Alas Babylon!

    Blessed Are They

Who Are Hated Because of Me...

July Newsletter

In this Newsletter:

1) Marriage / Meeting Summary

2) Meeting Book Study

3) Prayers for Fidei Defensor at Lifefest

**We are looking for anyone interested in learning about Street Evangelization.  We'd like to have a few teams able to go out and spread the Good News!  Please pray about this, and for people to step forward.  Please contact us if you are interested or know of someone who is interested.

Meeting Summary 

     I apologize I did not get a invitation email / message out prior to this month's meeting.  Between my 7th child about to be born (3 in heaven, 2 boys, 1 firecracker of a girl and 1 girl OTW) and the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, I totally forgot. 

     We spent our time talking about the Supreme Court Ruling and Marriage.  Shawn Zehms had a wonderful write up of Sherif Gergis' "What is Marriage?" which, although he is Catholic, is a non-religious based argument for the real definition of Marriage.

     What has happened, is up until the 1600's no one questioned the definition of marriage as: one man, one woman, for life, for the betterment of the spouses, for the creation, raising and educating of children.  Then in 1644 John Milton proposed that marriage really isn't for life and really is about "comfort" and "cheerful conversations", i.e. "feelings... nothing more than feelings."  That was the first domino to fall.  Since then we have given over the "education of children" to the government - I'm not saying here that children can't attend a public school; but most parents have abdicated the idea that they still are the primary educators of their children.  Next was the idea that the creation of children is a purpose of marriage at all - reading "Cheaper by the Dozen" to my children has taught me that this was under attack by the 1920's already.  T.V. enabled large portions of parents to give up on the "raising" part of children.  I know it's a huge temptation I have to fight too.  If I'm trying to get a post done, it's so easy to just turn on the idiot box, plop down the kids and have a free hour to type.  Then the permanence of marriage was totally removed with "no fault divorce"; sex and procreation were totally separated with wide spread contraception, the horribly damaging notion of "free love" and the creation of IVF (ironically it's sex without children and children without sex).

     Finally, after a generation of total breakdown in family, one of the last bits of the real definition of marriage was dissolved: Man and woman.  I'm almost certain that by the end of the decade - if not sooner - the "one" part will be dissolved and maybe even the understood aspects of "humans only" and "adults only" too.

    So what do we do?  As Catholic Answers so aptly put it we go back to basics.  We start at the beginning and teach the Full, True definition of Marriage: the only definition that is defendable from science and philosophy; the only definition that secures a future for any country.  But most of all, we LIVE IT.  We celebrate, as we just did in my parish this past weekend, long marriages.  We have lots of kids.  We encourage others to do so.  We reclaim our right, as parents, to be the primary educators of our children, even if we send them to school.  We fight through tough times, we forgive, we ask for forgiveness, we live to better the other spouse.  We LIVE the definition:

One Man, One Woman, for life, for the betterment of the spouses, for the creation, raising and educating of children.

"Let your light shine before men that they may see the good works that you do and give glory to your Father in heaven."  Mt. 5:16

2)  Book Study:  Starting next meeting, July 25th, 8am Gehl Center, behind the Green Bay Cathedral.

     In the interest of being a little more organized, we're going to be starting a book study.  We'll be picking topics from "The Catholic Survival Guide" available at "Cathedral Book and Gift" or available at most Catholic book stores or online.  The book is a compilation of 60+ pamphlets from Catholic Answers dealing with a range of issues from the Authority of the Catholic Church to Mormonism to Marriage etc.  Each month we will pick one to read and study about, with discussion the following meeting.  Even if you're unable to make the meetings, we'd highly recommend following along with us, as I will summate our discussion in the newsletters.



     Shawn Zehms will run the next meeting as I will be teaching for the Diocese that day.  My hope is that being a little more organized will help us all to learn the Faith better.

3) Prayers for Fidei Defensor at Lifefest.

