Ectopic Pregnancy Abortion Morality

Ectopic Pregnancy Abortion Morality

Recently in CDF we had a discussion regarding the morality of NFP v. Contraception and that led to a discussion on the morality of abortion, the participant, "Joe," stated he opposed abortion in all cases except in cases where the woman would die - like an ectopic pregnancy. Straying from the topic a bit, but bear with me for a moment... Joe stood in opposition to NFP because he feels (felt?) that it was inconsistent to oppose artificial birth control (ABC) methods of contraception, but Natural Family Planning (NFP) was somehow OK. Joe's stance was very black/white - no "gray" area." Well, then in the process of that debate Joe said he opposed all abortion except in cases where the woman would die. Oops! Joe's morality just allowed for a "gray" area! Well, sort of. In reality ANY "abortion" at ANY time is immoral. If Joe's morality were to be consistent between his stance on NFP and ectopic pregnancy - he would have to say that even in the case of ectopic pregnancy, let nature take its course. However, the Church has taught (see below) that if one is treating the "diseased tissue" (the fallopian tube) which if left alone will burst - killing both the mother and the baby - then a salpingectomy (see explanation below) is permissible. Why? Because the intent is not to abort the fetus, but to treat the diseased tissue which will end up killing both mother and baby if left in place. The intent is not abortion, rather it is to perform a medically necessary surgery to save the mother's life. In this case it is not an abortion and should not be referred to as one. Sometimes drugs are used to kill the wrongly placed fetus and an abortion then follows - this is immoral and not allowed under any circumstances.

Below is some research I did while in this discussion and I wanted to preserve it for future reference - hence this blog entry.

==================================================
From CUF:

Ectopic for Discussion: A Catholic Approach to Tubal Pregnancies

ISSUE: What is an ectopic, or “tubal,” pregnancy? What moral principles must be taken into account in treating a tubal pregnancy? What alternatives are available that respect both the mother’s life as well as the life of her unborn child?

RESPONSE: A woman’s egg or ovum descends from an ovary through the fallopian tube to the uterus. While on this path, the egg is fertilized and naturally continues this descent and implants in the uterus. Sometimes, however, the egg is impeded in its progress and instead implants somewhere along the way. This is called an ectopic pregnancy. “Ectopic” means “out of place.” Ectopic pregnancies are often called “tubal” pregnancies because over 95 percent occur in the fallopian tubes. (fertilized eggs can also implant in the abdomen, ovaries, or within the cervix).

A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube. While the doctor would opt for the least risk and expense to the mother, all the options presented to her involve terminating the pregnancy. The mother, however, must respect both her life and that of her child.

There is no treatment available that can guarantee the life of both. The Church has moral principles that can be applied in ruling out some options, but she has not officially instructed the faithful as to which treatments are morally licit and which are illicit. Most reputable moral theologians, as discussed below, accept full or partial salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube), as a morally acceptable medical intervention in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

As is the case with all difficult moral decisions, the couple must become informed, actively seek divine guidance, and follow their well-formed conscience.

http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

==============================================

What If Both Lives Cannot Be Saved?

Q: If a woman has an untreated ectopic pregnancy, she and the baby will both die. That is inevitable. In this situation, is it permissible to have an abortion? The fetus cannot come to full term and will inevitably kill them both.

A: An ectopic pregnancy is one where a zygote implants out of place, usually in one of the fallopian tubes. By definition, an ectopic pregnancy is a pathological condition because a fetus cannot grow to full term there. Catholic moral theology has taught that the pathological section of a fallopian tube can be removed.

Catholic moral theologians speak of the principle of double effect. In this case, the primary goal is to remove the pathology that threatens a mother’s life. A growing fetus implanted in a fallopian tube will eventually rupture the tube, killing the mother and itself.

Removing that section of the tube has the secondary effect of ending the life of the fetus—a necessary but clearly regrettable action. This would not be a direct abortion, which is forbidden.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr2008/Wiseman.asp#F3

====================================================

Does the Church approve of surgery for an ectopic pregnancy?

It is never permitted to directly kill an infant (or any other person for that matter, with the exception of self defense, just war and capital punishment), and so consequently, it is immoral to perform an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, even to save the life of the mother. This is immoral, whether it is done surgically or chemically. There are now available medications (such as methotrexate, or just recently RU-486) that are commonly used for tubular pregnancies, and that directly cause the living fetus to be aborted. This is always immoral.

However, if it can be established that the fetus is already dead (by ultrasound examination, for example), then clearly the surgical removal of the already dead fetus for the health of the mother is entirely permissible.

