I was hanging with a buddy on Friday and the topic turned to eating Jesus. Yes, we Catholics claim to eat Jesus when we receive the Eucharist. My Protestant friend knew this and poo-poo'd the fact that I even brought it up. Being an expert at ignoring social cues, I plowed ahead and shared the idea that often when my boys were babies, I would pick them up nuzzle my nose into their bellies and threaten to eat them up! And I wanted to eat them up - without hurting them, of course.
"Hmm" was my friends response, "I did that too."
After that momentous victory I decided to build on that with some information that I had never heard as a Evangelical Protestant regarding the topic. you see, I had heard plenty of reasons against the Catholic position, but I can't remember a single concession or insight given in favor.
Jesus did say "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have life within you." and "My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6). And while the topic has been brought up (by me) and argued against (by them) I never had any Evangelical tell me what it really meant - only that it didn't mean what Catholics said it meant.
So, here's two of the more interesting items that I never heard as a Protestant:
1) We all know that Jesus was born in a Manger, but did we ever think what a manger is for? I love Italian food (mostly because it's food) and we can barely get through an Italian dish without someone yelling out "Mangi" (pronounced man-jeeh) meaning "eat". The manger is an eating thingie - and Jesus was laid in a manger.
2) We also all know Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Bethlehem, when translated from the Hebrew means "House of Bread". Right before Jesus tells us in we must eat him to have life, he tells us that he is "the bread of life". How appropriate for a man born in a bakery - a house of bread. Write Comment
When Jesus commanded the disciples, "Write the Bible to establish the pillar of Truth..." Oh wait, Jesus never told his disciples to write the Scriptures, except for John, when he was given the vision that became the book of Revelation (The Apocalypse as it used to be known). The fact is that many of our separated brethren (the good ones) consider Holy Scriptures the final authority for faith and morals. I propose that Scriptures, while being the written Word of God, lack key characteristics to be a final authority - and that they were never intended to be one.
Since I have only three minutes, I'll try to be concise.
St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the Church is "The Pillar and Foundation of Truth". That is, that the Church is the place where the truth is firmly established. That's a far cry from the idea that the Church is an invisible society of true believers of every theological stripe. In that case the description would be something like "a lake in which the truth swims" or "a diamond of truth in the rough" - not a PILLAR and FOUNDATION of truth.Here St Paul has the same position when writing to Timothy that we see in Acts Chapter 15 when the believers in Antioch had heard two different ideas of what Christian should do regarding the ceremonial law of Moses. It was the Church, led by the Holy Spirit that definitively and authoritatively resolved the issue.
Scripture doesn't tell us whether there were dissenters to the decision, but it does make clear that the Church's position was binding. Did not Jesus say "whatever you bind on earth will be bound on heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" first to Peter in Matthew 16:19 and then to the disciples in Matthew 18:18? I've heard a lot of weird teaching by non-Catholics about the terms "binding" and "loosing", but anyone of the time would understand that Jesus was conferring the ability to rule onto the Apostles and Peter (see Isaiah 22:20-23).
While the Scripture are true and indeed "profitable... that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17), they do lack a few important characteristics necessary to claim Final Arbiter of Faith and Morals:
1) Scripture can't resolve new, uncited moral issues. We can't look to Scripture to resolve issues like cloning, in vitro fertilization, and whether you can smoke, cuss or chew or date girls that do (okay maybe cussin' is covered in the Bible under "course speech"). And if you think that because you can't find them in Scripture you're free to pick any position you want, you're quite mistaken. In Romans Chapter 1, St. Paul appeals to Natural Law as the reflection of God's nature and His will, which, like Scripture, also needs a final arbiter (official interpreter) to apply it correctly (see #2).
