll.  I fail to see how this helps Prasch's cause.

The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah said the following in 15:16…

Your words were found and I ate them…

The Word becomes flesh. You “eat” the Word by believing it. “He who believes has eternal life”. Jesus says in John 6, the flesh profits nothing. How could it possibly be the key to eternal life? You have three problems; that's what I discovered as a Catholic.

Prophetic vision statements of eating "words" are not the same thing as obeying Jesus' nine-fold command to eat/drink His flesh/blood.  So, how could this possibly be the key to eternal life?  Because Jesus said it is!  Jesus did not just issue the commands and then leave everyone to figure it out for themselves.  No, to those who had faith in Him, did not turn and walk away from Him, He provides the means of fulfilling this command in instituting the Eucharist.

The first problem was on one hand I was being told that the sacrament of the Eucharist was the key to eternal life, but the catechism told me salvation comes by the sacraments of baptism and penance – that’s how sin is taken away. It contradicts itself. Which sacrament saves? Now in fact by reading the Bible I came to realize no sacrament saves – Jesus saves. It's not an ex opere operato ritual called a “sacrament”. The sacraments are emblems; it’s believing in Him through faith and repentance. That is the first problem. How can the Eucharist be the key to eternal life if your own catechism says it’s other sacraments?

All the sacraments are means of grace given to us by Jesus Christ Himself.  They are outward signs, instituted by Christ to give grace (Baltimore Catechism).  The Eucharist is the central sacrament, having other sacraments which also give grace does not detract from that.  If I give you $100 and someone else gives you $50, does that second gift detract or add to the first? 

The second problem: Once more, in the first church council of the book of Acts of the Apostles chapter 15, the apostles, including Peter,outlawed the consumption of blood as a pagan demonic practice. Cannibalism was outlawed as pagan and demonic. Christians were told not to do it. If it is literal blood, you can’t drink it. The apostles were told by the Holy Spirit to forbid its consumption. “The flesh profits nothing”. That’s the second problem.

The actual verse is Acts 15:20, and James while he mentions blood, it actually doesn't "outlaw" this, he is trying to lessen the burden on the Gentile converts and says to "avoid" it.  That, and it is in conjunction with their former pagan practices of invalid marriage, meat from strangled animals and blood.  The Eucharist is not a pagan practice, it is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace.     

The third problem is, again, Jesus was a Jew. This had to be celebrated at Passover in Jerusalem. What He would have said, the Hebrew prayer, would have been, “Za guphe sha ani ashbar b’ad’chem zot asu l’zichroni; ha’cos ha’zot he ha’brit ha’had asch zot asu l’zichroni.” “This is my body I’ve broken for you, this cup is the cup of the new covenant of my blood poured out for you, do it in remembrance of Me.” (Lk. 22:17-20) The apostles and Jesus were Jewish; they understood it would have been a memorial if they understood what it meant at all. Obviously the Sanhedrin and the people they influenced did not. It’s a memorial. “Do this in remembrance of Me”. Consumption of blood was a pagan practice, not a Jewish one.

Actually, back to John 6, the Jews accepted Jesus' words as literal - and they walked away because they could not believe His words.  Jesus did not chase after them and say, "Hold on guys!  That was symbolic language, I was speaking in parables."  No, He did not, and when He spoke in parables, He explained the meaning of the parables to His Apostles - did He explain away the literal meaning here?  No!  He doubled down and said, "Will you also leave?"  No fluffy rationalizations, He meant what He said and the Jews and many of His own disciples "turned and walked with Him no more" (John 6:66-67).  

Now let's look at the "institution narratives" such as in Luke 22:17-20.  Jesus does not say, "This is symbolic of My body, etc." no, He states "This IS My body, etc."  The reality of the Real Presence is confirmed by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11:27-29 makes it crystal clear that partaking in this Eucharist (which he just repeated the consecration narrative in verses 23-26) is partaking in the body and blood of the Lord and to do so unworthily the person eats and drinks judgment upon themselves for not recognizing the body and the blood of our Lord.

