Substances: Comparing the Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist

On the Eucharist, the Council of Trent reads:

[B]y the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

This tidy statement is the basic Catholic understanding that after consecration, the bread and wine during the Liturgy become Christ's body and blood in essence.

Lutherans are often described as believing in "consubstantiation" for their belief that Christ's body and blood are present "in, with, and under" common bread in a "sacramental union." Following are a variety of older and more modern quotes by Lutherans pertinent to this essay:

As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11, 28: Let him so eat of that bread. (Luther's Smalcald Articles, 1537, 6.5)

[An uncircumscribed presence] was the mode in which the body of Christ was present when he came out of the closed grave, and came to the disciples through a closed door, as the gospels show. There was no measuring or defining of the space his head or foot occupied when he passed through the stone, yet he certainly had to pass through it. He took up no space, and the stone yielded him no space, but the stone remained stone, as entire and firm as before, and his body remained as large and thick as it was before. But he also was able, when he wished, to let himself be seen circumscribed in given places where he occupied space and his size could be measured. Just so, Christ can be and is in the bread, even though he can also show himself in circumscribed and visible form wherever he wills. For as the sealed stone and the closed door remain unaltered and unchanged, though his body at the same time was in the space entirely occupied by stone and wood, so he is also at the same time in the sacrament and where the bread and wine are, though the bread and wine in themselves remain unaltered and unchanged. (Martin Luther, Confession Concerning Christ's Supper, 1528)

And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread. What will they [Catholics] reply? Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door [John 20:19, 26] and of the closed mouth of the sepulcher, through which he went in and out without disturbing them. (Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 2.29-30)

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. (Luther's Large Catechism: The Sacrament of the Altar, 8)

Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body," even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental union," because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union. (Martin Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, Luther’s Works 37 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961], p. 300)

[W]e defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially [substantialiter] present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. (Phillip Melanchthon, friend and contemporary of Martin Luther quoted in his Defense of the Augusburg Confession, Article X)

For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated. (Formula of Concord Solid Declaration, VII.35, written by Luther's successors in 1580)

The bread and wine in the Sacrament are Christ’s body and blood by sacramental union. By the power of His word, Christ gives His body and blood in, with, and under the consecrated (blessed) bread and wine. (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation, #291, 1998)

Q. What does the LCMS [Lutheran Church Missouri Synod] mean by "in, with and under the forms" of bread and wine? A. Perhaps the most succinct formulation of the Lutheran position on the Real Presence is that found in Article VII of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration: "In addition to the words of Christ and of St. Paul (the bread in the Lord's Supper 'is true body of Christ' or 'a participation in the body of Christ'), we at times also use the formulas 'under the bread, with the bread, in the bread.' We do this to reject papistic transubstantiation and to indicate the sacramental union...between the untransformed substance of the bread and the body of Christ.....so in the Holy Supper the two essences, the natural bread and the true, natural body of Christ, are present together here on earth in the ordered action of the sacrament... (The Immanuel Record, a Lutheran newsletter, Oct/Nov 2008, issue 143)

By the way, in this ecumenical forum, let it be known that Lutherans, according to their official statements of faith, reject “consubstantiation.” We do not believe that the body and the bread, the blood and the wine, constitute a new and unique substance. We reject all such philosophical attempts to parse this miracle, insisting that we must simply accept the biblical language without interpretation, that the bread and wine are still bread and wine and also the body and blood of Jesus. (Dr. Gene Edward Veith, Lutheran Provost at Patrick Henry College and the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, quoted in Tabletalk Magazine, Nov. 1, 2006)

The Church of the Reformation laid great emphasis on learning and skillful reasoning in service of the service of Word and Sacrament. And it also had a proper sensitivity to the burdens placed on consciences in unwittingly requiring people to hold as binding doctrine what is only a matter of theological opinion. It regarded the latter as spiritual tyranny. A famous example of the latter is 'transubstantiation' as an explanation of the mystery of the Lord's bodily presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. Our reformers too affirmed this mystery as integral to the gospel, so that reception would gift, not reward, but regarded transubstantiation as a particular theological theory explaining the Presence-- and not without its difficulties (i.e. the supposed annihilation of the substance of bread). (Dr. Paul Hinlicky, Tise Professor in Lutheran Studies at Roanoke College in Salem, VA. Quote from April 1, 2009 comment posted at lutheranforum.org)¹

From quotations like these, I'd like to address several things:

1. Does "consubstantiation" describe the Lutheran position?
2. The assertion that transubstantiation is an "explanation" of what is really a "mystery" of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist, yet the Lutheran position is not.
3. The use of the term "bread" in Scripture.

Defining the term

Luther and other Lutherans often provide definitions of the Eucharist by including a rejection of transubstantiation. So it is fitting to clarify what the Catholic Church means by the term transubstantiation. In philosophy, the term "substance" (which constitutes the root of the latter half of transubstantiation), basically refers to what a thing is.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the term substance is expounded thusly with regard to the Trinity: "The Church uses the term 'substance' (rendered also at times by 'essence' or 'nature') to designate the divine being in its unity..." (CCC#252)

In the article Thomas Aquinas on Transubstantiation, Dr. Byard Bennett describes substance as "which is what the thing really, truly, fundamentally, actually is." The ancient philosopher Aristotle wrote in his work Metaphysics: "[T]hat which 'is' primarily is the 'what', which indicates the substance of the thing." (7.1a); and "that which underlies a thing primarily is thought to be in the truest sense its substance." (7.3b)

The first half of the term transubstantiation, trans, etymologically signifies a crossing, or to go beyond. When we say we are in "transit," we mean we are crossing from point A to point B. Or if we say we "transplant" a flower, we are moving it from position A to position B. At the heart of this Latin prefix, is a condition A giving way to a condition B.

So in transubstantiation, we see the Catholic understanding that "what the thing is," bread, crosses over to a new condition, Christ's body. What the thing is is now Christ's body. The term does not define how this occurs. It simply means that the bread changes into Christ's body when it is consecrated, even if the outward appearances still look like bread. Hence, the change takes place at the substantial level described above.

Should Lutherans be opposed to the term consubstantiation?

So why are Lutherans often averse to the term consubstantiation to describe what they believe about the Eucharist. Due to the frequent comparison to transubstantiation in Lutheran definitions of the Eucharist, it is possible that the term consubstantiation is too close a resemblance to transubstantiation which they oppose.

Etymologically, the Latin prefix con refers to being "with" or "together." Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary says the term con, when used as a prefix denotes "A being or bringing together of several objects..." And, since substance simply refers to "what a thing is," the term consubstantiation can refer to the occurrence of things brought together.

Consider again how the Lutheran descriptions quoted above consistently describe the Eucharist as a presence where Christ is "in, with, and under"² the unchanged bread and wine. All of the above, Luther, Melanchthon, and even modern Lutherans willingly use the term "substance" to refer to Christ and/or the bread and wine.

So should modern Lutherans, such as Dr. Veith, reject the term consubstantiation?

Here is where it might get a little tricky. At the first council of Nicea in 325 A.D., the Church faced the Arian heresy, which taught that Christ the Son was not of the same substance as the Father. Arian argued that Christ was of a "similar" substance or essence (homoiousion in Greek) as God. The Church proclaimed that Christ was of the "same" substance or essence (homoousion) as God. The etymology of the Greek words there has "ousion" as substance, and the prefixes meaning similar or same, respectively.