The difficulty arises when the fetus is still alive. The mother’s life is endangered through internal hemorrhage at that time. The moral theologians hold different opinions as to whether it is permissible to intervene surgically to remove the ectopic pregnancy before the death of the foetus. Some say that surgical intervention directly kills the foetus, which is immoral. Others say that it is not direct killing at all, but it is the removing of a mass of tissue (including the placenta) which has fixed itself in the wrong place (the fallopian tube instead of the uterus), in such a way as to cause a tumor invading the mother’s fallopian tube, rather like a malignant tumor. Just as it is possible to operate on a tumor of the mother, (e.g., in treatment of uterine cancer) even if as a consequence and indirectly the child will die, so also it is moral, they say, to surgically remove this abnormal mass of tissue, which contains the fetus. It is an indirect and unfortunate, though necessary, consequence that the fetus will die, but this is not willed in itself.

The principle used in this second opinion is the application of the principle of double effect, or the indirect voluntary. This is moral, provided that the bad effect, in this case the death of the unborn child is not directly willed in itself, and that there is a proportionate reason (such as saving the life of the mother), and that the good effect, namely saving the mother’s life does not directly come from the bad effect, the death of the child. The understanding of this solution depends upon the grasping of the gravity of the proportionate reason. The fetus that lodges in the fallopian tube cannot survive in any case, and if the mother is not treated she may very well hemorrhage to death, or be observed in hospital for several weeks, and her fallopian tubes can be so damaged by the ectopic pregnancy left untreated that she might never be able to conceive again.

Since there are opinions on both sides of this question, both can be safely followed in conscience. Consequently, it is permissible to have surgery, provided that it is not a direct abortion, but the removal of invasive tissue, but it is never permissible to take medications to kill the live fetus.
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm

PreChristian Greek Canon

Some discussion has come up regarding the Jews having both a Hebrew text of Scripture and a Greek text - which was different in content as well as language. Many non-Catholics side with the Jews of the Christian era, who decided their "canon" sometime after Christianity was already on the scene. In a discussion I was having on CDF I was challenged to demonstrate the pre-Christian existence of a Greek canon - I maintain(ed) that the LXX (or Septuagint) existed centuries before Christ and that Jews used both canons prior to the dawn of Christianity. Especially when the LXX pointed more precisely to the Messiah, and Jesus as the Messiah coupled with the fact that Christianity, primarily Greek speaking adopted it; the Jews then rejected the LXX in favor of the Hebrew text or "Palestinian Canon," as many refer to it today. Below are some articles which support what I have been saying all along.

Pre-Christian Greek Canon

F.F. Bruce writes in his classic The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? As follows:
“Indeed, so much did they make the Septuagint their own that, although it was originally a translation of the Hebrew into Greek for Greek-speaking Jews before the time of Christ, the Jews left the LXX to the Christians…” (pg. 26)
(Qtd. on: http://www.nicenetruth.com/2008/01/more-facts-on-the-canon-of-scripture-and-tradition.html )

The Role of the Septuagint in the New Testament

The role of the LXX in the New Testament and the early Church is a crucial help in understanding what Paul might have meant by "all Scripture." As previously mentioned, this is the version most often quoted in the New Testament. And in some cases the claims of the New Testament theologically depend on the peculiarities of the LXX.
For instance, Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6 as a messianic prophecy:

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me."

The author has directly quoted from the LXX Psalter. A quick turn to our modern Bibles will confirm that the Hebrew text reads:

Sacrifice and meal offering Thou hast not desired; My ears Thou hast opened.

If we follow this latter reading, the author of Hebrews has not only misquoted the passage, but has made it an important plank of his argument. Only the rendering of the LXX justifies this as a Messianic passage. Did the author of Hebrews get it wrong? Was it an inspired mistake?
In Acts 7:14 St. Stephen relates the story of the Israelite nation and refers to 75 people who traveled from Canaan to Egypt in the emigration of Jacob's family. This is not what Genesis 46 states in our Bibles, where it catalogues 70 sojourners. But the LXX lists 75 people, confirming St. Stephen's account, with the differences accounted for by the grand- and great-grandchildren of Joseph (Gen 46:20-22).
Most importantly, it is only in the LXX that Isaiah's prophecy of the Virgin Birth makes its bold appearance (Is 7:14). The Hebrew text uses the word "woman" ("marah") instead of "virgin" ("parthenos"). In their earliest confrontations with Christians, the Jews objected most strongly to this verse being used to support of Jesus' Messiahship. The Jews claimed that Isaiah was prophesying of King Hezekiah and he knew nothing of a miraculous virgin birth. The Septuagint, they said, had been tampered with. The early Christians responded by claiming that it was not they, but the Jews who had cut passages out of the Hebrew text out of envy. (Justin Martyr, Trypho, 71-73)

(Qtd. on: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/otcanon.aspx )

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho

Chapter 71. The Jews reject the interpretation of the Septuagint, from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages

Justin: But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.

(Qtd. on: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm )

Chapter 72. Passages have been removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah

Justin: I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' Jeremiah 11:19 And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'

(ibid.)