That is my question. If your own catechism says salvation comes by baptism and penance, how can it come by the Eucharist? 

You will have to understand that Catholics don't buy into the whole "sola" slogan thing.  Salvation is not by baptism and penance alone, nor is it by the Eucharist alone.  There are seven sacraments, and every Catholic should participate in at least six of them.  

If the flesh profits nothing, how can it be talking about literal flesh, given the fact that the apostles condemned its literal consumption?

There are two subjects in that one sentence so I'll deal with them individually.  First off, "the flesh profits nothing" for it is not intended to be a meal which one takes to fill their belly, in fact Scripture tells us that if you are hungry, you should eat at home so as to not bring judgment upon yourself (1 Cor. 11:34).  

Secondly, that the substance becomes His flesh is not the same as the condemnation of eating the flesh offered to idols.  You're mixing teachings again here. 

The doctrine of transubstantiation was formulated in its present form in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas based on Aristotle’s “philosophy of accidents” which was debunked by modern science, chemistry, and physics.

The doctrine of transubstantiation didn't go by that name until sometime later, but the truth of it was taught by Jesus Christ Himself when He dictated the words of consecration "This IS My body..."  Then we have all the Early Church Fathers (some of whom I will cite) who present the teaching precisely as we believe and accept to this day - it did not wait for St. Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages!  Here's a sampling:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
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 Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the  Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. 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. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
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 [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has 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 nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
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. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…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 to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup 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…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 216 A.D.)
Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word…The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "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! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)

Council of Nicaea (c. 325 A.D.)
It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor the custom permits those who do NOT offer sacrifice to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer the sacrifice… (Canon 18)

St. John Chrysostom (c. 344 - 407 A.D.)
Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the SACRIFICIAL VICTIM WHO IS PLACED THEREON! (Homilies on Romans 8:8)
Christ is present. The One [Christ] who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man who makes the SACRIFICIAL GIFTS BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God, "THIS IS MY BODY," he says. This statement TRANSFORMS the gifts. (Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)

St. Augustine (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)
"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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)
"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)
"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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)
"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

That should suffice for now, and there are many, many more I could quote/cite.  The point is, to say that the teaching of transubstantiation began in the Middle Ages is absolutely false. 

I won't go into that now (modern science, chemistry and physics), but that is my question.

Yes, don't go into the science approach because this isn't about science - it's about faith and trusting in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  He commanded, nine times over in John 6 that we eat His flesh and/or drink His blood or we have "no life" in us.  Later He provided the means of eating His flesh and drinking His blood when He instituted the Eucharist on that first Holy Thursday, the week of His passion, death and resurrection.  Denying our Lord and rationalizing or blaming it on science is no different than what the Atheist or Agnostic does.

If the flesh profits nothing, if Jesus said the key is belief – eating His flesh is believing the Word, if the consumption of blood was outlawed, how can it be what I was told as a Catholic and what you were told? It can't possibly be if you’re not allowed to consume blood and the flesh profits nothing. Please answer my question. I've yet to find a priest who can, maybe you can.

I believe I already have answered your questions (you asked more than one).   The key IS belief, and part of believing would include obeying our Lord and Savior.  He commanded it, so don't try to use rationalizations to get out of accepting Him, Jesus Christ, at His word.  It's time to come home, Jacob.

I have also already done several articles on the topic of John 6 and the Eucharist and I invite you to check those out as well:  http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/search/label/John%206

 

Questions for Catholics Index 

Part Four - The Rock

Part Six - Doctrine of Demons?

John 6 and AOMin.org Revisited

On the aomin.org blog a person who uses the pseudonym of "TurretinFan" (hereafter "TF") posted a blog against the Catholic belief in the Eucharist truly being the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.  Since one has to be registered at aomin.org (and I can see no way to do that there) to post comments, I am posting my reply here.

> TF: Roman Catholics like to try to claim that they are
> just taking Jesus “literally” when they interpret “this
> is my body” to mean that what was in Jesus’ hands was
> not bread but his physical body [FN1].

sw: No, we don't "try" to claim that, we do claim, accept and believe the words of our Lord and Savior.