The difficulty comes in translating the term homoousion to Latin. Traditionally, the word the Church has used to describe the "same substance" of the Trinity in Latin is consubstantialem. In that instance, the prefix "con" means "with" in the sense of "same." Christ is with God in that they are of the same essence.

However, if one reads consubstantiation to describe the Lutheran position, one should not understand them to believe the substances of Christ and the bread are the "same." The Lutheran notion regards "with" not as "same" but as a union of two different substances. You can see this in Luther's teaching (quoted at beginning of article) where he insists each substance, Christ and bread, remains its own essence. They are comingled like "fire and iron" or as he said of Christ passing through the "shut door." (cf. John 20:19)

I surveyed some of my colleagues over at the Catholic Forums on the etymology of the term, and it seems that consubstantialem originated as the translation of homoousios (same substance).

Now, Dr. Veith rejects the term consubstantiation on the grounds that it suggests a new substance is created. If one were to read the term as it is used to describe the Trinity, then his objection has some merit. However, if one renders the prefix of the term as "with but not same," then I think the term may be as good as any to summate the Lutheran understanding. The weakness of the term consubstantiation is that it can have a different connotation depending on context. As well, the historical Lutheran description of "in, with, and under" obviously includes more prepositions than just "with" (con). However, using Lewis and Short's definition of the prefix con as "things brought together," then the term consubstantiation seems to fit the Lutheran understanding.

The conclusion of Protestant historian Philip Schaff is similar. The term is accurate insofar as the context of what is meant is made clear:

The Lutheran Church ... teaches consubstantiation in the sense of a sacramental conjunction of the two substances effected by the consecration, or a real presence of Christ's very body and blood in, with, and under (in, cum, et sub) bread and wine. The word consubstantiation, however, is not found in the Lutheran symbols, and is rejected by Lutheran theologians if used in the sense of impanation. (Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 6.2 The Augsburg Confession)

What takes away the "mystery" of the sacrament?

As I said earlier, the term transubstantiation does not signify how Christ's body becomes bread and wine. The term merely asserts that what were once common bread and wine are now truly Christ's body and blood, substantially, in essence.

Of note on this point is the 1672 Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (aka The Confession of Dositheus), a synod of the Orthodox Church, which defends the term transubstantiation as follows:

So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present ... being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. (6.17e)

Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord. (6.17h)

I would contend that the above text accurately frames and defends the term transubstantiation. The incomprehensibility and the mystery of the sacrament are not lost or threatened by use of the term transubstantiation as Dr. Hinlicky asserts in (quoted at beginning of article).

It is also worth mentioning the following. If it were true that Catholics threatened the mysterious pedigree of the Eucharist if it is described as changing into the body of Christ, then why would not the Lutheran description of "sacramental union" or "in, with, and under" not do the same? After all, Luther wrote, " the bread and wine in themselves remain unaltered and unchanged" and "out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place." I submit that these descriptions are no more or less an "explanation" of the Eucharist or a threat to the mystery of the Eucharist than transubstantiation.

If anything, some of the deduction Luther posed to defend his notion of "sacramental union" included conjecture such as: "[Jesus] took up no space, and the stone yielded him no space, but the stone remained stone, as entire and firm as before, and his body remained as large and thick as it was before." None of the physics of the matter are provided in the Biblical text, yet Luther describes as fact physical characteristics of the scene not specified.

But my point is, if the Lutheran positions of "sacramental union" or "in, with, and under" are not explanations of a mystery, than neither can be transubstantiation.

A final thought on the term "bread" in Scripture

Luther more than once defended the idea that the substance of bread "remains" in the Eucharist by citing 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:28. The passages read:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16)

Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (1 Cor. 11:28)

So the rule Luther posits is this: If after consecration the term bread is used to describe what is in question, then common bread therefore remains present.

First, I think it is worth reading on to the next verse in chapter 11:

For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (1 Cor. 11:29)

So the distinction is made by Paul. What he is calling bread is to be "discerned" as Christ's "body." I submit that although Luther claimed to take Scripture at face value,³ Paul only tells us to identify what is labeled bread as "his body"--not "his body in and under the bread." In fact, Christ Himself used the term "bread" synonomously with His "flesh":

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (John 6:51)

No one would argue from John 6:51 that because Christ said one had to eat "this bread" which He "shall give" that is "His flesh" that there must have been common bread scourged by Pilate and crucified with Christ.

In the same way, at the Last Supper, Christ held up the bread and said: "This is my body which is given for you." (e.g. Luke 22:19) So what did Christ give on the cross? His body. And likewise, no one argues from the Last Supper account that because the text uses the term "bread" and a moment later stated that it would be "given for you" that common bread was scourged by Pilate and crucified with Christ. Leading up to the 1 Cor. 11:28 verse, Paul references this very incident (v. 24).

In both 1 Cor. 10 and 11, Paul references the consecrated bread, not pre-consecrated common bread. What we can properly say is that the consecrated bread = Christ's body. By using the term bread in the first half of the equation, we are not meaning common bread. This is the context in which Paul uses the term bread. He makes a distinction when he says in 1 Cor. 10:16 of the "bread which we break." He is labeling the item as such, teaching a nuanced doctrine for which some of Jesus' disciples actually departed (John 6:58-66). And Paul said of this consecrated bread that it must be "discerned as His body" as opposed to "discerned as His body with or under common bread."

So I disagree with Luther that Catholics do violence to Scripture and that his interpretation leaves the Scripture inviolate.

Epilogue

Hopefully, I've clarified the use of some of the terms in the discussion and presented some reasons why Lutherans and Catholics espouse what they do regarding the Eucharist.

On an interesting note, I should point out that for all of Luther's polemics against the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, he considered Catholics to have an acceptable understanding of the Eucharist. Comparing transubstantiation to his own teaching, Luther wrote:

I therefore permit every man to hold either of these views, as he chooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear to become guilty of heresy if he should believe in the presence of real bread and real wine on the altar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold and believe either one view or the other, without endangering his salvation. (Babylonian Captivity, 2.24)

He ends the section in the same way:

I permit other men to follow the other opinion [transubstantiation], which is laid down in the decree Firmiter. Only let them not press us to accept their opinions as articles of faith, as I said above. (2.36)

What makes this interesting is, in between, he writes sometimes scathingly of the Catholic notion of transubstantiation, calling it "a monstrous word for a monstrous idea" (2.27).

I do think it is an important issue, however, as Luther implies in his very act of vehement opposition to the Catholic teaching. Part of the importance lies in the notion of the Eucharist as "sacrifice." As I mentioned earlier, what is "given up"? Luther, contrary to Catholic teaching, did not consider the Liturgy to be a sacrifice (cf. Babylonian Captivity, 2.37ff, esp. 2.69-70). The question is, what would God have us understand in His revealing of Himself in the sacrament of the Eucharist? But that may be a discussion for another day.