Chapter 73. [The words] From the wood have been cut out of Psalm 96

Justin: And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: 'From the wood.' For when the passage said, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood,' they have left, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned.' Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: 'Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O you countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him: tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned. For He has established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fullness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.'

Trypho: Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.

Justin: Assuredly, it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward.

(ibid.)

Allegro - The Dead Sea Scrolls

John Allegro in The Dead Sea Scrolls documents that when the LXX and Mt contradict, the LXX most often agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). (Allegro 59-83). He presents a long chart comparing readings from 1Sam. demonstrating that the text of books other than the first five existed long befroe the MT existed (about 1000 years before). Allegro also documents that most of the time when there is disagreement between LXX and MT the LXX most often agrees with the DSS and DSS with LXX over the MT. A latter article also demonstrates that this same agreement holds for Jeremiah. The DSS contain the longer reading for Jeremiah demonstrating significant support for the LXX.

He also documents (63) that Origen's work was that of a compulation of a text placing several existing Greek translations of the OT side by side, he used a pre-existing LXX, this is merely what any good translator does in preparing a new translation. A new one was needed because the Jews abandoned the LXX and commissioned their own (Aquilla's) because the Church had come to use the LXX as it's Bible, and they wanted to get away form the Christian's Messianic reading. Origen did not produce the translation of the LXX prophetic books, it already existed. Moreover, it can be shown to have existed in the first century. Clement of Rome (1 Clement) quotes Isaiah 53 in AD 95, and most of the quotations of the OT in the Gospels come from the LXX.

"That the LXX existed before the time of Christ is borne out not only by the fact of agreement with the DSS but in other works as well. A. Vander Heeren states "It is certain that the law, the prophets and at lest part of the other books...existed in Greek before 135 BC, as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus which does not date latter than that year"
(Qtd. on: http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html )

What about the LXX during the time of Christ and the apostles?

Professor Howard explains:
"Since the (Tetragrammaton) was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which
made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the
N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the (Tetragrammaton)
within the biblical text. On the analogy of pre-Christian Jewish practice we can
imagine that the NT text incorporated the (Tetragrammaton) into its OT quotations."

"Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates
[substitutes for God's name] must have crowded out the (Tetragrammaton) in both
Testaments. Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church
altogether except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or
occasionally remembered by scholars."

Here are the instances in Deuteronomy where the divine name occurs in the Fouad
266 papyri:
LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in
square Hebrew characters (YHWH) in the following places: De 18:5, 5, 7, 15, 16;
De 19:8, 14; De 20:4, 13, 18; De 21:1, 8; De 23:5; De 24:4, 9; De 25:15, 16; De
26:2, 7, 8, 14; De 27:2, 3, 7, 10, 15; De 28:1, 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 61, 62, 64, 65;
De 29:4, 10, 20, 29; De 30:9, 20; De 31:3, 26, 27, 29; De 32:3, 6, 19.
Therefore, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs 49 times in identified
places in Deuteronomy. In addition, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs
three times in unidentified fragments, namely, in fragments 116, 117 and 123.
This papyrus, found in Egypt, was dated to the first century B.C.E.
(Qtd. on: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-03/12555.html )

Do the Hebrew Scriptures Say that a Virgin will Give Birth?

It appears from the early Jewish argument here that the question is
not whether the LXX had the term "parthenos" (virgin) but whether it
was an accurate translation. That is, the Jews were not accusing the
Christians of creating a corrupted text but rather the text already in
use by the Jews was inaccurate. The use of parthnos in Matthew 1:23 is
clearly a quote from this pre-Christian era LXX in which parthenos was
used.
(Qtd. on: http://paracleteforum.org/archive/email/bible/virgin2/dialogue.html)

Other good articles I would encourage you to read:

Good Question

Pre-Christian Jews Widely Embraced a Messianic Expectation that Varied from Time and Place