> TF: Three passages in John help to illustrate the problem
> with that approach: John 4, John 6, and John 7.  In the
> first, Jesus refers metaphorically to living water, in
> the second Jesus refers to himself as food and drink, and
> in the third Jesus offers drink to those who thirst.
>
> In John 4:6-15, Jesus interacts with the Samaritan woman
> at Jacob’s well.  He asks her for water, she objects
> because he’s Jewish, and he responds that she should
> be asking him for water, because the water he offers
> is better than the water from Jacob’s well. She
> misunderstands him as speaking physically, even after
> some further explanation.  She wants to stop the labor
> of drawing water and misunderstands Jesus’ comments
> about “never thirst.”

sw: Certainly there is a spiritual message here, but it is also physical.  Those who will "never thirst" will physically never thirst for the spiritual refreshment in the eternal (a physical reality) drink He will give to them.  Eternal life (or death) is and/or will be a physical reality.

> TF: In John 6:26-71, Jesus interacts with a number of
> “disciples” who want Jesus to repeat the miracle of the
> loaves that’s reported at the beginning of the chapter.
> Jesus explains that the person who believes on him will
> never thirst and whoever comes to him will never hunger,
> calling himself the “bread of life” that “came down from
> heaven.” Jesus insists that the bread he offers is better
> than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness.

sw: The bread, which is His body, IS better than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness!

> TF: Jesus talks about them eating his flesh and drinking
> his blood, but they take him physically and go away in
> disgust.  Jesus explains that the words he speaks are
> spirit and life.

sw: Precisely!  His words ARE "spirit and life" (spiritual and literal)!  Just as the story in John 4 relates, there IS a spiritual side to Jesus' words - but there IS a literal side too!  His words are LIFE, and ETERNAL LIFE (which is a physical reality).  To simply stand on a metaphor is to lose the REALITY of eternal life, which Jesus promises to those who partake in His body and blood.  Later, on Holy/Maundy Thursday, He physically provides them with the spiritual food - which IS His body and IS His blood.  We claim, accept and believe our Lord and Savior's words!  Now, did Jesus call out to them, "Hey wait disciples!  I was only speaking in metaphors, come back and hear the explanation!"???  No, He let them walk away, not because they did not believe Him, but because they DID believe Him and would not claim, accept and believe the words of our Lord and Savior!

> TF: Jesus asks the twelve if they will go away too,

sw: Note, He still doesn't change or explain away the command - rather He further challenges The Twelve.

> TF: but Peter (speaking for the group)

sw: Thank you for recognizing Peter's leadership/spokesperson role.

> TF: says that they will stay with him because they believe
> and know that his words are the words of eternal life.

sw:  Precisely!  And what were those words?  "If do not eat My flesh and drink My blood, then you have NO LIFE in you."  "NO LIFE" is the physical reality of the spiritual truth - their physical eternity will be one of separation from God in death.

> TF: In John 7:37-39, Jesus interacts with those at the
> temple for the feast.  Jesus offers the thirsty people
> water.  John explains to us that Jesus is speaking
> about the Spirit as the “rivers of flowing water.”

sw: And did the Holy Ghost NOT come from Him?  Did this NOT really happen?  Was the REAL descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost NOT a real event?  My friends, "spiritual" does NOT mean "not real!"

> TF: These passages illustrate Jesus’ fondness for using
> food as a metaphor for trust in him.  We approach the
> Lord’s table by faith, coming to Him as represented by
> the bread and cup.  We gain a benefit from this if we do
> so by faith, but not if we do so any other way.  It is
> not the physical elements that provide the benefit we
> receive, it is the Spirit.

sw: We approach His table in TRUE Faith when we claim, accept and believe our Lord and Savior's words!  That which we see/perceive as bread, in reality IS His body!  That which we see/perceive as wine, in reality IS His blood!  He did not command us to participate in a metaphor, no, He commanded we eat His flesh and drink His blood, and then He provides the means to REALLY do just that!  We claim, accept and believe the words of our Lord and Savior.