EDIT 6/11/11: I was since referred to the following quote from Martin Luther in which, if this is an accurate translation, he uses the term "with" to describe Christ and the bread/wine in the Eucharist:

We proved above in our comments on Luke that these words, “This cup is the new testament in my blood,” cannot be a trope, because the expression “in my blood” has the same meaning as “through” or “with” my blood. For Christ’s blood cannot be such an insignificant thing that it yields only a sign of the new testament, as the calves’ blood did in Moses’ time. Neither can “blood” be a trope, for the cup cannot by virtue of a sign of the blood, or ordinary wine, become so important a thing, viz. the new testament.

Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther's Works, Vol. 37 : Word and Sacrament III. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1961 (Luther's Works 37), S. 37:III-336

¹Dr. Hinlicky is also in error to describe the Catholic understanding as an "annihilation of the substance of the bread." The defining texts of the Fourth Lateran Council or the Council of Trent do not address the matter. And St. Thomas Aquinas, a key figure in the early Catholic use of the term of transubstantiation, specifically rejected the notion that the bread and wine are annihilated, but rather converted. He writes:

"[I]n this sacrament, the substance of the bread or wine is not annihilated. ... since in this sacrament the whole substance is converted into the whole substance, on that account this conversion is properly termed transubstantiation." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.75.3, 8)

²It should be noted that I was unable to find a quotation of Luther's using the phrase "in, with, and under." Though it may have been his understanding (his colleague Melanchthon used the phrase), I only found him using "in and under." The Lutheran tradition has historically used the longer "in, with, and under" verbiage.

³Luther wrote regarding his own interpretation of the Eucharist: "But there are good grounds for my view, and this above all - no violence is done to the word of God, whether by man or angel." (Babylonian Captivity, 2.25)

Pope misquoted by UK Telegraph

I recently came across an April 23, 2011 article in the UK Telegraph. The article reports how the Pope was televised last month answering questions sent in by lay Catholics. The headline from the Telegraph reads: "Pope admits 'no answer to suffering' in TV interview".

A video of the pertinent segment of the show accompanied the article. A seven-year-old girl from Japan asked why children had to suffer in natural disasters. The Pope, speaking Italian, said, "Non abbiamo le risposte, ma sappiamo che Gesù ha sofferto come voi, innocente, che il Dio vero che si mostra in Gesù sta dalla vostra parte." (quoted at Zenit.org Italian version)

The body of the Telegraph article translates the line fairly close: "We don't have the answers, but we know that Jesus suffered as innocent children suffer." The key portion of the translation that they got correct was "We don't have the answers." The Pope's words "Non abbiamo le risposte" means quite literally "We don't have the answers." And following that he explained that we do know that Jesus suffered like children like her, and if we don't have the answers, we can draw comfort in knowing that. He continued, saying, "One day you will even understand why this is so."

The headline of the article is factually wrong. Saying "We don't have the answers....one day you will understand" is a very different thought than what the Telegraph's headline says: "Pope admits 'no answer to suffering.'" It is very different to say there "is no answer" and "we don't have the answer at this time."

As well, by saying the Pope "admits," the headline makes it sound like he is granting some kind of reluctant confession. But worse, he absolutely did not say that there is "no answer to suffering" as the headline reads––with quotes around it no less. That is factually inaccurate and begs the question whether or not the Telegraph editor has an ulterior motive for readers to think the Pope believes no answer to suffering exists.

So what could be the motive? Shoddy editing? Shoddy journalism? An attempt to make the Church appear weak or unreliable? An attempt to discredit the notion of the "good God" the Pope represents by making it appear as if he's conceding that human suffering is pointless?

Whether the Telegraph is given the benefit of the doubt on an ulterior motive or not, the headline is unarguably wrong.

Related Catholic Voyager article: Should earthquakes shake faith in God?

The misuse of Luke 2:22-24 against the Immaculate Conception

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception has numerous typological roots in Scripture, such as the figure of Eve created without original sin; the precision, gold, and immaculateness of the Ark of the Covenant; or even the Church, a spotless bride presented to the Lord. Even in Christian antiquity did the Early Church Fathers identify her as these Biblical figures and recognize her sinless pedigree.¹

Though the teaching has roots even back to the Old Testament, the Church received the words to certify the dogma in the encyclical Ineffabilis Deus. The defining paragraph reads:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

In reading the entire document, it is clear that this includes all stains of sin, original or actual.

This of course is no small point of contention between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants generally do not recognize or acknowledge the typological figures in Scripture that point to her Immaculate Conception.

However, the purpose of this post is not to provide an extensive apologetic for the dogma. It is to bring attention the flaw in one of the critics' arguments against Mary's Immaculate Conception. The argument says because Mary underwent the rite of purification for sin after Christ's birth (Luke 2:22-24), she therefore must have sinned.

For example, Reese Currie of Compass Distributors writes:

Under the Law of Moses, Mary offered a sin offering, the reason for so doing being that one has sinned. So the notion that Mary led a sinless life is proven false...

Here is the Scriptural text in question:

And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." (Luke 2:22-24)

The quoted portion refers back to Leviticus:

Say to the people of Israel, If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. ... And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean." (Lev. 12:2-3,6-8)

Authors like Currie focus on the phrase "for a sin offering." Thus, since Mary underwent the purification rite of the Old Covenant under which her action occurred, some critics consider Luke 2 as a "proof" against the idea that Mary is without all stain of sin.

But this conclusion results in a number of problems.

A sin to bleed?

First is a simple problem in understanding the sign of the rite, rather than a statement about the woman's sanctity. According to the text of Leviticus 12, the "sin" the woman committed was the ceremonial need to be purified from the uncleanliness "from the flow of her blood." (cf. Lev. 15 for further context on Jews and sexual "regulations.") No woman commits a sin simply when her body involuntarily behaves according to biology and sheds blood. The idea that "bleeding is morally sinful" is nonsensical on its face. The rite in Leviticus is a "legal" uncleanliness and part of the OT "law" Christ superseded by fulfilling the law. (cf. Gal. 3:13; Mat. 5:17)

The view of sexual actions in the Old Testament often were associated with unholiness. For instance, in 1 Sam. 21:4-5, the priest in the scene refuses to give "holy bread" to men who had recently had relations with women. Of course, God even commanded pre-Fall man to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28) so sexual activity is of course not inherently sinful. These Old Testament figures are rather signal of the actual holiness required to approach God. Understanding how Israel thus viewed these rites points us to the holiness to come.

So then Jesus must have sinned too since he underwent rites for sin?

The second consequence of the critics' argument is perhaps more revealing of its unreasonableness. Remember, the critics' rule is if a person undergoes an OT ritual for sin, that person necessarily must be a sinner. However, the example of Christ, who was without sin (Heb. 2:17; 4:15), destroys the critics' rule.

Notice in the very text of Luke 2:22 it reads when the time came for "their purification." Most manuscripts read "their" in the original Greek (see footnote 2 at NetBible, incidentally a Protestant source). If that is the case, then according to the critics, Jesus, too, must have been a sinner in need of purification. After all, this gibes with the full context to which Luke 2 refers. Leviticus 12:3 reads "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." In the Old Testament, an uncircumcised male is seen as cut off from God's people, a disgrace, a breaker of God's covenant (cf. Gen. 17:14; Gen. 34:14). Shall the critic therefore call Jesus a disgrace, cut off from God?