2) Scripture requires an interpreter. When a Non-Catholic says that his view on disputed verses of scripture is the right one, he is saying that his fellow Christians are wrong. Now that may work if it's a non-Catholic against Catholics (like stuff about the Pope), but it doesn't fly when non-Catholics disagree between themselves. The disagreement proves that Scripture can be misinterpreted. When this point is brought up there are two common responses:
a) The person lacks the intelligence or internal virtue to either understand the verse or accept it with the appropriate docility to the Holy Spirit. Neither of these can be the case since a lack of adequate intelligence puts the less brilliant believer at the intellectual and spiritual mercy of any heretic with the powers of persuasion. And since docility to the Holy Spirit is a result of holiness it therefore cannot also be a prerequisite to holiness. It's basically saying that only good people get to hear the truth on how to be good.
So how can we know with any level of certainty that we are on the right path. It cannot simply be based on an individual, subjective knowing. Mormonism is well-known for asking its potential converts to ask God for a "burning in the bosom" - a literal existential gut-check - to see if Mormonism is true. And while we are intimately involved with our own truth-seeking, we also need to have a reasonable amount of distrust of our own intellect and holiness. If we don't, spiritual pride has an open door and the result can be catastrophic.
b) The second response I get when I talk about the disunity of doctrine among non-Catholics is "True Christians agree on the important theological issues."
Really? Lutherans and Presbyterians believe in Infant baptism (like Catholics) which transforms the infant into a child of God while most others believe one CANNOT become a child of God without an act of the will after the age of accountability. Disciples of Christ and SDAs believe that works are required for salvation while Lutherans and many others believe that God imputes righteousness on the believer without any requirement of morality whatsoever. And there's a 50/50 split over the doctrine of Eternal Security. Half say that once one is saved he is always saved and no act of human will can change it - making every spiritual warning to Christians irrelevant, while the other half acknowledges the potential for the believer to walk away from God's gift (post-conversion).
Christianity is a creedal religion - it is based on believing truths - and poo-pooing truth for unity's sake is simply a bad idea. Let's face it, something is either true or not. And the issues at stake are core to how and whether we are saved or not. These simply are not trivial disagreements.
3) The Scripture requires inclusion in the Canon of Scripture What I mean here is that someone - a human agent - was needed to decide what was or wasn't part of that which we now call the Bible. God did not drop the compiled Bible from heaven. In fact, whether you're a Protestant or Catholic, the books included in your Bible were finally and authoritatively declared in the 16th century (by the Council of Trent for Catholics and by the Reformers for Protestants). The books the Catholics read are the same as have been agreed upon since the fourth century. This would require a lot more explanation, but the fact remains that human agents decided what's in or out of the Bible and there simply is no self-evident test that can justify the inclusion of all the books. Consider the racy book of Song of Solomon or somewhat tedious book of Numbers. Those that claim that it's obvious are basing that decision on familiarity not fact. People, guided by the Spirit of God decided which books were in and which were out. The question is who. Your choices are these: 1) The ones who wanted to create a new version of Christianity or 2) the original group of Christians.
It should be noted that the original group were not silent and secretive for 1500 years before the Reformation. You can actually look and see their beliefs, practices, methods and decisions. These methods look amazingly similar to Acts 15, where this authority wielding Church sent the message to Antioch, " For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit.." They also look amazingly like the Catholic Church.
Does your church wield such authority? Only crazy cults and cult-like organizations dare claim such authority, except, that is, the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the foundation of the Apostles, with Peter as its head. I, of course, believe that the Catholic Church is that Church founded by Christ. You may disagree with my selection, but tell me what other group even comes close? Write Comment
Here's a summary of my time at the University of Minnesota.
Wednesday (5/5/10)
Remembering the words of Mother Theresa, "God has not called us to be successful, God has called us to be faithful.", I bundled up, grabbed my gear (there's more gear than you'd think), and made my way to my location on Northrup Mall. Rain was zig-zagging in the wind.
Like a good outdoors-man, I had a few layers of clothing. I was still a wee bit cold and the rain provided an additional chill but I knew adrenaline would soon take care of that. I deployed my porta-pulpit (thanks Jeff), laid out my gear (recorder, prayer cards, notes, etc.) said some final prayers, and surveyed the clouds. A clearing in the clouds was a minute away.