     On July 11th, 10am to 5pm, Shawn and I will be answering questions of all comers at Lifefest, the national pro-life convention.  It draws tens of thousands, only a quarter of which identify as Catholic.  This year, the even organizer wanted a greater Catholic presence and has teamed up with the Diocese to make that happen.  This, in turn, will ruffle the feathers of many non-Catholics, many of whom have misconceptions about the Catholic Church and her teachings.

     Please pray for us, that the Holy Spirit gives us the words He wants us to say and opens the hearts of those who approach us with questions.  Pray that - at least for me - I get out of the Holy Spirit's way and allow myself to be used, rather than honored.

God Bless,

Fidei Defensor

Where the Bible Shows Mary Was Immaculate Conceived...

Biblical Support for Mary's Sinlessness

 For additional info read "Behold Your Mother" by Tim Staples

     Dec. 8th the Catholic Church celebrates the Immaculate Conception.  No, this is not in reference to Jesus' conception as some Protestants (and even some Catholics) believe.  This is in reference to MARY's CONCEPTION. 
     The phrase "Mary's Immaculate Conception" confuses and concerns our fellow Christian brothers and sisters in the non-Catholic Communities.  "How can you say that Mary was sinless?  Don't you Catholics read the Bible?"  Unfortunately, despite regularly exhortations from the Pope, Bishops and Priests through out the Centuries to do so, the average Catholic is very unfamiliar with Scripture; but that's a post for another day.

     As a result, though, the vast majority of our Protestant Brothers and Sisters have never heard any of the EIGHT WAYS Scripture witnesses to the Sinlessness of Mary.  We're just going to detail out three here:  Scripture shows that Mary 1) is named or titled 'Full of Grace' 2) has Enmity with Satan and 3) is The Ark of the New Covenant.

 

What Catholicism Doesn't Teach about Mary's Sinlessness...

     Some Catholics have errantly argued that since Christ's human body came from Mary, Mary had to be sinless in order to give sinless flesh to Christ's Body.  Unfortunately, this argument is false, is easily demonstrated as false and is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches.  As many of our wise Protestant brothers and sisters have pointed out in the past:  If Mary had to be sinless to give Christ sinless flesh, then wouldn't Anne (Mary's Mother) have to be sinless, and then wouldn't her mother have to be sinless and so on all the way back to Eve.  Saying Mary had to be sinless eventually ends up denying the Fall.

    The Catholic Church teaches that Mary's sinlessness was not necessary, but was "appropriate to such roll" (CCC 491) 

 

What the Catholic Church Actually Teaches...

     The ex-Cathedra statement from Pope Pius the IX states, "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God and by the virtues of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."  (Ineffabilis Deus, 1894 as quoted in CCC 491).

     Please note a few things:

1) This was a "singular grace and privilege" meaning it was granted to no one else after the implementation of Original Sin.  (Please note that if this teaching is true Mary would be one of FOUR people in the Bible created, by God, without Original Sin.  The others are, Adam, Eve and Jesus.)

2) This is only by the power of God and the merits of Christ.  As the Catholic Church has always taught, Mary, like us, is only anything because of the super abundance of Grace flowing from her Son, Jesus.  (Lumen Gentium, 60)

3) Also, in Lumen Gentium paragraph #60, the Catholic Church teaches that there is only one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.  Mary is NOT another mediator.... just to get that out of the way too.

"Hail, Full of Grace..." (Luke 1:28)

     In Luke's Gospel, an angel from heaven comes to a little 14 to 16 year old girl and says, "Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you."  In this one small sentence is a myriad of meaning.

Hail, Caesar...

     The first thing to notice is that a messenger (meaning of 'angel') from heaven 'hails' Mary.  What does this mean?  Some, like Protestant Apologist James White, claim that "hail" is just another greeting.  It's like saying "Hey what's up?"  Unfortunately, blinded by his forgone conclusion that Mary is nothing special, and certainly NOT sinless, ever-virgin etc, Mr. White misses something crucial in the exact next verse.  Just to set it up a little more, most people, when an angel from heaven stands before them, faint (Rev 1:17) or get all upset (Is 6:5).  Now back to the point: what does Mary do?  Is she all concerned that this amazing supernatural creature has just appeared in front of her?  No.  She was all concerned... about the GREETING  (Lk 1:29).  If this were a normal greeting, why would Mary be concerned at all with the greeting?  Because it's NOT a normal greeting.