Consider also that Jesus underwent John's "baptism of repentance" (Acts 13:24, Mat. 3:11, etc.):

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. (Mat. 3:13-15)

This is an enlightening text. Even though the rite of John's baptism was for the purpose of the recipient's repentance, Jesus "consents" anyway. John even argued with Jesus, questioning why Jesus would even want to undergo the baptism! Yet Jesus consents for a purpose other than a need to repent of sin. He consents for a reason other than the legal purpose of the rite. In doing so, Jesus reveals at least one other reason to undergo a rite for sin: for fulfillment.

And therefore, one cannot consider Luke 2:22-24 a prooftext of any sort against Mary's Immaculate Conception. For she needn't be a sinner to undergo a legal rite for sin.

¹For examples, see books like Mary and the Fathers of the Church by Luigi Gambero or The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin.

How the Eucharist benefits the world

The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1391 reads:

Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." (John 6:56)

From there the Catechism goes on to describe graces bestowed in reception of the Eucharist such as renewal of baptismal grace (1392), spiritual nourishment (1394), separation from sin (1393-1395), and commitment to the poor (1397). These benefits are all proper to the recipient.

But the power of the Eucharist transcends the individual recipient. In fact the spiritual life of the world depends on the celebration of the Eucharist. How can this be so?

The extended power of the Eucharist in Scripture

One of the many passages in Scripture referring to the Eucharistic sacrifice comes from St. Paul:

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

So in the Eucharist, we unite with Christ's sacrifice as well as the Church--which Paul calls Christ's body (Col. 1:24; Eph. 1:22-23, et al).

Those who comprise the Church are extended throughout the world (e.g. 1 John 2:2, Rev. 7:9). The bread which we break (1 Cor. 10:16) brings eternal life (John 6:51) and also unites us to the Church (1 Cor. 10:16). Since we are united to that Church, when we receive the graces of Christ's sacrifice, the whole Church is united to the graces of that sacrifice. That includes anyone in the Church, anywhere, past, present, or future. We know that Christ's sacrifice transcends time in this way because His death was a historical event which saves both those in the New Testament and those in the Old (Mat. 27:52).

So when we participate in Christ by taking the "cup of blessing which we bless" and the "bread which we break" we are suffering with Him in a time-transcending extension of the once for all historical sacrifice on Calvary. And since Christ's sacrifice is the means to salvation for the Church, the entire Church in all ages and places benefits whenever we participate in that sacrifice.

Participation in Christ's suffering and unity of the body

Participation in Christ's suffering is very native to the New Testament. Paul said "we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him" (Rom. 8:17). He told the Philippians how he longed to "share his sufferings." The Apostle Peter echoed the same theology:

1 Peter 4:13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

This concept of rejoicing in suffering with Christ contributes to our understanding of how the Eucharist benefits the entire body of Christ. Paul writes:

1 Corinthians 12:26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

And Paul further emphasized the indivisible unity of the "one body" of the Church (Eph 4:4, 1 Cor. 12:12). He ties this concept directly into the Eucharist one verse after 1 Corinthians 10:16 quoted above:

1 Corinthians 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Further reinforcing the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice as Christ's, Paul goes on to describe this taking of the bread and wine a participation "of the table of the Lord" (1 Cor. 10:21). He has already called the Eucharist a participation in the very blood of Christ's suffering. Referencing the "table of the Lord" fortifies his teaching that the Eucharist is indeed the sacrifice. He compares the "table" to the sacrificial "altar" of the Jews (1 Cor. 10:18). And he further compares it to "what pagans sacrifice" (1 Cor. 10:19). In the Old Testament, the concept of the Lord's "table" was the term used to describe where the Israelites offered sacrifice (Ezek. 44:15-16) which was the prefigurement of Christ's superior sacrifice perpetuated in the Eucharist (e.g. Heb. 9:23).

So adding all this up, what do we see? We see that participating in the Eucharist is a share in Christ's blood and the Church. His sacrifice is, of course, the source of salvation for the whole world. Therefore, since we sacramentally participate in the same suffering of His sacrifice by partaking in the Eucharist, the entire Church in every age and place benefits. After all, what happens to one member happens to all members since the body is united.

Thus, in partaking in the Eucharist we also show love of neighbor. When we rejoice, they rejoice. The devil's desire is the exact opposite of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the grains of wheat united in "one bread, one body," bringing the Church everywhere together. The devil's desire is to "sift" the faithful "like wheat" that is not united (Luk. 22:31). The Eucharist brings unity to the Church. The devil brings division to the Church, and he incurs defeat whenever the Eucharist is celebrated.

Confirmed in Catholic teaching

The Catholic Church teaches how the entire Church throughout the world and in every age benefits whenever the Eucharistic sacrifice is celebrated. Here are some examples from official Catholic resources (emphasis mine):

For in [the Eucharist] Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on the cross, offering himself to the Father for the world's salvation through the ministry of priests

–The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, 9.c.3. Quoted in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, edited by Austin Flannery, O.P., Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN, 1977, p. 103

Remember, Lord, those who have died and have gone before us marked with the sign of faith, especialy those for whom we now pray, N. et N. May these, and all who sleep in Christ, find in your presence light, happiness, and peace.

–Eucharistic Prayer I, Roman Canon, Mass of the 1970 Missal

Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Strengthen in faith and love your pilgrim Church on earth; your servant, Pope N., our Bishop N., and all the bishops,with the clergy and the entire people your Son has gained for you. Father, hear the prayers ofthe family you have gathered herebefore you. In mercy and love unite all your children wherever they may be. Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters, and all who have left this world in your friendship.

–Eucharistic Prayer III, Roman Missal, 3rd Edition

Then, we pray [in the anaphora] for the holy fathers and bishops who have fallen asleep, and in general for all who have fallen asleep before us, in the belief that it is a great benefit to the souls on whose behalf the supplication is offered, while the holy and tremendous Victim is present. . . . By offering to God our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, if they have sinned, we . . . offer Christ sacrificed for the sins of all, and so render favorable, for them and for us, the God who loves man.

–St. Cyril of Jerusalem, quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1371

[T]he priest alone can complete the building up of the Body in the eucharistic sacrifice. Thus are fulfilled the words of God, spoken through His prophet: "From the rising of the sun until the going down thereof my name is great among the gentiles, and in every place a clean oblation is sacrificed and offered up in my name". In this way the Church both prays and labors in order that the entire world may become the People of God, the Body of the Lord and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and that in Christ, the Head of all, all honor and glory may be rendered to the Creator and Father of the Universe.

–Lumen Gentium, 17

That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.....Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.

–Council of Trent, 22.2

If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

–Council of Trent, 22, canon 3

The souls of the departed can, however, receive “solace and refreshment” through the Eucharist, prayer and almsgiving. The belief that love can reach into the afterlife, that reciprocal giving and receiving is possible, in which our affection for one another continues beyond the limits of death—this has been a fundamental conviction of Christianity throughout the ages and it remains a source of comfort today.

–Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 48

EDIT 10/23/12 TO ADD: The offering up of the Holy Mass benefits not only the saints for whom [in whose honor] it is said, but the whole Church of God in Heaven, on earth and in Purgatory.
–St. John Vianney, the Curé of Ars (quoted in Prayers and Heavenly Promises compiled from approved sources by Joan Carroll Cruz, p. 9) 

Book Review: The Rite

The Rite (2010 paperback) by Matt Baglio is one of the best books I have ever read. I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

This is the book that served as the inspiration for the movie The Rite (2011) starring Anthony Hopkins, which I reviewed in January.