I thanked God for the timing, waited until it stopped, and boomed out my introduction. The gale force winds slammed my usually powerful voice to the ground like a whisper in a typhoon.
Most student shuffled by far too cold to pay much attention. A few slowed to behold the anomaly - though preachers are a common sight in the mall - my pulpit and crucifix garnered a second look
The topic was The Culture Of Life Vs The Culture Of Death. I began with my list of questions, cajoling the student to interact: "Joseph Stalin, ever ready with the one-liner (yes, he considered himself a funny guy) once said, 'A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a ... ' what?"
One of the shuffling students provided the correct answer, "Statistic!" I congratulated his knowledge but he was 50 feet away before I finished.
The skies began to darken and I wrapped up after 20 minutes.
You can't help scoring your efforts. The trick is to avoid presuming you know how God scores it. I try to look at the different dimensions of the experience: Fear and trepidation subjugation: 5 (I was a bit uncomfortable, but trusted God overall); Delivery: 3 (Choppy, disjointed, heavy - a bit like the weather); Overall value: 10 (Got the cobwebs out, stretched my vocal cords, reacquainted myself with the process, etc). Tomorrow I would do better - weather permitting.
Thursday (5/6/10)
After a morning at the coffee shop I got in my car and headed into town. No wind, intermittent sunshine. The weather was cooperating.
I stepped out of the Church Street Garage and the sun made a grand appearance. It was easy to imagine students lingering on a day like this.
Having broke the ice the day before, it was easier to focus less on myself and my message and more on the students. These were thousands of young people made in the image of God with limitless value and potential. I would remind them of that.
There's the moment when you walk past that first student on your way to the location. The student looks at the odd thing you're carrying. Did they decipher the Escher-like contraption, unfolding it in their mind into a device for street preaching? I chuckle to myself considering the oddity that is myself.
A began my setup routine. Unfolding porta-pulpit, holy card placement, giveaway placement (rosaries and holy cards for questions and answers), crucifix on front of pulpit for quick and easy identification, crucifix facing me for comfort and courage. I take my time. I consider the position of my pulpit desiring maximum affect. I make a significant change, pointing myself toward the stream of walking students. I'm aware that the volume of my voice may actually hurt the ears of passersby and determine to speak at three-quarter volume. I decide to ascend the pulpit and spend time organizing my notes and praying quietly from there, reasoning that it will indicate that I'm about to begin. As I look up to begin, a small crowd has gathered and I begin.
The topic is Love Vs Convenience, Marriage Vs Shacking Up. A group of young women chat in close proximity, occasionally glancing up as I quote peer-reviewed studies showing the significant down-sides of cohabiting. I decide to volley a question to them, asking them if they think shacking up is a good idea. They engage a few volleys and one of them walks away. I sense the topic hits a little close to home so I offer up a silent prayer.
Questions begin to be posed. A questioner asks about embryonic stem cell research. He wants to know if I approve. It's important to understand that the goal is not to satisfy the questioner but to use the questions as a way to teach the crowd. So I begin to break down the question.
"Is it a human life?" I ask the questioner.
He's not interested in answering questions. I explain that when the 23 chromosomes from the mother join with the 23 chromosomes of the father a unique, individual human life is created. He's unfazed. He wants an up or down decision. I tell him I believe every human life from conception to natural death is sacred. The guy takes this as a yes and goes for the jugular,
"Do you have children?".
"yes."
"If your child has Hodgkin's Disease you wouldn't use embryonic stem cells to save him?"
"No, that would be killing another human being to save my son's life."
He's shaking his head in disgust.
I guess that one pushes a button. I feel defensiveness rising up. I tell him about the tainted research after WWII that the allies disposed of because the research had the blood of the Nazi victims on it. I'm talking faster than than I'm thinking. He starts walking away. I shout to him that we don't kill people so others can live. I'm right but I'm wrong. I turn to the crowd and tell them we need to go on to the next question. I've lost my cool but the crowd is unfazed. I guess they think it's part of the show. I regain my cool a few words into the next question, but in retrospect the guy had touched a nerve. I don't like choice he posed: My son or my God. Abraham had it rough on Horeb. God, keep my kids off the altar of science.