     The word 'hail' in Greek is chaire (pronounced: Kahee-ray).  Anywhere else in Scripture it is used, it is used in conjunction with a title:  (Mt 26:49; Mk 15:18; Jn 19:3; Acts 23:26).  It would follow, if Scripture is consistent and can be used to interpret other parts of Scripture, that this greeting of Gabriel's should be associated with a title.  What is the title?  'Kecharitomene.'  Why is it important that this is a title?  In the Bible, when someone is given a new name or title, it reveals something essential about that person's character: Abraham is now the "Father of Nations", hence "Father Abraham"; Eve is now the "Mother of All or of the Living"; Peter is now the "Rock" on which the Church is built and so forth.  So this new title, reveals something about Mary that is essential to who she is.

Kecharitomene (Pronounced: KAY car-ee-toh-Meh-neh)

       The word is actually difficult to translate because it is in a tense that we don't have in English: perfect, passive participle.  Ok, so for all of us who are not Koine Greek scholars let's put this into English.  What that tense means is that something is entirely completed somewhere in the past, it persists up to this moment and will continue unforeseen into the future.

     Now we get to the actual root meaning of the word 'charitoo' which means "grace."  So what this one word means is "She who has been completely filled with grace somewhere in the past, which continues through today and unforeseen into the future..."  This is why St. Jerome translated this "Gracia Plena" or "Full of Grace."

But my Bible says "Highly Favored"...

     'Charitoo' can be translated as "favor."  But the question must be asked, "Who's favor?"  The answer is: God's favor.  What is God's favor?  Just ask any Protestant what "Grace" is and most likely they'll say, "Unmerited Favor."  God's favor is His Grace and His Grace is His Favor.  But this brings up another point of difference:  Most Protestants don't believe that God's Grace actually changes us.  Whereas Catholicism teaches, based on numerous passages in Scripture, that God's Grace is God's life living in us and it changes us to be more like Him.  I won't go into depth here, but a quick read on the Catholic understanding of Grace can be found in the Catholic Catechism paragraphs 1996 and following.

     But I will relate a conversation I had with a local Protestant radio show host.  We were talking about Grace.  I asked him if the cup in front of me was filled up to the tippy top with Grace, could any sin exist within that cup?  His response was a very emphatic "Absolutely not!"

     So even in the Protestant understanding of Grace there is the idea that it cleanses us from sin.  If that's the case, then heaven declared Mary to be completely without sin sometime in the past, it continued through the announcement unforeseen into the future.  The fact that "Full of Grace" is a title reveals that this is an essential aspect of Mary's character, who she is as revealed by heaven.

     It should be noted too that in the Greek, "highly" does not appear.  Given that the context is in the feminine form, "Favored Daughter" is a reasonable translation, but this shows us another way that Mary is without sin: She's the "Daughter of Zion", which I will not get into here.

Mary has Enmity with Satan

     What does 'enmity' mean?  When Scripture says that Christ and Satan will have enmity between them (Gen 3:15) what does that mean?  Can Satan have any influence over Christ?  Can any part of Christ have Satan living in Him?
     Enmity is total separation, mutual hatred, antipathy and shares the same Latin root as enemy.  Christ is the enemy of Satan, He is totally separated from Satan.  Can we say the same for ourselves?  No we can't.  Every time I sin, or desire to sin, I am on Satan's side; I am a friend of Satan and have partnered with him.
     What does this have to do with Mary?  If we read the cite above, Genesis 3:15, every Christian believes "the seed" is referring to Christ.  But first it says that "the woman"- who's seed is Christ - and Satan will have enmity between them.  Who's the woman who's seed is Christ?  Mary.
     We see this played out in the book of Revelation Chapter 12 where "the woman" who bears Christ - the male child who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron - is chased by the serpent, Satan, but is not caught or even touched by Satan.  Who is this "woman" who was given wings of the eagle to fly away from Satan to a place prepared for her by God?  Revelation is polyvalent, meaning there is multiple ways to interpret each thing with out either interpretation necessarily being wrong.  But if we keep it on the literal level, there is only one "woman" who gave birth to Christ: Mary; and Satan was not allowed to touch her.  What happens when Satan realizes he can't touch her?   I like the way the New International Version translation of the Bible says it, Satan "was enraged at the woman..."  Revelation shows the enmity between Mary and Satan.