Both mediums, particularly the book, pleasantly treat the subject of exorcism as one that requires caution. But the book is much better than the movie. The book is non-fiction and follows the training of San Francisco priest Father Gary Thomas as he journeys to Rome to learn the trade of exorcism (the movie character Michael Kovak is said to be based on a Chicago-area exorcist). We are given in most chapters glimpses into the mind of Father Gary for whom exorcism was mostly an alien enterprise prior to his Roman visit. The reader sees through Father Gary's eyes for the first time truly horrific and unexpected events. Yet there is always a balance of humility and a desire for prudence in this learning priest's disposition. Due consideration is always given to science in accord with the Church's advice to utilize the examinations of medical doctors. One of the exorcist's primary goals is to discern when a disorder is natural or supernatural.

That brings me to another great quality of this book. There are some tangents from Father Gary's direct experiences. These tangents are typically informative and are useful in understanding the subject matter in general. For instance, on page 204, Baglio finishes a discourse on several scientific studies into potential possessions and human disorders with: "If true, quantum entanglement could help to explain how things like healing from a distance, or the power of prayer, actually work." Baglio's prudential consideration to detail and explanation make me suspect his witnessing of the Church's cautious training on exorcism lead him to the same prudence.

As well, the book is fraught with side comments on exorcism from a other exorcists including Father Gabriel Amorth who is Rome's chief exorcist, and a good number of other exorcists with whom the author had contact. This is a critical part of the value of this book. For those interested in the subject of exorcism, comparing and contrasting the experiences of actual exorcists is invaluable. The reader learns throughout the book that demons often exhibit similar behavior when manifesting. Yet sometimes behaviors are unexpected. This is where the array of experiences among the exorcists is especially useful in developing the Church's knowledge of the subject matter. Just as scientists throughout the world compare and contrast their various results to accelerate the learning process, so too do these appointed exorcists. This book is fantastic for detailing a variety of demonic behaviors.

One one occasion, Baglio describes the disparity of experience by different people present at the same exorcism (page 149): "During the exorcism, Father Gary had the overwhelming sensation that the room was suffocatingly hot, while the priest from Indianapolis smelled a terrible 'over-powering' stench." Were multiple demons at work? Was the same demon attempting to confuse? Was there something about the priests that made them each sensitive to particular phenomenon? It is details such as these that inform students of the subject much of the mystery involved in discernment and liberation and why so much care must be taken.

Contrary to one of the weaknesses of the movie, the book's Father Gary is not a "doubting" figure with a flippant attitude like his parallel film character. Father Gary enters the arena not knowing what to expect. He may ask himself "why," as the reader learns during a description of a near-fatal accident earlier in Father Gary's life, but he does not exhibit the sustained defiance of many shaky priests that are native to some Hollywood productions.

One of the saving grace of the film was echoing some of the book's details of exorcisms. The book The Rite is especially valuable for its first-hand accounts of actual exorcisms. During these scenes, my eyes were glued to the dramatic and detailed accounts of levitation, demonic dialogue, feats of strength and contortion, and other phenomenon that baffle even scientists. Those looking for a window into the actual battle of the experience will not be disappointed. From the first page, the struggles and tactics of demons during an exorcism are detailed.

A humorous moment preserved in the film, perhaps taken from the book, was a priest answering a phone during an exorcism (page 103). In comparing the two works, this parallel detail stood out since it was unusual. The book follows the moment with a description of how the priest immediately returned where he left off and the victim resumed the same disposition she had when she left. This additional information in the book leaves the reader with the feeling that the exorcist was in complete control, whereas in the movie the viewer is left wondering if Anthony Hopkins' character is crazy.

The book The Rite also includes a number of other valuable details. This includes pertinent Scriptural verses, reference resources, and perhaps most valuable to anyone is information on those most at risk for possession. Baglio often refers to the victim's experiences in the occult prior to their admission to exorcism.

Should earthquakes shake faith in God?

First, let me offer sympathy and prayer for those suffering as a result of the recent Japanese earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Their trial is severe, unimaginable, and horrific. I do not want my attempt to address a theological issue here to be incorrectly seen as a selfish insensitivity to that reality.

That being said, I want to Scripturally and philosophically address a reaction that invariably is made by skeptics whenever a tragedy dominates the headlines. And I would like to remind any reader that this is not an exhaustive explanation of death and suffering. There are many resources I would encourage anyone to explore such as Padre Pio's Secrets of a Soul, Dr. Peter Kreeft's Making Sense Out of Suffering, C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, or any of Fr. John Corapi's talks on suffering.

Anyway, I read two skeptical posters at the Catholic.com forums make similar comments today. I remember back in the day watching the South Park movie (not a good example for kids by the way!) hearing the same basic line in the face of disaster: "Where is your God when you need him?"

Along with sympathy for the victims of the tragedy, I do have sympathy for the skeptic's reaction. It is no easy thing for a human being to feel at a loss while simultaneously believing God loves him. Even a faithful Christian might feel unsettled by the innocence afflicted by such a disaster.

The reason I think this reaction is common is because in the human mind, there is often an equation of suffering or death with evil. If God permits an innocent person to suffer, He therefore must not love that person.

I think some strains of Christianity, such as those who espouse a "prosperity gospel" have an inadequate response to tragedy and God's love. However, I think Catholic theology can make sense of such suffering.

First, as apologist Jimmy Akin once wrote on his blog:

[God] gives all of us an infinite amount of [the gift of life] because, once we are created, we will endure forever. After the resurrection, we will all--every one of us--have an infinite amount of physical life ahead of us. What we are discussing, therefore, is whether some of us receive an infinite amount of physical life plus a varying amount of finite physical life as well.

When someone dies to the terrestrial, temporal universe, it is by no means the last word. If the Catholic truth that eternal life awaits those who lived faithfully to the divine movements in their hearts, then no amount of measurable, temporal punishment can possibly compare to an eternal reward. The temporal suffering is obliterated by an eternal life with no suffering.

So why is there suffering at all, even if temporal? Catholics understand suffering to have value for the soul as well as humanity itself. Catholics believe that the path fallen man must take to be reunited with God in eternal joy is through Jesus Christ who opened this door for humanity through his suffering on the cross. Thus, if Jesus Christ was truly God incarnate, and if he willingly permitted himself to endure suffering at the hands of his own creatures, then even if we do not fully understand the scope of suffering, we can see a great testament from divinity himself that there is purpose to suffering.

In Catholicism, we believe suffering is a means to be united with Christ's salvific work on the cross. St. Paul teaches about the salvation of mankind with the included caveat: "provided we suffer with him" (Rom. 8:17). Temporal suffering, as Christ experienced on the cross, is a sequential prerequisite to resurrection into eternal life. That would include even infants who must undergo temporal death despite never having committed "actual sin."

As well, in Catholicism, suffering is seen as a mechanism of cleansing a person of the effects of sin, conforming him to the spotless being he shall be in the next life. This takes place as an extension of the singular sacrifice of Christ (see CCC#1473 and preceding). A non-Catholic who does not believe in the temporal consequence of sin will not recognize the value of suffering in this way.

