The Papists

Anon, you’re not alone! Lots of people, including myself, have doubts or have had doubts about what we believe to be the pinnacle of our Catholic faith.

The Eucharist is the ultimate source of life for the soul, because in both species, it’s Jesus’ body and blood, soul and divinity. We know this because in the Gospel, Jesus referred to himself as the Bread of Life, He told us that if we don’t eat the flesh of the Son of Man, we will die, and He commanded us to “do this in memory of me:”

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” (John 6: 35)

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: 53-58)

While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.” (Mark 14: 22-24)

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.” (Luke 22: 19-20)

As Catholics, we take all of these statements literally. We don’t believe the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, we believe they actually are Jesus. And this is a tough bullet to bite! Why would the God of the Universe tell people to eat bread and drink wine (which was supposedly His body and blood) in Give us this day our daily bread” section of the Our Father. Says the Catechism #2387:

2837“Daily” (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of “this day,”¹²⁸to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence.¹²⁹Taken literally (epi-ousios: “super-essential”), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the “medicine of immortality,” without which we have no life within us.¹³⁰Finally in this connection, its heavenly meaning is evident: “this day” is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day.

The Eucharist is our daily bread. The power belonging to this divine food makes it a bond of union. Its effect is then understood as unity, so that, gathered into his Body and made members of him, we may become what we receive. . . . This also is our daily bread: the readings you hear each day in church and the hymns you hear and sing. All these are necessities for our pilgrimage.¹³¹

The Father in heaven urges us, as children of heaven, to ask for the bread of heaven. [Christ] himself is the bread who, sown in the Virgin, raised up in the flesh, kneaded in the Passion, baked in the oven of the tomb, reserved in churches, brought to altars, furnishes the faithful each day with food from heaven.¹³²

Taken literally, the Eucharist is our daily bread. But why bread? I think that Jesus chose bread because it’s something that’s accessible to everyone: everyone understands we need food to live, and every believer understands we need God to live, so why not combine the two? In the Eucharist, God takes a mere symbol of life (bread for a mortal body) and turns it into actual life (His body, given up for the immortal soul). Isn’t that neat?

All this information aside, it’s still tough to believe, especially when you’re at Mass and the incense is choking your lungs, there are screaming children at the back of the church, someone’s cell phone goes off, your nose itches, your knees hurt from kneeling because you got the pew that didn’t have the padding, ad infinitum. There are a ton of reasons as to why our “experience” of God (especially during the Eucharistic prayer and most especially during the Consecration—the highest part of the Mass) doesn’t always feel the same. I find that I “experience” the Eucharist better at youth rallies, retreats and other gatherings. Sure, we can have warm fuzzy feelings about the Eucharist when packed into a crowded gymnasium full of other young crazy people who are also on fire for Christ, but does the actual Eucharist itself change from a retreat setting to a boring, home parish setting? Of course not! Jesus makes Himself present at every valid Mass, regardless of who believes and what emotional circumstances they find themselves in. And that’s the beauty of the Catholic faith: God is present in the transubstantiated bread and wine even if we don’t believe it. It still happens no matter what! 

There’s one miracle in particular that I want to focus on: The Miracle at Lanciano.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

… 

[A]nalyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

So basically, a priest was doubting the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (just like you!) and the accidents of the bread and wine actually turned into flesh and blood! It always gets me. I mean, I don’t think it would have happened unless God wanted to tell us that the transubstantiated bread actually is His body and the wine actually is His blood. It’s amazing, really. 

Last question: “How can I believe?” 

That’s a hard one to answer. I don’t think there’s anything you can do about it on your own. However, ask the Holy Spirit to give you a spirit of knowledge and understanding the next time you’re in Eucharistic Adoration! Sometimes, things just ‘click,’ and you say to yourself, “yeah. That’s the Body of Christ.” It’s happened to me a bunch of times. 

I’ll be praying for you!!

-Olivier

PS: Here’s a list of Eucharistic Miracles

Like the rest of the universe and everyone in it, the souls in hell (presuming there are any) are held in existence by God’s act of the will, by His knowledge of them. So basically, yes. The Church teaches that a human soul will never wink out of existence, so even those people who reject God are still part of his knowledge and creative act of the will that holds them, and the rest of the universe, in existence.

Being Catholic vs. Being in Communion with the Catholic Church

There’s a lot of talk about this issue on Tumblr today, so I thought I’d post Fr. Shane’s commentary on the issue:

What makes us Christians is Baptism. It’s the only way that we can draw a clear black/white line between who is or who isn’t Christian.

But things get blurrier after that. Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium talks in terms of communion: You’re in “communion” with the Church in differing degrees. If you read #14-15 of that document, you’ll see how the different intensities of communion are described for Catholics living in grace, Catholics in a state of grave sin, catechumens who desire to be united to the Church, Orthodox, Protestants, and even those who aren’t yet Christian.