 

The Ark of the New Covenant

     The Ark of the Covenant was a box. It was gold on the outside and gold on the inside. God's Spirit 'overshadowed' it - a specific word used only in connection with God's Spirit over the Ark. The Ark contained in it God's Law (also translated, "God's Word") written in stone, the manna from the desert and Aaron's staff of the High Priesthood. (Heb 9:4)

      At one point the Ark travelled to the hill country of Judea and stayed there about 3 months (2 Sam 6:1-11). When David arrives in the presence of the Ark he asks "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Sam 6:9) David, dressed as a high priest, leaps and dances in the presence of the Ark. (2 Sam 6:14) David 'Shouts' in the presence of the Ark - shout being a rare Greek word. (2 Sam 6:15)

      Here's a quote from the Gospel of Luke.  See if you notice anything:

      "In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." (Lk 1:39-45)

Did you catch it all?

1) Mary goes to the hill country of Judea ('city of Judah' is in Judea);
2) John the Baptist 'leaps' in Elizabeth's womb (same word used for David's 'leaping')
3) John the Baptist was in the lineage of Aaron the high priest (David was dressed as a high priest)
4) Elizabeth exclaims with a 'loud cry' (same Greek word as David's 'shout')
5) Elizabeth states "Why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (David states, "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?")
6) Mary stays in the hill country for about 3 months (The Ark stayed in the hill country of Judea for about 3 months)

Some additional parallels:

7) The word that Gabriel used for 'overshadow' is the same used for God's Spirit over the Ark in the Old Testament;
8) Jesus is God's Law / Covenant made flesh (The Ark contained the Law written in stone)
9) Jesus is the Manna come down from Heaven (Jn 6:51) (The Ark contained a jar with manna)
10) Jesus is the true High Priest (Hebrews 5) (the Ark contained Aaron's staff which would show who the High Priest was).

      If you don't see the blatant indications here I'm not sure we're reading the same book!

     We have at least 10 parallels between Mary and the Old Testament Ark.  So what is the implication?  How pure and holy was the Ark?  Ask Uzzah.  Who's Uzzah?  Uzzah was the unfortunate guy who touched the Ark to keep it from falling into the dirt.  He died for it.  Why did he die?  He, a sinful man, touched what is completely holy, pure and clean.  But what about the dirt?  Wouldn't the Ark have fallen into the dirt?  But even according to Protestant writers like R.C. Sproul Uzzah committed the sin of presumption.  He presumed the dirt was more unclean than he was.  But man disobeys God's commands regularly; dirt doesn't.  Dirt turns to mud when water is poured on it.  Man sins.

     Here we have to apply a little Biblical Studies tool called 'typology.'  Typology is - very, very briefly - looking for parallels in people, events and objects from the Old Testament to the New Testament.  One example of this is Adam and Christ.  St. Paul says that Adam was a "type" of Christ.  One rule of typology is the Old Testament person, event or thing CANNOT be equal or greater than it's New Testament fulfillment.

     So if the Old Testament Ark is that pure, holy and clean what does that say about Mary?  Another way to look at it, gold is considered a symbol of purity.  The O.T. Ark was laid with gold, "inside and out."  What would that say about the Ark of the New Covenant?  It can't be equal or less than the O.T. Ark.  Mary would have to be completely pure, inside and out.

     There are numerous other ways that Scripture shows that Mary was Immaculate (she is the New Eve; she is the Daughter of Zion and more).  But what about objections?