Not to limit this apologetic to Scripture or even exclusively Catholic theology alone, we can in some way grasp the idea that something once perceived valueless can be of the utmost value. As Dr. Peter Kreeft said in his talk Making Sense Out of Suffering a few years ago, if a baby in the womb could rationalize, he would say to himself, for example, why do I have feet? There are no sidewalks here! While the existence of feet in his current domain appears valueless, the next domain beckons their use and feet are of value.

Another example is one that is used as a Christian figure of God's relationship to mankind (although it is evident to anyone): The father-child relationship. Fathers (or mothers) discipline their children. Sometimes it can come in the form of letting a child touch a sharp weed so that the child will learn the danger of the action. The father could lovingly inflict or permit suffering for a variety of reasons including that the child misbehaved or did something detrimental to himself that the father did not want the child to repeat. The discipline is applied to the child for a) reasons the child does not understand, and b) for reasons that result in the improvement of the child's person. If we look at this example categorically, then we must admit not all infliction or permission of suffering equals evil or lack of love even if the recipient does not recognize value in the pain.

If a skeptic recognizes the love of a parent who permits his child to suffer for that child's betterment, then he must acknowledge God could similarly do the same. God's permission of suffering can rationally have an entirely loving motive behind it.

There's an animated science series featuring a "Dr. Quantum" that covers various topics including quantum physics and spatial dimensions. One of the videos is called "Flatland." In the video, Dr. Quantum exists in 3-dimensions just as any terrestrial human being does. He stands over a "flat" universe in which dwells 2-dimensional "Pac-man-looking" people. The 2-dimensional people understand only length and width. Depth is inconceivable to them. Nothing in their existence can be used to depict depth either. Dr. Quantum dips his finger into the 2-dimensional world. A 2-dimensional character only sees an expanding and shrinking circle as Dr. Quantum's finger passes into and out of the 2-dimensional surface. From her perspective, Dr. Quantum is a circle who varies in size. She cannot conceive of the reality beyond her 2-dimensional perspective.

The analogy can help us understand God's perspective. God as an eternal, extra-terrestrial being has a perspective and understanding of reality beyond that of terrestrial man. He may see more of suffering than we see.

In summary, if this world is not the final say, it is specious to measure the value of any divine action or permission based on man's temporal reaction. It is specious even for a skeptic to conclude that if suffering and death occur that God must therefore not love or perhaps not even exist. There are enough signposts in the terrestrial domain that show how suffering can have value.

Papacy debate

In 2008, I did a public formal debate online at Christian Forums on the papacy. The topic was Rome's universal authority was known for all ages. My portions of the debate are posted under the username MrPolo. Here is a link to that debate. Enjoy!

Related post: See the Particular Atonement debate here.

Debunking the doctrine of "Limited Atonement"

Below is a PDF of a 20-page paper for my Pauline Soteriology class defending the idea that Christ's sacrifice was intended for all humanity and not just some as the doctrine of Limited Atonement asserts.

Click here to download The Universality of Salvation.

(I improved a few grammatical parts in this PDF from when it was first submitted. Also, this is a much more extensive treatment on the subject than my Jan. 9 article on the Scope of Christ's sacrifice.)

Sacrawhat? Misconceptions about Sacraments

On the morning of Tuesday, February 1, 2011, I heard Pastor John MacArthur (whose misconceptions about Catholicism I have previously addressed) state the following during his radio-aired sermon titled "The Responsibilities of the Church: Preaching":

As you look back over the history of the Church, look back over the epochs that have thrown themselves as it were against the Church, a number of things come to mind immediately. First of all, let's start with the dangerous epochs at the time when Christianity became the religion of the Holy Roman Empire. So you have not long after that what is commonly known as the Dark Ages that runs from the time of the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire clear through to 1500. Over 1000 years of Dark Ages they're called. And the dominating danger to the Church at that time was sacramentalism. Sacramentalism. And that's the word that you will identify in your mind with this first epoch. Sacramentalism means that the Church was dominated by sacraments, by mechanisms, by external mechanical means--dominated by attempting to know God through some kind of automatic action. Whether it was lighting a candle or genuflecting or it was bowing down, whether it was going through beads, or whether it was inflicting some pain upon yourself physically, whatever it might have been, these were mechanical means supposedly to give people salvation. Sacramentalism was a severe danger to the Church. ... You attached yourself to the Church externally. ... [S]acramentalism came and stayed, and it's still with us.

There are several misconceptions in this discourse. And although MacArthur never uses the word "Catholic" in this particular sermon, he has argued against sacraments in Catholicism elsewhere in nearly identical language.¹

Misconception #1: Sacraments are "external means" that involve "automatic action" involving only "external" attachment to the Church.

MacArthur believes sacraments involve only external actions that have some "automatic" result. This is not the case. All seven sacraments in the Catholic Church are signal of interior realities as well.

Consider the Catholic concept of how Jesus Incarnate was sacramental according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC#515 His humanity appeared as "sacrament", that is, the sign and instrument, of his divinity and of the salvation he brings: what was visible in his earthly life leads to the invisible mystery of his divine sonship and redemptive mission.

Notice the terms describing sacrament: sign, instrument, visible, invisible. Just as Christ's physical death lead to the outpouring of grace, so too do His sacraments. Look how the Church views the sacrament of marriage:

CCC#1617 Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church.

The point in quoting these two paragraphs is to show that the definition of a sacrament goes beyond the external. Remember, MacArthur argued that Catholics believe the way to attach to the Church is simply externally. But Catholics do not believe this. It is possible MacArthur is unaware of what a sacrament is. Openness to Christ is mandatory for the sacraments to have effect. They are not merely mechanical as MacArthur asserted that Catholics believe.

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto...let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, 7.VI)

The sacraments always give grace if we receive them with the right dispositions. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. (I Corinthians 11:27) (Baltimore Catechism #309)

He who knowingly receives a sacrament of the living in mortal sin commits a mortal sin of sacrilege, because he treats a sacred thing with grave irreverence. (Baltimore Catechism #312)

To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment, the person is turned back to God. (Code of Canon Law, #987)

You see the sacraments are not "automatic" as MacArthur claimed Catholics believe. According to Catholic teaching, a skeptic who received the waters of baptism would not receive the graces bestowed in baptism because he posited an obstacle. The recipient resisted what the sacrament conferred. Necessarily, interior conversion must accompany the recipient,² whether it be during baptism, confession, reception of the Eucharist, etc...

There are a number of Catholic resources that defend the reality that sacraments really confer grace. A few examples from Scripture include the teaching that in baptism we die and rise with Christ (Rom. 6:4), are saved by baptism (1 Pet. 3:21), and that baptism results in the forgiveness of our sins (Acts 3:28). Partakers in the Eucharist are given life (John 6:47-68), and participate in Christ's sacrifice as well as commune with other members of the Church (1 Cor. 10:16-17). Etc... Sacraments are not substitutes for salvation by Christ. They are rather instruments established by Christ for us to receive His grace. No one can truthfully say Catholics believe salvation is through sacraments instead of Christ.

Christ Himself juxtaposed outward signs with inward realities so that we would believe in that which we could not see. The story of the paralytic is an example of this. Jesus healed the paralytic and asked the crowd, "Which is easier, to say stand up and rise or that your sins are forgiven"? (Luke 5:17-26). What Jesus was demonstrating, is that what He showed visibly was the same thing that happened spiritually. The onlookers therefore were prompted to have faith in what they could not see (that the man's sins were healed) because of what they could see with their eyes (that the man was physically healed). So too, the sacraments bear a visible and invisible character,³ not just something external as MacArthur incorrectly understands.