A History of Biblical Interpretation: The ancient period

Ember Days

Ember days (corruption from Lat. Quatuor Tempora, four times) are the days at the beginning of the seasons ordered by the Church as days of fast and abstinence. They were definitely arranged and prescribed for the entire Church by Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) for the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after 13 December (S. Lucia), after Ash Wednesday, after Whitsunday, and after 14 September (Exaltation of the Cross). The purpose of their introduction, besides the general one intended by all prayer and fasting, was to thank God for the gifts of nature, to teach men to make use of them in moderation, and to assist the needy. The immediate occasion was the practice of the heathens of Rome. The Romans were originally given to agriculture, and their native gods belonged to the same class. At the beginning of the time for seeding and harvesting religious ceremonies were performed to implore the help of their deities: in June for a bountiful harvest, in September for a rich vintage, and in December for the seeding; hence their feriae sementivae, feriae messis, and feri vindimiales. The Church, when converting heathen nations, has always tried to sanctify any practices which could be utilized for a good purpose. At first the Church in Rome had fasts in June, September, and December; the exact days were not fixed but were announced by the priests. The "Liber Pontificalis" ascribes to Pope Callistus (217-222) a law ordering: the fast, but probably it is older. Leo the Great (440-461) considers it an Apostolic institution. When the fourth season was added cannot be ascertained, but Gelasius (492-496) speaks of all four. This pope also permitted the conferring of priesthood and deaconship on the Saturdays of ember week--these were formerly given only at Easter. Before Gelasius the ember days were known only in Rome, but after his time their observance spread. They were brought into England by St. Augustine; into Gaul and Germany by the Carlovingians. Spain adopted them with the Roman Liturgy in the eleventh century. They were introduced by St. Charles Borromeo into Milan. The Eastern Church does not know them. The present Roman Missal, in the formulary for the Ember days, retains in part the old practice of lessons from Scripture in addition to the ordinary two: for the Wednesdays three, for the Saturdays six, and seven for the Saturday in December. Some of these lessons contain promises of a bountiful harvest for those that serve God.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05399b.htm

For some good information on the Autumn Ember Days, see the FishEaters page.

The Origin of the Word:

The origin of the word "ember" in "Ember Days" is not obvious, not even to those who know Latin. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "Ember" is a corruption (or we might say, a contraction) of the Latin phrase Quatuor Tempora, which simply means "four times," since the Ember Days are celebrated four times per year.

Optional Today:

With the revision of the liturgical calendar in 1969, the Vatican left the celebration of Ember Days up to the discretion of each national conference of bishops. They're commonly celebrated in Europe, particularly in rural areas.

In the United States, the bishops' conference has decided not to celebrate them, but individual Catholics can and many traditional Catholics still do, because it's a nice way to focus our minds on the changing of the liturgical seasons and the seasons of the year. The Ember Days that fall during Lent and Advent are especially useful to remind children of the reasons for those seasons.

Fasting and Abstinence:

The Ember Days are celebrated with fasting (no food between meals) and half-abstinence, meaning that meat is allowed at one meal per day. (If you observe the traditional Friday abstinence from meat, then you would observe complete abstinence on an Ember Friday.)

As always, such fasting and abstinence has a greater purpose. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, through these activities, and through prayer, we use the Ember Days to "thank God for the gifts of nature, . . . teach men to make use of them in moderation, and . . . assist the needy."
http://catholicism.about.com/od/holydaysandholidays/p/Ember_Days.htm

Deuterocanonical Books in the New Testament

A list compiled by Dave Armstrong:

 Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents. 

 Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure. 

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others. 

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation. 

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd. 

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth. 

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books. 

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13. Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers. 

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17. 

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28. 

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18. 

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15. 

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17. 

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18. 

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14. 

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9. 

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37. 

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18. 

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26. 

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1. 

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29. 

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8. 

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16. John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21. 

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59. John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36. 

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off. 

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve. 

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12. 

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10. 

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10. 

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1. 

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8. 

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27. 

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19. 

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24. 

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7. 

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13. 

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30. 

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3. 

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7. 

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7. 

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45. 

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7. 

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8. Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20. 

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4. 

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16. 

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15. 

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah. 

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42. 

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23. 

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11. 

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17. 

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11. 

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20. 

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5. 

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds. 

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6. 

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One. 

 Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13. 

 Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16. 

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8. 

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15. 

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29. 

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9. 

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7. 

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4. 

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18. 

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8. 

 Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4. 

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17. 

And some OT references: Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person. 

1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20. 

 2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9. 

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mass Ad Orientem

Bishop of Tulsa Abandons
“Mass Facing the People”
Bishop Slattery on Mass Ad Orientem

By John Vennari
The September 2009 issue of Eastern Oklahoma Catholic featured a brief article by Bishop Edward J. Slattery, Ordinary of the Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Bishop explains why he has ceased the practice of Mass facing the people, and now celebrates Mass facing the altar (ad orientem).

Though the article does not specify whether the Bishop will celebrate Old Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo ad orientem, it is said Bishop Slattery is well disposed toward the Tridentine Mass. The fact that a United States Bishop displays a clear understanding of why Mass should be celebrated ad orientem is one of the few rays of hope in the Church in America. His words deserve to be widely known.

Bishop Slattery opens by explaining the Mass as “Christ’s sacrifice under the sacramental signs of bread and wine”, and goes on to explain that the people share in this offering, which is done through the priest.

“From ancient times, the position of the priest and the people reflected this understanding of the Mass,” writes Bishop Slattery, “since the people prayed, standing or kneeling, in the place that visibly corresponded to Our Lord’s Body, while the priest at the altar stood at the head as the Head, We formed the whole Christ – Head and members – both sacramentally by Baptism and visibly by our position and posture. Just as importantly, everyone – celebrant and congregation – faced the same direction, since they were united with Christ in offering to the Father Christ’s unique, unrepeatable and acceptable sacrifice.”