> TF: Remember what Jesus said about clean/unclean foods:
> (Matthew 15:17)
> Unfortunately, it seems our Roman Catholic friends and
> relatives fail to understand this.  Christ is our
> spiritual food and drink, not our physical nourishment.

sw: The section TF refers to is critical of the pharisees violation of God's Law.  The reference is to the Corban/Korban/Qorban Rule - wherein "the law" allowed for someone to give to the temple that which they should have given in support of their parents and "justify" the crime against their parents because it was given to the temple.  The challenge to Jesus was over the fact that the Apostles did not wash their hands before eating bread, and Jesus said that it was not unwashed hands which corrupts the man - but an unclean heart.

> TF: Isaiah 44:3; Psalm 105:41; Isaiah 48:21; Psalm 78:20;
> 1 Corinthians 10:4
> The blessings we receive in Christ are primarily spiritual
> blessings.  We drink the spiritual drink from the
> spiritual Rock, and that Rock is Christ.  He is our Rock,
> we trust in Him.

sw: Interesting.  While the passages, for the most part, speak of spiritual truth - they also speak to a physical reality.  Psalm 78:20 actually recalls a physical reality in the striking of the rock - and challenges that if He can provide water from a rock, can He not provide flesh for His people?  Interesting that TF would select this passage which argues FOR the Catholic position!

AMDG,
Scott<<<

> TF: Footnote 1: I should add that the Roman Catholic
> position is particularly absurd in that it takes “this
> is my body” as implying that the bread ceases to be
> bread and becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity
> of Jesus.  Likewise, it is claimed that “this is my
> blood” implies exactly the same thing about the
> contents of the cup.  That’s quite far from taking the
> words literally, in which the bread would just be the
> body, and the contents of the cup would just be the blood.

sw: And how does one separate the soul and divinity from the body and the blood?  Oh ye of little faith.

Clearing up Confusion

What is a "Parable"?

Definition: "At its simplest a parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought." (C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom , New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961, p. 5)

We might think that Jesus spoke in parables to make it easier for people to understand his message. According to the Gospels, however, he surprisingly does NOT expect everyone to understand them! This is clearly expressed in Matthew 13:10-17:

10 Then the disciples came and asked him, "Why do you speak to them [the crowds] in parables?"
11 He answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
12 For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
13 The reason I speak to them in parables is that 'seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.' (cf. Isa 6:9-10)

There were many times when His listeners didn’t understand Jesus’ sayings as we can plainly see in this particular parable but also in many instances in the Gospel writings.  And every time they didn’t understand, Jesus explained further to help clarify His message to all or to the Apostles alone.  For example, Jesus makes sure the Apostles understood His parable before moving on to the next when He asked them if they understood the parable of the Net.  He asked: ⁵¹ “Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.  “Yes,” they replied.”

 In instances when they didn’t understand, the Apostles asked Him to elaborate, to explain as we see in Matt 13 verse 36 where the Apostles ask: “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”  He then goes on to explain the parable further.

We can easily show many instances where Jesus spoke in parables in terms that confused His listeners but in every case He either continued to explain Himself until they understood or the Apostles went to Jesus and asked Him to explain His saying further.

This is why we must reject the Protestant argument that Jesus would allow His listeners to turn away from Him simply because they misunderstood His teaching on His Flesh being the Bread of Life in Chapter 6 of John’s Gospel.  That we must eat His flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life was not a parable, metaphor or simply symbolic language because this would mean that  Jesus would have allowed His listeners to turn away from Him on a misunderstanding which would make Him a terrible teacher, something He never did in any other time during His ministry.  It would mean that in this one instance when His listeners didn’t understand would be allowed to leave without a word of explanation to them or His Apostles.  No, Jesus spoke literally when He said that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life.