Misconception #2: Sacraments came to the Church only after "Christianity became the religion of the Holy Roman Empire."

It is unclear when precisely MacArthur believes this to have taken place. He does state that by 1500, sacraments had been in the Church for "over 1,000 years." That places the beginning at least prior to 500. For the purpose of this post, I am going to give all benefit of the doubt to MacArthur and say he believes sacraments began in 311/313 with the Edict of Tolerance and Edict of Milan by Roman emperors Galerius and Constantine. Although these imperial decrees did not yet make Christianity the official religion of the state, they did make Christianity legal to practice. (It is often said the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was the beginning of Christianity as the official state religion of Rome).

So going with the earliest date of 311, we take a look earlier to see if what MacArthur suggested was true. Did the Church only become sacramental after 311? For learned Catholics, the answer seems obvious: of course not. To those unfamiliar with the writings of the earliest Christians, the following may prove enlightening.

A.D. 75

Epistle of Barnabas - Concerning [baptism], indeed, it is written that the Israelites should not receive baptism that leads to the remission of sins... [W]e descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up bearing fruit in our heart...

A.D. 80

Shepherd of Hermas - And I said, "I heard, sir, some teachers say that there is no other repentance than what takes place when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins." He said to me, "That was sound doctrine you heard; for that is really the case."

A.D. 110

Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 7 - I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

A.D. 151

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 - Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 - And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.

A.D. 181

Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2.16 - On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.

A.D. 203

Tertullian, On Baptism, 7 - After this, when we have issued from the font, we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction,— (a practice derived) from the old discipline, wherein on entering the priesthood, men were wont to be anointed with oil from a horn, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. Whence Aaron is called Christ, from the chrism, which is the unction; which, when made spiritual, furnished an appropriate name to the Lord, because He was anointed with the Spirit by God the Father; as written in the Acts: For truly they were gathered together in this city against Your Holy Son whom You have anointed. Thus, too, in our case, the unction runs carnally, (i.e. on the body,) but profits spiritually; in the same way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal, in that we are plunged in water, but the effect spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.

A.D. 246

Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 1.3-4 [A] man quickened to a new life in the layer of saving water should be able to put off what he had previously been. ... [B]y the help of the water of new birth, the stain of former years had been washed away, and a light from above, serene and pure, had been infused into my reconciled heart—after that, by the agency of the Spirit breathed from heaven, a second birth had restored me to a new man.

These are merely samples from an abundance of early Christian texts demonstrating the prominent belief in the reality of sacraments. MacArthur's claim that sacraments were a later corruption of Christianity is simply false.

Misconception #3 - Lighting a candle, genuflecting, bowing down, going through beads, and "inflicting some pain upon yourself" are sacraments.

To state the obvious: none of these are sacraments.

Nor are any of these things contrary to the Christian faith. Even Scripture has examples of bowing or kneeling in prayer. Inflicting "pain," if done prudently such as in the form of fasting, which is also Biblical, facilitates our own life of living in Christian obedience and charity. Candles mirror the lampstands of the book of Revelation. Going through beads (if MacArthur is referring to the Rosary or other prayer meditations) accompanies prayer and can help us meditate on holy words in the tradition of Scripture like Psalm 136. In this third misconception, MacArthur again neglects to recognize or acknowledge the interior disposition accompanying the outward action, and so he falls into error.

¹MacArthur stated in his sermon A Biblical Response to the Catholic-Evangelical Accord: "[T]he primary reason why people in the Catholic system are not Christians is because the system becomes a surrogate Christ and salvation is a mechanical thing by being attached to the Church. And you're attached to the Church by means of rituals and sacraments and ceremonies and all of that. ... And pray for these people that are involved in this. I find it very difficult. I know them personally, of course, and find it extremely difficult to understand how they can be drawn into this. Love your Catholic friends, love them enough to recognize that they probably don't know Jesus Christ. Don't attack them unkindly, but point out the issue is not external, it's internal." And by rejecting sacraments, MacArthur as well rejects the Orthodox Church which also has an ancient pedigree.

²This is even the case with the baptism of infants: "The fact that infants cannot yet profess personal faith does not prevent the Church from conferring this sacrament on them, since in reality it is in her own faith that she baptizes them. ... [T]he child who is baptized believes not on its own account, by a personal act, but through others, 'through the Church's faith communicated to it.'" (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Infant Baptism, 1980, #14)

³The 19th-20th century Catholic priest and theology and philosophy professor Rev. Daniel Kennedy described a Catholic perspective on the visible and invisible dimensions of sacraments:

• Taking the word "sacrament" in its broadest sense, as the sign of something sacred and hidden (the Greek word is "mystery"), we can say that the whole world is a vast sacramental system, in that material things are unto men the signs of things spiritual and sacred, even of the Divinity. "The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands" (Psalm 18:2). The invisible things of him [i.e. God], from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity" (Romans 1:20).
• The redemption of man was not accomplished in an invisible manner. God renewed, through the Patriarchs and the Prophets, the promise of salvation made to the first man; external symbols were used to express faith in the promised Redeemer: "all these things happened to them [the Israelites] in figure" (1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 10:1). "So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman" (Galatians 4:3-4). The Incarnation took place because God dealt with men in the manner that was best suited to their nature.
• The Church established by the Saviour was to be a visible organization (see CHURCH: The Visibility of the Church): consequently it should have external ceremonies and symbols of things sacred.
• The principal reason for a sacramental system is found in man. It is the nature of man, writes St. Thomas (III:61:1), to be led by things corporeal and sense-perceptible to things spiritual and intelligible; now Divine Providence provides for everything in accordance with its nature (secundum modum suae conditionis); therefore it is fitting that Divine Wisdom should provide means of salvation for men in the form of certain corporeal and sensible signs which are called sacraments. (For other reasons see Catech. Conc. Trid., II, n.14.)

(Taken from Catholic Encyclopedia: Sacraments)

Movie Review: "The Rite"

Following is a review of the 2011 movie "The Rite." This thread may contain details that could "spoil" the movie for some readers. However, I think I have not given away anything vital that would spoil any surprises. At the end of this post you will see a SPOILERS warning for a scene at the end of the movie which you may wish to skip if you have not seen the movie.

"The Rite" is a film about a skeptical Catholic seminarian (or perhaps a deacon---there was a voiceover that indicated he had been ordained a deacon although they refer to him as a seminarian) who travels to Rome and observes the exorcisms of a veteran priest. The seminarian Michael Kovak is played by Colin O'Donoghue, and the exorcist Father Lucas Trevant is played by Anthony Hopkins. The opening credits state that the movie is "suggested by the book by Matt Baglio" which is called "The Rite: The Making of an Exorcist." According to radio producer Nick Thomm (MP3), the book and film were written simultaneously so the movie can't really be said to be "based" on the book. Rather it seems there was inspiration and collaboration between Baglio and the screenplay author. As of this post, I have not read the book.