He points out that when we study the most ancient liturgical practices of the Church, “we find that the priest and the people faced in the same direction, toward the east, in the expectation that when Christ returns, He will return ‘from the East’. At Mass, the Church keeps vigil, waiting for that return. This single position is called ad orientem, which simply means ‘toward the East’.”
He then speaks of the multiple advantages of Mass ad orientem:

The Bishop says, “Having the priest and people celebrate Mass ad orientem was the liturgical norm for nearly 18 centuries. There must have been solid reasons for the Church to have held on to this posture for so long. And there were! First of all, the Catholic liturgy has always maintained a marvelous adherence to the Apostolic Tradition. We see the Mass, indeed the whole liturgical expression of the Church’s life, as something which we have received from the Apostles and which we, in turn, are expected to hand on intact. (1 Corinthians 11:23).”
Secondly, the Bishop continues, “the Church held on to this single eastward position because of the sublime way it reveals the nature of the Mass. Even someone unfamiliar with the Mass who reflected upon the celebrant and the faithful being oriented in the same direction would recognize that the priest stands at the head of the people, sharing in one and the same action, which was – he would note with a moment’s longer reflection – an act of worship.”
He then makes the point: “In the last 40 years, however, this shared orientation was lost; now the priest and the people have become accustomed to facing in opposite directions. The priest faces the people while the people face the priest, even though the Eucharistic Prayer is directed to the Father and not to the people.”

Bishop Slattery never refers to Mass facing the people as some sort of recovery of an ancient tradition, but clearly speaks of it as an “innovation” that took place after Vatican II – an innovation with negative consequences.

The introduction of this novelty, he says, was ”partly to help the people understand the liturgical action of the Mass by allowing them to see what was going on, and partly as an accommodation to contemporary culture where people who exercise authority are expected to face directly the people they serve, like a teacher sitting behind her desk.”

He then sums up in three quick points the negative consequences of this innovation: “First of all, it was a serious rupture with the Church’s ancient tradition. Secondly, it can give the appearance that the priest and the people were engaged in a conversation about God, rather than the worship of God. Thirdly, it places an inordinate importance on the personality of the celebrant by placing him on a kind of liturgical stage.”

The Bishop goes on to note that Pope Benedict, even as Cardinal Ratzinger, urged a recovery of more authentic Catholic worship based on the ancient liturgical practice, “For that reason,” says Bishop Slattery, “I have restored the venerable ad orientem position when I celebrate Mass at the Cathedral. This change ought not to be misconstrued as the Bishop ‘turning his back on the faithful,’ as if I am being inconsiderate or hostile. Such an interpretation misses the point that, by facing in the same direction, the posture of the celebrant and the congregation make explicit the fact that we journey together to God.”

We may hope the Bishop’s words and example help to lead not simply to a “ reform of the reform” of the Novus Ordo, but ultimately to greater numbers of priests abandoning the New Rite, and celebrating exclusively the Latin Tridentine Mass. May more priests and prelates come to realize what Cardinal Ottaviani recognized, and what he wrote to Pope Paul VI on September 25, 1969: “The Novus Ordo Missae … represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”

Original article may be found on John's website:
http://www.cfnews.org/slattery.htm

PDF of Bishop's Slattery's article at:
http://dioceseoftulsa.org/eoc/eoc200909.pdf

Is True Faith Really Alone?

Sola Fide?

Faith Alone – Is It Really “Alone?”

An Article By:

Scott Windsor

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com

One of the mainstays of Protestantism is the concept of “sola fide.” Two very straight-forward words which translated mean “faith alone.” The stand, foundationally started with Martin Luther, is in opposition to the Church's position that true “saving faith” is never alone. True “saving faith” is always accompanied by good works, the first and foremost of these works is believing. Believing in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is the foundational work of faith in our lives. That is the Catholic position. Now what Protestant really disagrees with this position? I am not aware of any, yet they have this “doctrine” of “sola fide!”

A reader (who goes by the nickname of "TQuid" on IRC) of this article asked me to change the statement about Luther above. He said:

a correction- “Faith,” wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith(.")

This quote from Luther only serves to prove my point though. It cannot be denied that Luther espoused and headed up the "fight" for sola fide, yet this quote (which TQuid cited only a secondary source to a secondary source, not giving the primary source of the quote) contradicts the "sola" of "sola fide." In fact, this statement would be acceptable to the Catholic. We agree that works do not save, especially not works alone; likewise, faith, if it be alone, does not save. Faith accompanied by works is a "saving faith." As I stated above, I am not aware of any Protestant who, deep down, disagrees with the Catholic position on this, yet we still see "sola fide" as a "battle cry" of apologetics for Protestants. The problem is, it just doesn't add up.