God Bless
Nathan

Laetare Sunday - Fourth Sunday in Lent

Twice per year the vestments are rose or pink - and Laetare Sunday, the Fourth Sunday in Lent, is one of those dates in the liturgical year (the other is Gaudete Sunday, the Third Sunday in Advent).  It is called this because the Introit begins with:

Lætáre, Ierúsalem: et convéntum fácite, omnes qui dilígitis eam: gaudéte cum lætítia, qui in tristítia fuístis: ut exsultétis, et satiémini ab ubéribus consolatiónis vestræ.

Rejoice, O Jerusalem, and come together, all you who love her: rejoice with joy, you who have been in sorrow: that you may exult, and be filled from the breasts of your consolation.

It is a day of rejoicing, as Lent will soon be drawing to a conclusion in Passion Week, culminating in the resurrection of our Lord on Easter Sunday.

The sermon our priest today shared was truly amazing and I wish to share what I took from it here.  As most who follow here already know, I typically participate in the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass (Traditional Latin Mass) and the readings this week, especially the Gospel really hit home with another family member who has been absent from Mass for many years and came back today.  Now with that introduction one might think I was referring to the Novus Ordo, or Ordinary Rite - for the Gospel there was that of the Prodigal Son!  Well, that TOO is quite an appropriate Gospel for this day of return by our family member!  However, in the Extraordinary Rite the Gospel was John 6:1-15 - the feeding of the 5000.  Several times this week, this family member was meditating on the feeding of the 5000, he had no idea of what the Gospel would be at Mass!  He was having thoughts of how this feeding can be related to his own life and even that of his company.  He shared a time when he checked his bank account and only had $8.00 in it... somehow after deciding to pay the bills he HAD to pay that week, he went back to the account and found it had over $100 in it - AFTER paying all the bills!  Of course he relates that to the twelve baskets full of remnants after Jesus fed the 5000 with only 5 barley loaves and 2 fish.  He had other comparisons too - but again, that he was led to meditate on this passage this week and then find it at Mass moved him to tears on this, his prodigal return.

As I sat there listening to the sermon myself, I too was quite moved and heard an analogy I've not heard before.  The priest began with the discussion of the feeding of the 5000, but then said that this was just a prelude to what followed.  The people, after seeing this miracle sought to make Him king by force, but what did Jesus do?  He turned and fled to the mountains, alone.  

Some stay away from Mass because they claim they "get nothing from it."  To which Fr. Terra said, "If they believe that, then they are just not paying attention!"  The second part of John 6 puts forth the Eucharistic treatise that unless we eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Jesus Christ, we have "no life" in us.  This teaching was difficult for the disciples who grumbled and said, "this is a hard teaching, who can take it?"  Over that teaching, many turned and walked with the Lord no longer.  He repeated the command over and over again - how many times?  The answer is NINE TIMES!   Obviously He meant what He was saying!  We are given the re-presentation of Jesus' Sacrifice on the Cross at EVERY Mass.  

Fr. Terra made it clear, it is not a representation, like a statue or a picture represents our Lord or a Saint, for those are just made of plaster, paint or some other substance.  The Eucharist, on the other hand is a re-presentation of the Cross.  It can be compared to if I were to leave the room, then come back in again, I am present again.  Now the Sacrifice is not offered again - it is made present again.  The Mystery of Faith is that through the Mass THE Sacrifice of Jesus defies space and time and becomes REALLY PRESENT on the altar.  No other church can offer you this!  No other church teaches this!  How can one be in the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ and claim, "I get nothing from it?"  