I Object!

     Many of our Protestant brothers and sisters are trained to memorize passages of Scripture from very early on - something we Catholics could learn to do more.  One of the earlier passages memorized seems to disprove the whole notion of Mary's Immaculate Conception: Romans 3:23: "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God."

     "How much more clear does Scripture have to be?" some might ask.  How do we respond?  With kindness, respect and, of course, Scripture.

     If "all" in that verse truly means "every last single person" then there's a problem.  Was Jesus a man?  Yes he was 100% and 100% God.  In addition, Hebrews 4:15 tells us Christ was like us, except sin.  So there is one GLARING exception to "All" of Romans 3:23. 

     But what about others?  Are there other exceptions?  In context (read the whole chapter 3 of Romans) Paul is talking about personal sin - sins we actually do - not original sin.  So what about a miscarried or aborted baby?  Did they do any personal sin?  What about infants?  Did they perform any personal sin?  How about severely mentally handicapped people?  Did they perform any personal sins?  The answer is No.  There are MILLIONS of exceptions to Romans 3:23.

    Catholicism merely believes that Mary is another exception.

     I hope this helps shed some light on the subject.

     Have a question or objection?  Feel free to comment below.

God Bless,
Fidei Defensor

Teaching Catholics how to explain the Faith with kindness and respect.

Is Jesus' Body and Blood Really In the Eucharist?

Questions from teens...

I'm glad you asked this question.  This is a really important question.

First, let me address something in the question itself: No, Jesus' Body and Blood isn't IN the Eucharist...  Jesus' Body and Blood is what the bread and wine BECOME.  So His Body and Blood isn't somehow hiding inside the host, or in the wine.  The bread and the wine no longer exist - even though it still looks, feels, smells, tastes and would chemically test as bread and wine - but at the words of consecration (This IS My Body; This IS the Cup of My Blood) they BECOME the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

All of this summed up means: Jesus' Body and Blood IS the Eucharist.

But how do we know this?

Jesus Said What He Meant and Meant What He Said...

How do we know this?  I mean, if it still looks, feels, tastes, smells and even chemically tests as bread and wine, how do we know that it is really the Body and Blood of Jesus?

As Christians, the first place we look is the Scriptures.  Christ, at the Last Supper, the Thursday of the week He was crucified, picked up a piece of unleavened bread.  He blessed it and "gave thanks" (eucharistia in Greek - it's where we get the word "Eucharist" from).  Christ then said, "This is My Body."  He later did the same thing with a cup of wine saying, "This is the Cup of My Blood." Finally He told His Apostles, "Do this in memory of Me."  This is told four times in the New Testament: Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-24; Lk. 22:14-20; 1Cor 11:23-25.

Do you notice that the Gospel of John is not mentioned?  We'll get to why in a moment.

 

Let's ask some questions: When Jesus said, "Lazarus, come out!" (Jn 11:43) did His words have any effect on reality?  Was a man, who was dead, come back to life at those words?

When Jesus said, "Talitha koum!" or "Little girl, I say to you, get up!" (Mk. 5:41) did those words have any effect on reality?

How about when God, (remember Jesus is included there as He is God) said, "Let there be light!" (Gen 1:3) did those words have any effect on reality?

So why don't we think when Jesus said, "This is My Body." and "This is the Cup of My Blood." reality was changed as well?

Some will say that Jesus meant, "This represents My Body." and "This represents the Cup of My Blood."  The Greek for "is" can be used in a symbolic sense; but it can also be used in a literal sense; just like our own word "is":  "He is a giant among men."; "The sun is big."  The objection will continue that we can, and should, interpret it symbolically.

 

Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood

But wait, what about the fourth Gospel?  John's Gospel doesn't have "This is My Body / Blood" in it.  But, being the last Gospel written, John points to Passover time almost exactly a year earlier (Jn 6:4) where Christ makes some astonishing statements, namely that He was the Bread that came down from heaven; that you must eat the true Bread from Heaven to live forever; that Bread from Heaven is His Flesh that He will give for the life of the world (Jn 6:51); That we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in order to have spiritual life within us (Jn 6:53); and He was willing to let everyone walk away if they didn't accept it.