So as to not misrepresent the Protestant position, let's present some Protestant definitions of “sola fide:”

James White:

Sola Fide – faith alone, that is, saving faith, resting solely in the perfection of the work of Jesus Christ in my stead. That is my hope. That is the Good News. Not justification by baptism, then rejustification after committing a mortal sin by sacramental forgiveness, penances, and satisfactions. No merit from good works done in a state of grace so as to receive eternal life.

No, justification is by faith alone, so that it can be by grace alone. That is the Gospel. (White, 151, The Roman Catholic Controversy).

R.C. Sproul:

“justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith that is alone.” (Sproul, 26, Faith Alone).

J.I. Packer:

It was this conflict with the medieval message that occasioned the fivefold "only" in the slogans quoted above. Salvation, said the Reformers, is by faith (man's total trust) only, without our being obliged to work for it; it is by grace (God's free favor) only, without our having to earn or deserve it first; it is by Christ the God-man only, without there being need or room for any other mediatoral agent, whether priest, saint, or virgin; it is by Scripture only, without regard to such unbiblical and unfounded extras as the doctrines of purgatory and of pilgrimages, the relic-cult and papal indulgences as devices for shortening one's stay there; and praise for salvation is due to God only, without any credit for his acceptance of us being taken to ourselves. (http://www.the-highway.com/Justification_Packer.html)

And we cannot forget Martin Luther on the subject of justification by faith:

“articulus stands aut cadentis ecclesiae” – the point on whether the Church stands or falls. (qtd on: http://www.the-highway.com/Justification_Packer.html)

So there we have it in a nutshell, this is the doctrine which makes or breaks the Church, in the eyes of Protestants. One thing that I find a bit interesting with virtually every argument I've seen on the subject of “sola fide” is that it is NEVER alone! We even find apologists arguing for FIVE SOLAS! The term “sola” flies in the face of those boast to have FIVE of them! If it's truly “sola,” then why do they have five?! Sproul sums up most, if not all, Protestant arguments quite succinctly in stating that though “justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith that is alone.” What I find even more ironic is that few, if any, Protestants see the double-speak of that statement! Is it “alone” or not? If it is by faith alone, then nothing – and we must insist that nothing – stands next to it for justification. But what does Sproul say? “It is not by a faith that is alone.” All in one breath Sproul both affirms and denies “sola” in “sola fide.” More importantly that what Sproul says, what does Scripture say? James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James goes on to say “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26).

Now many Protestant apologists with whom I've debated in the past will try to explain that justification truly is by faith alone, and then join Sproul's double-speak stating it is not a faith that is alone. One recent challenger, known only as “Chris,” tried to explain it by analogy stating:

I was walking along the bridge with my wife when suddenly I saw a man lose his footing. I grabbed his arm and stopped him sliding off. Later he circulated the story "I was saved by Chris alone, however he was not a man who was alone, his wife was there too."
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/message/8276)

The obvious flaw to Chris' analogy is that even though his wife is there with him, she does nothing to save the falling man. Now THAT is Chris' point, right? Yet, where the point fails is when we compare that to faith, or more specifically a “saving faith” we see that “works” are what are “next to” the “saving faith.” Chris has equated his wife to “works” in his analogy, yet in “saving faith” the works are what make “saving faith” a “living faith,” for “faith without works is dead!” To make Chris' analogy complete, if his wife is not there with him, then Chris would be DEAD! If Chris were “dead” then he would not have the capacity to “grab” the falling man's arm and “save” him. Chris' analogy is “fatally flawed.”

From the same forum (the Catholic Debate Forum on Yahoogroups) where Chris makes his argument, I also received this challenge from one, for the sake of this article, I will refer to as “Dr. Jim.” The challenge from Dr. Jim is this:

Tell you what -- find one verse from Paul that says we are
justified by faith AND works and we'll have something.

That's your challenge.

Ready? GO
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/message/8258)

(1Ti 4:16) Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.

Hmmm, the word “justification” is not there, but St. Paul is telling Timothy if he “persevere(s) in these things” that he “will ensure salvation...” Clearly we see that St. Paul is telling Timothy that he must DO something or “work” to ensure his salvation.

To the Thessalonians St. Paul said:

2Th 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater;

2Th 1:4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure.

St. Paul here (and several other places, see below) includes the act or work of “perseverance” with faith and encouragement to “endure.”

Back to the subject of analogies, Jesus Himself uses a parable of the sower, with the seeds being the Word of God, and the ultimate teaching is that those who honestly, with a good heart, do the “work” of holding it, the Word of God, and bearing fruit with it in perseverance. What is the subject of this parable? The subject is the “kingdom of heaven!” (see Luke 8:1, 11-15).

