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.