Then came the comparison I had not heard before. . .  in the first part of John 6, after Jesus had fed the 5000 they had their physical needs met - and they sought to make Him king - and He fled to the mountains, alone.  Too often we see, especially in non-Catholic churches, the attempt to fulfill the physical needs of those there, or the need to be entertained.  They attempt to make Him a worldly king again - and He flees from them.  Where God TRULY is, in His REAL PRESENCE is in the valid sacrifice of the Mass or Divine Liturgy, and NO WHERE ELSE!  Those who seek fulfillment outside the Mass are only filling their personal and physical desires - and not the spiritual.  Seek Him where He IS, and not in the entertainment factor of the preacher or the music or the fancy auditoriums which represent more of a stage show than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Now again, if you really feel you "get nothing from the Mass," then "you're not paying attention!"  There is SO MUCH going on!  As the family member who just returned stated - if you pick up the missal and read even ONE PRAYER and meditate on it - you have come away from the Mass with more than you came in with - not to mention that THE Sacrifice of the Mass is THE Real Presence of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - which is something you not only will not find, but cannot find at any Protestant gathering. 

Scriptural Truth from an Unusual Source

Found this on facebook--Jason Bach Cartoons.  Love it.  He specifically said, "Feel free to share."

St. Augustine on the Sacrament of the Eucharist

Many protestants tell Catholics that the problem with their theology is that they don't believe things as they are plainly written in Scriptures.  However we say we believe exactly what it says in Scripture, including what our Lord Jesus said in John 6; that our Lord meant exactly what He said, as it is said.  I was reminded of this argument after this Sunday's Gospel reading:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."  (John 6:51-58)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXE.HTM

We believe Him and we follow His command to eat His Flesh and drink His blood.  Some protestants also attempt to use out of context quotes from the Church Fathers to try to explain away the Church's 2,000 year old belief in what Jesus actually said.  However, I thought this quote from St. Augustine in the print version of the Compendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church (not in the online version because it is included in commentary to a picture in the print version) makes it quite clear the St. Augustine was in full agreement with the Church believed and still believes on this issue.

"Christ our Lord, who in His suffering offered for us what in His being born He took from us and who has become in eternity the greatest of priests, has commanded that this sacrifice which you see be offered, that is, His Body and Blood.  Indeed, His Body, rent by the lance, poured out water and blood by which He forgave our sins.  Remembering this grace and working out your salvation (which is God then working in you), draw near and become a partaker of this altar with fear and trembling.  See in this bread that very body which hung upon the cross and in this cup that very blood which gushed from His side. 

Even the ancient sacrifices of God's people prefigured in their manifold kinds this unique sacrifice that was to come.  Christ is at the same time the lamb by reason of the innocence of His pure soul and the goat by reason of His flesh which was in the likeness of sinful flesh.  Any other thing which in many and various ways might be prefigured in the sacrifices of the Old Testament points solely to this sacrifice which has been revealed in the New Testament.

      "Take then and eat the Body of Christ since now you have become members of Christ in the body of Christ.  So as not to be cut off, eat that which unites you; so as not to think little of yourself, drink what is the price of your person.  As this food, when you eat and drink of it, is transformed into yourself, so also do you transform yourselves into the body of Christ if you live in obedience and devotion to Him.  He indeed, when His passion was near, celebrated the Passover meal with His disciples.  Taking the bread, He blessed it saying:  This is my body which will be given up for you.  In the same way, after having blessed it, he gave the cup saying:  This is my blood of the new covenant which will be shed for all for the forgiveness of sins.  This you have already read and heard of in the Gospel but you did not know that this Eucharist is the Son Himself.  Now with heart purified in an unstained conscience and with your body bathed in clean water, look to Him and you will be radiant with joy and your faces will not blush with shame."  (Discourse, 228B) --quoted in the Compendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 66

My Flesh Is Meat Indeed

How Many Times Must I Tell You?

In John 6 we often speak of the repeated command of Jesus for us to eat His body and drink His blood - or else we have “no life” in us.  Let us examine the verses...

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.

OK, that one doesn’t issue the command, but I wanted to include it because it contains the promise that the Son of Man will provide us with the meat which does not perish and endures unto everlasting life.

ONE

32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.

34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.

35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

TWO

48 I am the bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

THREE

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

FOUR

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

FIVE

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

SIX

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

SEVEN

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

EIGHT

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

NINE

59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

So NINE TIMES does Jesus insist upon us eating His body and/or drinking His blood.  It doesn’t get much clearer here nor insistent that He was not speaking allegorically.  No, He repeated it, over and over again because He meant it!