But “Dr. Jim's” challenge was that I show St. Paul using “justified” in combination with “works,” so let's look at Romans 2:

Rom 2:13 “for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”

So, you must be a “doer” or one who “works” to be justified!

The case against “sola fide” is so strong, it seems silly that Protestants still attempt to defend the doctrine. Clearly Luther overstated his case in making sola fide the point on which the (Protestant) Church stands or falls, for certainly one who reads the Scriptures objectively can see that saving faith is NEVER alone (James 2) and that throughout the New Testament we're taught perseverance, endurance, and constantly reminded about what we must “do” for our salvation (justification is the process of making one “just” or “right” in the sight of God, which is necessary and a process in which the “end” is either salvation or condemnation).

A point which I have not yet mentioned in this article, but no article in opposition to “sola fide” is complete without is the fact that the ONLY place in ALL of Scripture where “faith” and “alone” are used together is in James 2:24, and that is in NEGATION of the concept of “sola fide.” I will close this article quoting that verse, then follow with many others which mention things we must “DO” in the process of salvation.

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Scriptural references showing that we are expected to DO something:

Verses which mention we must “persevere” or “perseverance:”

Luk 8:15 "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.

Rom 2:7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

Rom 5:3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance;

Rom 5:4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope;

Rom 5:5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Rom 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

Rom 15:4 For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Rom 15:5 Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus,

Rom 15:6 so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2Co 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.

Eph 6:18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,

Eph 6:19 and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,

Eph 6:20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

2Th 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater;

2Th 1:4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure.

1Ti 6:11 But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness.

(2Ti 3:10) Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,

(2Ti 3:11) persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!

(1Ti 4:16) Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.

(Tit 2:2) Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance.

(2Pe 1:5) Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,

(2Pe 1:6) and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,

(2Pe 1:7) and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.

(Rev 1:9) I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

(Rev 2:2) 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

(Rev 2:3) and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary.

(Rev 2:19) 'I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first.

(Rev 3:10) 'Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

(Rev 13:10) If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.

(Rev 14:12) Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

What must we DO to be saved?

Act 16:29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,

Act 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Luk 8:11 "Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.

Luk 8:12 "Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

Luk 8:13 "Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.

Luk 8:14 "The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity.

Luk 8:15 "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.

Friendly Letter On Eucharist

A Friendly Letter on the Eucharist

By Scott Windsor

Why am I doing this? Well, one of my sons asked about how to respond when non-Catholics refer to the Eucharist as a “cracker.” He did not want to offend or fight with the non-Catholic, but wanted to know how to answer this person. Being born and raised in a Protestant home as I was, I told my son that we need to be understanding of the Protestant mindset. Protestants are taught that the Eucharist is bread and wine, and that’s it. The ceremony surrounding “Holy Communion” for Protestants is the memorial which Jesus commanded we participate in, and since it is purely a memorial, no priests are involved and, in fact, Protestants encourage one another to celebrate Holy Communion in their own homes or in groups of family and/or friends. I recall one day preparing to have Holy Communion with Paul and Jan Crouch of TBN, I had it all laid out on my living room coffee table and went through “the narrative” with Paul Crouch (who was “leading” it for all those following along on television). I also remember the “Confirmation Camp” I attended shortly after being confirmed in the Lutheran faith, where our “leaders” passed out bread and wine and we, the youth, repeated “the narrative” ceremony then amongst ourselves we distributed the “Holy Communion.” Both of these events were emotionally stirring and motivational to me, as a Christian. It seems a lot of Protestantism is based in feelings and emotional responses - but this is something I did not see as a Protestant - and can now see, looking back objectively.

Before we get much into who “celebrates” Holy Communion – we need to discuss what exactly the Eucharist is. What are the foundational scriptural teachings for the Eucharist? Let us start with John 6.

John 6

John 6 opens with a very grand and literal miracle – the feeding of the five thousand from five barley loaves and two fishes. The next part takes us to a discussion of the real and literal feeding of the people of Israel in the desert with miraculous water and manna. Then Jesus emphatically and repeatedly states that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us! The preface of this command to eat His flesh and drink His blood are two very real and physical miracles. So, where many of our detractors insist the command to eat His flesh and drink His blood are figurative, the command is prefaced in the same chapter by two very real and literal miracles.

The next consideration is the fact that many of Jesus' disciples who heard Him teach this could not abide by it and rather than accept Him at His word, they "turned and walked with Him no more." They took Him literally and could not handle the teaching, so they walked away. Would Jesus let them walk away with an erroneous understanding? Or, did Jesus know they took Him literally and He let them walk away precisely because they took Him literally and they were walking away because they would not accept Him at His word? I submit, Jesus did not mislead them nor allow them to walk away with the wrong impression - they "got it" - they just were unwilling to accept it. I repeat, they walked away with the proper understanding, just not the faith necessary to accept and believe that Jesus would provide them with the means of fulfilling this command. Jesus commanded, and repeated this command several times in John 6, that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have "no life" in us. Ask yourself, do you believe what Jesus said? Do you accept what Jesus said? Or, do you understand the words here - but refuse to accept them as they are written and as He spoke them? Do you add to what is written and say this is figurative? If you walk with Him - then accept what He said.