 

Read the Gospel of John Chapter 6 carefully.  You'll note that the crowds understood "Eat My Flesh and drink My Blood" literally.  Jesus does not correct them.  He doesn't just double down... He QUADRUPAL'S down, saying again and again and again and again that we must "Eat My Flesh and drink My Blood."  In the Greek He intensifies the words too.  The first time He uses a word for eat (Jn 6:51) that can mean eat, literally or figuratively.  It's the same for our word 'eat'.  The word He uses in that verse for flesh is the same.  The next time He says it, and from there on, the words change, in Greek to trogon for eat and sarx for flesh.  What is the significance?  Neither of those two Greek words have a symbolic meaning.  Trogon means to gnaw like a lion gnaws on it's prey.  Sarx means flesh as in if you were to walk into a butcher's shop and ask for a leg of lamb... that's sarx.

 

Additionally, Jesus describes His Flesh as "true food" and His Blood as "true drink" (Jn 6:55).  The Greek word there for 'true' means "real, actual, true."  There is no symbolic meaning for it.

 

Some will object and say that Jesus tells us that a literal interpretation is silly when He says, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail."  :See," the objection continues, "Jesus says 'the flesh is of no avail.'  He's saying that this whole literal eat my flesh thing is silly!"  Another objection states that Jesus then said, "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (Jn 6:63).  "His words were 'spirit'," this second objection says, "therefore it's symbolic.  See?  'Spirit' there means 'symbolic'."  Both these objections are what's called 'eisegesis' which is to have a pre-conceived idea of what the Bible means, then 'see' that idea in Scripture where it doesn't actually exist. 

 

The first objection does not have merit because it is equating two phrases that Jesus is actually differentiating between: "My Flesh" and "the flesh."  Jesus uses "the flesh" numerous times in Scripture (Mt 26:41, Mk 14:38) but He always means our human nature without the aid of the Holy Spirit.  But Jesus' Flesh is what He gave for the life of the world (Jn 6:51).  But if someone insists that the two phrases in John chapter 6 are equivalent, one should point out that this objection makes Jesus' Death on the cross pointless.

 

The second objection seems, on the surface, a bit more serious however, it too is an example of reading into Scripture what one wants to see.  The phrase "spiritual" or "spirit" no where else in Scripture means "symbolic."  If that was even a possible meaning, there would be tons of serous problems with the Christian understanding of God, who is all "spirit" (Jn 4:24, 2 Cor 3:17 etc.) or the Holy Spirit just to name two.  We would have to consider a "symbolic" interpretation of those verses as well.

 

To be fair, there is a symbolic meaning of "eat my flesh and drink my blood" found in Scripture.  However, it means, "to persecute."  So if one insists on a symbolic interpretation here, they would be saying that the soldiers who tortured Christ would have everlasting life for doing that.... something that no Christian maintains.

 

 Consistent Teaching, Consistent Witness...

 

Are there any other places in Scripture that talk about the Eucharist being Christ's Real Body and Blood?  The letters of Paul were the first things of the New Testament written.  In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians Paul states, quite plainly that when we receive the Eucharist we are participating in Christ's Body and Blood (1 Cor 10:16) He also plainly states that we must "discern the Body" of Christ when receiving the Eucharist or we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves (1 Cor 11:29). 

Paul also states that if we eat the bread or drink the cup in an unworthy manner we are guilty of "the body and blood" of Christ (1 Cor 11:27).  The wording of being guilty of "the body and blood" of something meant being guilty of murder.  If I were to shoot a picture, I would not be guilty of murder because a picture is a representation or symbol of that person.  What would I have to do to be guilty of murder?