Let’s look at the “Catholic” part:

The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.

So if any of us choose to disagree about an element of our profession of faith, our communion with Christ’s Church is imperfect; it’s not what it should be, and it’s not what God desires for us. Ultimately, of course, it’s not really about our “opinions,” but about God’s will for us. Our attitude with our Heavenly Father has to be one of desiring ever more to fulfill his will, and seeking that our desires be aligned with his more than the other way around.

So the question about becoming a nun is a complicated one for you right now. If you don’t feel that you’re ready for that full communion yet, it’s probably better to take some time to reflect on it. Don’t assume that your views are immutable; we’re never that “calcified.” I’ve found, for example, that a lot of my views have changed during my own faith journey, hopefully for the best.

God bless you!

- Father Shane

For those of you who don’t know, this is the Third Secret:

I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine. After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.

Funny story, actually. Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became Pope Benedict XVI) commented on the revelation and said this:

A careful reading of the text of the so-called third ‘secret’ of Fatima … will probably prove disappointing or surprising after all the speculation it has stirred. No great mystery is revealed; nor is the future unveiled.

The purpose of the vision is not to show a film of an irrevocably fixed future. Its meaning is exactly the opposite: it is meant to mobilize the forces of change in the right direction.

… 

[The meaning of the secret notes] the exhortation to prayer as the path of ‘salvation for souls’ and, likewise, the summons to penance and conversion.

I don’t know about an earthquake, but I think it’s important to see that the message of third secret sticks out (and is ever-relevant): Repent and turn to God!

God bless, and I hope this answers the question!

-Olivier

Pope Benedict XVI on Gay “Marriage”

beholybehappy:

In this “interview”, Pope Benedict comments on gay marriage.

Your Holiness, thank you for joining us today. You recently referred to the “powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage” in the United States. How should the Catholic Church in America respond to such pressure?

The Church’s conscientious effort to resist this pressure calls for a reasoned defense of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation. 

Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage. 

Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike.

Many try to dismiss this as a matter of religion and say that it should have no place in a modern, pluralistic society. What do you say?

Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.

The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. 

No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.

Many people think think of homosexual unions as on par with heterosexual unions—only with the genders changed. What should we make of this view?

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. 

Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as a serious depravity (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). 

This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

What does this say about people with same-sex attraction? How should they be treated? And how should they view their situation?

According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. 

They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is, however, objectively disordered, and homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to chastity.

Why shouldn’t the State give legal recognition to homosexual relationships, the same way it does to heterosexuals united in marriage?

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. 

Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. 

Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children.

Homosexual relationships will exist whether or not they are given legal recognition by the State. Some argue that the State is simply giving legal recognition to a reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. What do you say?

In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. 

This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. 

Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour.

Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

What about using methods of artificial reproduction—or allowing homosexual couples to adopt children?

The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. 

Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. 

What about the charge that homosexuals should not be discriminated against? 

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. 

Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.

The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. 

On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

Some have proposed splitting marriage in two, so that there are a civil (State) marriages that are open to homosexuals and religious (Church) marriages that are not. Why shouldn’t the State pursue this course?

Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. 

Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

In some places in America homosexual unions—either “civil partnerships” or outright homosexual “marriage”—have obtained force of law. What is a Catholic’s duty in these areas? 

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. 

One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. 

In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Many Catholic politicians in the U.S. have spoken in favor of homosexual marriage or civil unions. What is their responsibility as lawmakers?

When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. 

To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. 

Your Holiness, thank you for being with us today. Would you have anything to say in conclusion?

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. 

The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. 

Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. 

The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

Thank you, Your Holiness.

Apostolic Succession

As each Apostle died, another would take his place (Acts 1:15-26), this went on for 2000 years and is still going on. Jesus told us that His Spirit would never abandon His Church; His promise holds true. His Church was the Church of the Apostles, or as St. Ignatius of Antioch called it: The Universal Church…The Catholic Church.

- Our faith’s morality is not subjective.

- Morality is legislated all the time. Murder, theft, lying (perjury, fraud), sexual assault, and many other immoral acts are justly legislated against.

- If it’s gay marriage you’re worried about, I personally have spent more time on tumblr lately than I care to count trying to explain to people that the government has no legitimate authority to regulate marriage at all. As Niko pointed out, the whole point is that citizens, especially Catholic citizens, are concerned with making just laws. A just law does not deny someone a legal right. Marriage is not a right and certainly not a legal right, but the legal benefits tied up with civil marriage licenses are. Catholics have no interest in denying anyone their legal right to name a partner of their choosing for governmental/money/etc recognition/reasons, because all human beings as citizens have the right to name whatever consenting adult they choose to that position. But that is all the government should be doing in regards to people’s personal relationships, whether those relationships are marital, homosexual, or otherwise, because that is all the government has the authority to regulate: legal matters. And relationships, including marriage, are not a legal, governmental matter.