There are those who argue that the Catholic teaching on this is cannibalism, and who can abide by such a teaching?  The context of the above verses indicates the Jews and even Jesus’ own disciples were thinking along the same lines:

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

Did Jesus call them back and say, “Wait guys, I was only speaking in symbolism here - you don’t REALLY have to eat my flesh!”  No, He let them walk away precisely because they DID understand Him correctly and they had NO FAITH to accept His teaching and BELIEVE IN HIM that HE WOULD PROVIDE as He promised in verse 27.  Not only did He not call back those who left in disbelief, He challenged the Twelve to leave as well:

68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

The spokesman/coryphaeus of the Apostles stood up and said:

69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

To my dear Protestant family, friends, associates and acquaintances, and also to my Catholic family, friends, etc. who while still claiming to be “Catholic” avoid the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist...

I am not accusing you of “walking away” (unless you’re one who has left the Catholic faith), for most of you were, like me prior to my epiphany, born into the community you worship in.  You haven’t “walked away” - but someone in your family did.  Prior to the 16th century, just about everyone in Western Europe who called themselves “Christian” was a Catholic (with very few exceptions and nothing large-scale).  Prior to 1054ad it didn’t matter if we were Western or Eastern, our ancestors were united as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  So, if your heritage is Christian, you have Catholic roots.  Some of you may have become a Christian from a non-Christian background, but you were only given part of the truth by those who have helped you so far on your journey of faith.  Yes, Protestantism has a measure of truth to it - but they also reject some very fundamental truths, one of which we are discussing in this article.  While you personally may not be one who has “walked away” - you’re part of a group which has, at some point, done so.

Have faith!  Believe FULLY in His Word and TRUST Him that He not only could do what He promised, but that He DID do as He promised and provided us with the means to eat His body and drink His blood.  That all started with the first celebration of the Mass when Jesus took the partaking in bread and wine from the Jewish Passover Seder and made it the Christian celebration of the Eucharist.  He Himself declared, “This is My body” and “This is My blood...” and those who have faith BELIEVE Him!  Those who have faith do not attempt to rationalize their way around that which He commanded no less than NINE TIMES in John 6 nor what He declared at the celebration of the Eucharist (Matt. 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20; Mark 14:22-24 and 1 Cor. 11:24).  It is through this celebration of the Eucharist where we are given the means to fulfill that which He commanded in John 6!  Those who had faith and stayed with Him were able to receive that gift.

Those who left may appreciate MOST of what Jesus said and taught, but they fall short on this very critical mark!  To not believe in Him enough to stay with Him means they missed out on the true gift of the Bread of Life which comes down from Heaven!  Jesus Christ Himself IS that Bread of Life which comes down from Heaven.  He did not ask us to symbolically partake in His body and blood, no!  He said His flesh is real meat and His blood is real drink! (v. 56).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) puts it this way:

1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.²³¹ By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him:

Since Christ died for us out of love, when we celebrate the memorial of his death at the moment of sacrifice we ask that love may be granted to us by the coming of the Holy Spirit. We humbly pray that in the strength of this love by which Christ willed to die for us, we, by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, may be able to consider the world as crucified for us, and to be ourselves as crucified to the world. . . . Having received the gift of love, let us die to sin and live for God.²³²

1395 By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. The more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.
1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body.²³³ The Eucharist fulfills this call: "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? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:"²³⁴

If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are you respond "Amen" ("yes, it is true!") and by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words, "the Body of Christ" and respond "Amen." Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true.²³⁵ 

So then, it remains my prayer that our separated brethren return to the fold where true reformation took place - that we may be one.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
====================================
Footnotes from the CCC:
231 Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1638.
232 St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, Contra Fab. 28,16-19: CCL 19A,813-814.
233 Cf. 1 Cor 12:13.
234 1 Cor 10:16-17.
235 St. Augustine, Sermo 272:PL 38,1247.