It's pretty apparent from both the previous 2 paragraphs that Paul thought the bread and wine literally became the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

Some will object and say that this idea that the Eucharist really becomes Christ's Body and Blood was "made up" in the "middle ages" or even the "dark ages."  This too, upon analysis, cannot be true.  First, the mere psychology of trying to get someone to believe something new is difficult enough, but to get someone to believe that they now eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of their God would be near impossible.  Yet reading the writings from Christians in those various times - the time era for this objection varies - shows that this believe was universally held, or virtually universally held depending on the time frame.  That's not what we'd expect if this was a novel idea.  We also do not see anyone, inside or outside of Christianity, saying this idea was made up.

 

We also see that the earliest mention of the belief of the Real Presence, outside the Bible, is almost immediately after the New Testament was written.  Many believe that the Gospel of John was the last book written and that it was written somewhere around 90AD-100AD.  The first mention of the Real Presence takes place between 107 and 110 AD, from a student of John, Ignatius of Antioch:  "They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again."

 

Here's the amazing thing: while this teaching was repeated, explicitly, over and over again through the centuries, NO ONE denied it until the 8th Century.  In the 8th Century, one guy denied the teaching that the Eucharist really is the Body and Blood of Jesus.  He was soundly shouted down, in writing, by numerous other Christians.  He ended up recanting and repenting.  It wasn't until the 12th-13th Centuries that another denial cropped up.  It was then that the Catholic Church decided to formally define what happened at the moment of consecration.  The Church decided to make a word to describe what it has always believed: Transubstantiation.  Some moderns, errantly believe that was when the idea was first taught.

 

One last objection: some will say, "Jesus also said, 'I am a vine' and 'I am the door' but no one believes He meant literally.  Why would we think, 'I am the Bread of Life' is anything but symbolic?"  To quickly respond: no where does Jesus hold up a vine and say, "This is My Body" or hold up a door and say, "This is My Body."  But Jesus does exactly that to a piece of bread.

 

It's a Miracle!

 

We have one more way to show that Jesus meant what He said and said what He meant: MIRACLES!  There are literally dozens if not hundreds of Eucharistic miracles.  These miracles have been studied by scientists - many of them not Catholic, not Christian and even atheist - and some can still be seen today. 

 

One is in Lanciano, Italy.  In the 8th Century, a priest was saying mass.  He had been struggling with the teaching of the Real Presence of the Eucharist.  At the moment of consecration, normally the 'accidents' (or appearance) of bread and wine remain, but only the substance (what something actually is) changes.  In this case, God made both the substance and the accidents change into Flesh and Blood.  The mass was stopped, the bishop was called and the Flesh and Blood were collected.

 

But that was 1200 years ago... except it still exists today.  Very briefly, it has been studied by science four times in those 1200 years.  The most recent was 1970's by two professors.  Their conclusion is the following:  the flesh is real flesh, the blood is real blood; both come from the human species; the flesh is from the left ventricle and contains part of the vagus nerve; neither contain any preservatives; they show no sign of decay or deterioration; the protein make-up is the same as fresh flesh and fresh blood; the samples could  not have been taken from a corps.

 

Another that is not yet approved is from Buenos Aires in 1996.  It was first studied by an atheist scientist / professor, and atheist lawyer and an atheist investigative reporter for Fox News.  After studying it all three are now devout Catholics.  Here is the professor's account.

 

In the end, all objections boil down to: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (Jn 6:52) or "This is a hard saying, who can endure it?" (Jn 6:65).  It is also one of the most divisive teachings of Jesus (Jn 6:66) and therefor of  His Church as well.  It forces us to make a decision either for or against.  It forces us to change. 

 

When I'm asked if I have a "personal relationship with Jesus", like Fr. Casey, I thank God I'm Catholic because there is no more personal relationship then to receive Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - in the Most Holy Eucharist.

 

I hope this helps!  Have questions?  Feel free to put them in the com box.

 

Fidei Defensor

Teaching Catholics to explain the Faith with kindness and respect.

Planned Parenthood can't find a genuine argument: uses false ones instead...

Can You Find Them?

 

     In a media release on June 4th, 2015, Planned Parenthood launched its strategy to attack the Pro-Life legislation going through the State of Wisconsin house and senate.  The legislation would ban all abortions after 20 weeks.  A good step, one I heartily applaud, but it's still 20 weeks too much.  But given the current climate, we'll take what we can get.