God bless you.

RE: The Abuse Scandal

I recommend that your friend read these facts!

RE: Should The Church Have Never Existed?

Shorter answer: No!

Longer answer: Jesus Christ affirmed in the Gospel that His Church was 1) built on Peter, the first Pope, and 2) would conquer any obstacles it would face:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18)

Jesus is telling us that even amidst corrupt Popes, World Wars, Reformations, communism, heresies of all shades, the selling of indulgences, relative morality, and other evils, He was and is with us through it all. 

In the Church founded by Christ, we have nothing to fear. We’ve thrived for 2000 years on the grace of God, and we will continue to do so! We’ve had many bumps along the way (and the largely misunderstood clerical sex abuse scandal is one of them), but we shouldn’t let them stop us from sticking on the road to heaven.

And besides, I would rather have a God-given institution that gave me the chance to encounter Him in a deeply personal way (the Sacraments) than wallow alone in my sins! And on a similar note, we  can’t forget all of the charitable work that the Church does to help the less fortunate of this planet. Without the Church, I’d say that people of this world would be in a much worse place. 

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

-Olivier

There is a fine line between recognizing that:

a) The government cannot and should not discriminate on legal rights (taxes, next of kin issues, insurance, etc) because of sexual orientation,

and

b) Catholics are not permitted to support, encourage, or normalize sin. (CCC #1868).

So being “for” “gay marriage” is not Catholic: it is not Catholic to support, encourage, or normalize sin. A homosexual relationship is not a marital relationship by the nature of marital relationship. However, Catholics should be concerned that, first, the government thinks it can define marriage and is involved in people’s relationships at all (this is a GROSS violation of governmental power) and second, that it thinks denying legal rights (to choose whom you want as next of kin, legal decision maker, insurance partner, etc,) should be predicated on anything other than you’re a human being and a citizen. 

Personally, I solve this dilemma by being vocal about what’s wrong the current political approach and, depending on the wording of the law in my area, which means 100% of cases so far, abstaining from voting. 

But I would be very, very careful about vocally and politically supporting”gay marriage” as a Catholic, because most people think a) the government does define marriage, and b) if you think all people should have the same legal rights then you think there’s nothing sinful about sodomy.

The Church knows and declares the moral principles; in politics, usually all she can offer is guidelines. I recommend finding a politically-savvy priest to discuss this with when it comes to casting particular votes. 

God bless you!

Recorded by Olivier and Phillip

Apologetics-a-thon #2: If the Bible is a Catholic book why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28)

TL;DW: Adoration is reserved for God alone, though Mary deserves a special veneration for having a unique role in the history of salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 971: “All generations will call me blessed”: “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” The Church rightly honors “the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs…. This very special devotion … differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.” The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.

Read more about Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia at Catholic Answers.

Canon 1186: To foster the sanctification of the people of God, the Church commends to the special and filial reverence of the Christian faithful the Blessed Mary ever Virgin, Mother of God, whom Christ established as the mother of all people, and promotes the true and authentic veneration of the other saints whose example instructs the Christian faithful and whose intercession sustains them.

Luke 11:27-28 (RSV-CE): As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!’ But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!

St. Josemaría Escrivá’s commentary: These words proclaim and praise the Blessed Virgin’s basic attitude of soul. As the Second Vatican Council explains: “In the course of her Son’s preaching Mary received the words whereby, in extolling the Kingdom beyond the concerns and ties of flesh and blood, he declared blessed those who heard and kept the word of God (cf. Mk 3:35, Lk 11:27-28) as she was faithfully doing (cf. Lk 2:19, 51)” (Lumen Gentium, 58). Therefore, by replying in this way Jesus is not rejecting the warm praise this good lady renders his Mother; he accepts it and goes further, explaining that Mary is blessed particularly because she has been good and faithful in putting the word of God into practice. “It was a compliment to his Mother on her fiat, her ‘be it done’ (Lk 1:38). She lived in sincerely, unstintingly, fulfilling its every consequence, but never amid fanfare, rather in the hidden and silence sacrifice of each day.

Read the full Magnificat (or Canticle of Mary) from the New American Bible

Archbishop Fulton Sheen: God who made the sun also made the moon. The moon does not take away from the brilliance of the sun. The moon would be only a burned out cinder floating in the immensity of space, were it not for the sun. All its light is reflected from that glowing surface. In like manner, Mary reflects her Divine Son, without whom she is nothing. On dark nights we are grateful for the moon; when we see it shining we know there must be a sun. So, in this dark night of the world, when men turned their backs on Him Who is the Light of the World, we look to Mary to guide our feet while we await the sunrise.’