Overall, I give the film 6.5 out of 10. I would classify this as another film Catholics can view as favorable to the Church. It is fraught with Catholic imagery, statues, much of which takes place in Rome. Rosaries and Hail Marys are said, Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary are called upon during exorcism, confessions are heard favorably, the rite of exorcism is used along with the priest's drive to ascertain the demon's name, the warning for lay persons to not address the possessed, etc. Priests are also portrayed positively on the whole throughout the film. One bizarre moment that never comes into play was when a priest indirectly threatens Kovak financially if he dropped out of the seminary. The other bizarre thing about this priest is that it is quite unlikely that he would send a skeptical priest to learn about exorcisms because exorcism is dangerous work that demands great faith.

The best scenes in the film are early on when Kovak witnesses Father Lucas' exorcisms of a pregnant 16 year old (played by Marta Gastini, who I would say was the best actor in the film). These scenes get to the heart of the exhaustion and real battle that takes place during exorcisms. (Stories by actual priests can be read in good books like An Exorcist Tells His Story, The Devil, or Begone Satan which tells the story of a 23-day exorcism in Iowa in the 20th century. Another book I have not read is Interview with an Exorcist by Father Fortea. His talk to seminarians on exorcism is worth a listen.)

Kovak also plays the role of a skeptic throughout the film. He tries to offer scientific explanations of phenomenon whenever he can, even if his explanations are less-plausible than the demonic. There was one line where he said something to Father Lucas like: "It's hard to believe when no proof is considered proof." He said this in response to Father Lucas explaining how the devil hides so that others will doubt. Kovak's comment was left unchallenged and I wish they would have addressed the nature of faith in the face of evidence. We put our very lives at risk in the absence of proof such as when we trust the the brakes on the car will work or the food in a restaurant is not poisoned. Yet when a possession victim speaks alien languages, regurgitates foreign objects, makes impossible bodily contortions, the Kovak character was apt to demand some sort of "proof" that would dispel his own capacity to think of unlikely alternative explanations. As Blessed John Henry Newman wisely wrote well over 100 years ago: "For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will."

One point the film was clear to make is that in Catholicism, natural explanations must be "exhausted" before someone can be considered possessed. The character Father Lucas is himself a doctor. The medical staff at a hospital admit to having run out of medical options in another case. This is important because it shows the prudence of Catholic teaching in diagnosing this phenomenon. One does not want to fuel a victim's delusion if there are natural or psychological explanations for the disorder at work.

At times the film is a little slow and much is left unexplained. It is unclear when the devil is at work or when actions have other causes. It is also unclear when the devil "wins" any particular battle. Sterile flashbacks to Kovak's childhood are scattered throughout the film that I found more interrupting than informative.

As exorcism movies go, I would rank this second behind The Exorcism of Emily Rose and ahead of The Exorcist. All three movies do attempt to get theological portrayals correct with varying degrees of accuracy.

EDIT TO ADD: Since posting this review, I have completed a review of the book The Rite.

SPOILERS BELOW

One questionable flaw in the movie was the portrayal of the seminarian (or deacon) Kovak performing an exorcism. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1673 When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and office of exorcizing. In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.

In the film, Kovak does read a rite from a book and it is unclear whether or not this was licit. Not only did he enter the exorcism with lingering doubts of faith which likely would have rendered him weak or even succumb to the devil's wiles, but without priestly ordination, the exorcism lacked the spiritual gifts given to a priest at ordination.

The Monster: The Catholic Ending

This is an alternate ending to my original "The Monster" cartoon. This "Catholic Ending" version is about 3:00 long. Also suitable for children. :)

You can see it at YouTube here.

Movie: The Monster

Ok, this post isn't really a "Catholic" one, per se. It's something I worked on for the last few weeks using Flash CS3. It's a movie I made about a giant monster who wreaks comical havoc on "Chicago." It's about 4:20 long. Suitable for children. :)

You can see it at YouTube here.

The scope of Christ's sacrifice for "all"

In Catholicism, the fruits of Christ's work on the cross are considered to have been made available to all mankind. The Catechism reads:

CCC#616 It is love "to the end" that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life. Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died." No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

In other words, Christ died for all persons.

Many followers of the Reformed Christian tradition and others who share their sentiment on atonement do not believe Christ died for all, but only for a specific group of people. For instance:

Jesus Made Atonement for the Elect Alone

In doing the will of the Father by atoning for the sins of His people, Jesus Christ death was on behalf of a specific people group. ... It is primarily for this reason that atonement within the Reformed Tradition has been dubbed limited, because Christ’s atonement was limited to the elect alone. (ReformedAndReforming.org)

In one sense, Christ's atonement is "limited" in that it is not finally appropriated to all souls since some go to hell. The difference between the Catholic and "limited atonement" position is this: a Catholic insists Christ's work on the cross is made available to all. He rightly can be said to have "died for all men." No one is deprived of the graces poured out by Christ's work, and thus it is possible for anyone to go to heaven. (For an apologetic treatment by a former Protestant, see James Akin's A Tiptoe Through TULIP.) The "limited atonement" tradition says the graces poured out by Christ's sacrifice are limited in that they are never made available to a certain group of people, but only made available to the elect.

I think there are a number of ways to support the Catholic position over the "limited atonement" position. This post is to show one of them.

From the Apostle Paul:

Romans 5:12-19 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -- sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Notice a few things stated in this text:

• Adam is a type of Christ.
• Adam's trespass brought death to all men.
• Jesus' obedience brought life to all men.

Notice the symmetry. Notice how Christ is a reversal of Adam. The "limited atonement" interpretation reads the "all/many" pertaining to Adam's half of the equation as literally "all mankind." The "limited atonement" interpretation of Jesus' half of the equation is read as "only all the elect." (See the Editor's note #169 in John Calvin's commentary on Romans for an example reflecting this interpretation.)

However, this interpretation violates a basic Biblical principle: New Covenant types are better and more glorious and perfect than their Old Testament antetypes. As I have written prior on this blog, the Old Testament is fraught with imagery that foreshadows counterparts in the New Testament. The OT manna that brought only physical life represents the NT bread of eternal life (John 6:31-35); Noah preserved physical life through the waters of the flood which represents the superior spiritual life conferred through the waters of baptism (1 Pet. 3:20-21); the book of Hebrews has numerous examples of the superior types in the NT including a "better covenant" (Heb. 7:22), "better promises" (Heb. 8:6), "better sacrifices" (Heb. 9:23); etc. Paul teaches that the new is much more splendorous than the Old (2 Cor. 3:11) as was prophesied by Haggai (Hag. 2:9).

So a key principle in typology is to recognize the superior qualities of the New Testament types over their Old Testament antetypes. But what happens when one attempts to say Christ's sacrifice was only for some? Consider the following illustration:

So we ask, does the "limited atonement" interpretation remain faithful to the superiority of New Testament types? The answer is no. The "limited atonement" interpretation considers the scope of Christ's work to be weaker than Adam's. Adam's work is actually seen to be the more powerful of the two. Thus, the idea of a limited atonement not only departs from the balance and symmetry of the text in Romans 5, but does not give proper justice to the Biblical concept of typology. Christ, as the superior New Testament type, cannot be made the less powerful agent of the two. The Catholic interpretation recognizes that the scope of Christ's work is the overturning of Adam's. Adam's path of death for all mankind is turned by Christ into a path of life for all mankind.