 

     Planned Parenthood's press release states, "...Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin (PPAWI) launched a statewide digital and radio ad campaign to raise awareness and urge legislators to oppose a dangerous new abortion ban." 

    

     New?  Pro-life advocates have been trying for abortion bans sins Row v Wade.  Dangerous?  TO WHO?  When nearly 100% of abortions result in the death of one of the participants, yet terminating a pregnancy naturally (birth) results in far less causalities.

    

     Planned Parenthood is using a personal, emotional appeal.  They are telling the story of Ginger Thew who had an abortion at 26 weeks "when she learned of severe fetal anomalies that would not allow the baby to survive and posed a great risk to her own health."

    
     According to the press release, "“My husband and I [Thew], with our faith in God, made our decision. It wasn’t anyone else’s place to decide."  Really?  The child doesn't get a say?

    

     But the counter will be that the "fetus" (a word that means 'little one') isn't conscious and therefore isn't a person deserving of protection.  But people in coma's aren't conscious nor are people who are asleep.  Plus, according to a professor emeritus of Human Biology / Brain Functions, University of Wisconsin, Dr. Richard J. Stevens, a child being aborted knows more about what is happening to it then a bag full of born kittens being drown by a farmer who can no longer afford to feed them.

    

     But the most false statement in the media release is the following: "The ban would prevent physicians from providing counsel and care for women during medically and ethically complex pregnancies – including those that pose a risk to a woman’s health."

    

     This doesn't just "imply" but states strait out that the Pro-Life bill will not allow doctors to help women in pregnancies that "pose a risk to a woman's health."  This is ridiculously false.  Doctors will certainly be able to help save women's lives.  They just won't be able to directly attack an innocent person to save the woman's life.

    

     What's the difference?  Imagine you're a life guard.  One day, on duty, you notice two people, far out in the lake, flailing.  Seeing that they're in trouble, you grab your life ring and start swimming out there.  When you get there, you notice that both are drowning but you only have the capability to save one of them.  IS THERE A DIFFERENCE between saving one (the other person drowns) and saving one and SHOVING THE OTHER UNDER THE WATER?

    

      Back to the issue:  If a woman is pregnant and develops cancer, no one is saying that we cannot treat the woman in a way that would, most likely, result in the death of the child.  That death is unwanted, but a secondary side effect to treating what is killing the mother.

     

     What the legislation WON'T allow, is the direct, intended killing of the innocent child in the process of healing the mother.

    

      Notice, after the emotional appeal where the mother's life is at risk, Planned Parenthood slips that they are also against abortions that "involve severe fetal anomalies or a serious risk to the woman’s health..."  OR?  OR?  So a child that is not perfect is a candidate for death.  This is Nazi Eugenics - both Hitler and Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) started their perspective organizations to eliminate weaker races (non-white) and weaker members of their Master Race (white).  This is still a motivation for Planned Parenthood today.

    

      This is the evil of Planned Parenthood.  They cannot make a truthful argument for why abortion needs to be legal.  All they can do is appeal to emotion and false presentations of facts.

   

     Planned Parenthood will no longer debate Pro-Life speakers like Trent Horn.  Mr. Horn has stated several times on his "Why Are You Pro-Choice?" radio show that Planned Parenthood will not debate him or any other Pro-Life speakers.  If there position is based on lies, misrepresentations and evil... I can see why they don't want to talk.

 

     A quick aside:  What would we say to Ginger Thew, Mr. Thew or any of the people who work at Planned Parenthoo?  Ginger obviously considers herself religious.  She obviously was in a really difficult situation. 

    

     We would love her - We DO pray for her - accept her, pray with her and listen to her.  We would go with her to seek healing for the abortion she had and help her anyway we can to reconcile her to her child - who, we pray, is praying for her mom (and dad).  The same goes for Mr. Thew or any member of Planned Parenthood.

 

We Need to keep praying for everyone involved!