The Synoptic Accounts of the First Eucharist

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

(Mat 26:26-28 DRB)

And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

(Mar 14:22-24 DRB)

And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

(Luk 22:19-20 DRB)

The point we need to look at here is that Jesus again is not using figurative language. He does not say the bread represents His body or that it is like His body - but that it IS His body. Likewise with the wine, it IS His blood not a figure of it. Our detractors will still insist He is using figurative language and go to other contexts where He clearly is using figurative speech, for example Jesus says, "I am the vine..." (John 15:1) or "I am the door..." (John 10:7), but in these contexts He is clearly using figurative speech. When He says, "I am the vine..." He goes on to make comparisons to us as being the branches and those who do not bare fruit He will cut off; this is figurative speech. When He says "I am the door..." He goes on to speak of us being the sheep and and robbers come to steal the sheep - but the sheep do not hear their voice, for He is the door and all who enter by Him will be saved. In this same context Jesus goes on to speak of being the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep. Again, the figurative nature of this narrative is quite clear. When we compare that to the consecration of the bread and wine, there is no other speech around these statements to indicate a figurative nature. He simply declares the bread to BE His body and the wine to BE His blood - and it IS. For those who have true faith in what Jesus says, no further explanation is necessary; likewise, for those without the true faith - no explanation will suffice. Those who do not have the necessary faith here will continue to insist - even without contextual support - that Jesus is speaking figuratively here. But let's move on to what St. Paul had to say about the Eucharist.

St. Paul's Accounting of the Eucharist

First, let us look at St. Paul's words:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

(1Co 11:23-29 DRB)

In St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians we see that the partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner is a sin against the body and blood of the Lord - it is not a sin against bread or wine, for how can one offend bread or wine? What he is asking us to do is examine ourselves prior to approaching the Eucharist. This is why the Sacrament of Confession (aka: Penance or Reconciliation) is necessary prior to receiving the Eucharist if one has the stain of mortal sin on their soul. Our objectors here will state that the context does not mention mortal or venial sins - and we must agree, it does not; however, the context does speak of being "unworthy" to receive the Eucharist. The only thing which would make us unworthy to receive the body and blood of our Lord is mortal sin. So let me discuss that briefly next.

Mortal v. Venial Sin

We discuss this in the middle of a discussion on the Eucharist because of the fact that St. Paul warns us not to approach the Eucharist unworthily. So we must ask ourselves, what would make us unworthy? If one is in venial sin, that is offensive to God still - but does not separate one from the state of grace - or a state of salvation (those who die in the state of grace will be saved). However, mortal sin (a "sin which is unto death") does separate us from the state of grace. To approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist while not in the state of grace would be to do so unworthily. The first objection our detractors will have is that God does not distinguish sin, and that is simply not true.

He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death. (1 John 5:16-17 DRB)

As you can see, St. John the Apostle clearly makes the case for a "sin unto death" in comparison to a "sin which is not to death." That is precisely the distinction Catholics speak of in mortal v. venial sins.

This takes us back to the point St. Paul was making about approaching the Eucharist and especially receiving it unworthily, and one who does so eats and drinks judgment unto their self for not discerning the body of the Lord. We must emphasize the point, the sin is in not realizing the body of the Lord. Consider that carefully. It is not a sin to eat bread and/or wine unworthily - but to partake in Eucharist unworthily brings upon one's self the judgment of the Lord - and why? For not recognizing the Eucharist IS His body and blood. For one to knowingly in a state of mortal sin and approach and receive the Eucharist it would be a denial of the body and blood of Christ - for what true Christian would dare bring the body and blood of the Lord into such an unworthy vessel?

In Conclusion

So as to not get too long and "preachy" in this letter, I will close now with a summary of the points.

Catholics do not view the Eucharist as a "cracker" - and hopefully, those reading this will respect our faith and our own feelings to not make reference to something we hold so reverently as a simple "cracker." Catholics have faith in the words of our Lord that what He said was absolutely true, the bread IS His body and the wine IS His blood which was shed for us. Partaking in the Eucharist fulfills the command He repeated many times in John 6 demanding we eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us. Realizing that the Eucharist IS the body and blood of our Lord, we do not approach the Sacrament unworthily - but examine ourselves first and if necessary seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance/Confession) prior to receiving the Eucharist so that we do not incur the judgment for not discerning the body and blood of our Lord.

AMDG,

Scott<<<