An hour or so of Q and A followed. A vaguely familiar face enters the crowd. Could it be?
Four years ago a 17 year old kid with a penchant for Star Trek and buttons displaying his contempt for Christianity. My favorite (for novelty reasons) was the word Dogma with a red circle and a line drawn through it. He spent a good hour testing my metal. That exchange came to a head with me acknowledging the importance of his questions and the nobility of his quest. My response surprised him. I guess he saw us as arch-rivals and I saw him as a fellow seeker. I sensed his need for the approval of an older man. I imagined a father who was disapproving of his questions. He needed to know that God was good or he would have none of it. We shook hands and I asked him his name. I prayed for Ryan several times over the years when he came to mind.
The man now before me poses a question about God's omnipotence and the problem of evil. This guy's done his homework. He challenges my sloppy response. I refine my answer and mention the atheistic position. He defensively states that he didn't say he was an atheist. I confidently reply that I didn't say he was but was only contrasting my position. He agrees. We wrap up our interchange and he gets up to leave. I see the no dogma button pinned to his backpack.
"Ryan?"
"yes."
His voice conveys a tenderness and pleasure that he is recognized and remembered. I'm truly happy to see him.
Later I reflect on the likelihood of our encounter, the impression he made on me that I would remember his name, and the obvious providential nature of our two encounters.
I will be conducting three days of open air presentations (preaching) on May 5th, 6th and 7th on Northrup Mall at the University of Minnesota and I'd really appreciate your prayers. This is the fourth year I've done this and it's been well received but it requires extra prayer for both myself and my hearers. To get an idea of my presentation see THIS PAGE.
If you're unfamiliar with the modern heritage of Catholic open air presentations in the last century (not to mention the last 200+ years), I urge you to READ THIS ARTICLE.
I was sent the following article to post on the Truth Warriors Mailing List. My response is on the Newsweek site (in parts) and below.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234430
My Response
Ms. Miller, true to her occupation, is a wordsmith extraordinaire. She skillfully balances truth and innuendo, fact and subterfuge. This is the power of distortion. It's gone on since the beginning, "No you shall not die...?" (Gen 3)
Early on Lisa Miller says,
"It goes without saying that the Catholic hierarchy has always been pro-life."
Here she gives a nod to the consistency of the Bishops' position and even the term "pro-life", which is a mouthful for those of the pro-abortion camp (they prefer "anti-choice"). She fails to mention that when she says hierarchy, she actually speaks of nearly 2000 years of service by those successors of the very Apostles of Jesus Christ, to whom Jesus Commanded to "teach them to obey all that I have commanded you." This brings us to the next point.
Ms. Miller later says,
"... half of American Catholics believe you can be a good Catholic and disregard the bishops' teachings on abortion."
This statement positions the teachings of the bishops solely in the mouths of the bishops, as if they themselves are the source for the teaching. All the while the author is reminding the typically uneducated reader that it is also bishops that are at the center of the clergy molestation scandal, failing to note that it is these uncompromising bishops, "of a much bolder stripe" that are the fix to the keep-the-peace-at-all-cost bishops who shuffled molesting priests around hoping the problem would take care of itself.
Obviously, it's not Ms. Miller's place to provide ALL the facts - just enough to send her message out as one more arrow of innuendo like those who called Jesus a "glutton and a drunk." in an attempt to provide an easy "out" for those wishing to dismiss his (their) sometimes difficult message (Luke 7:34).
She could have saved the reference to the sex abuse scandal for another pertinent article and focused on the merits, or lack thereof, of the bishops position. But I imagine it's more fun play the Pied Piper to gullible Americans.
Ms. Miller could have simply said,
"... half of American Catholics believe you can be a good Catholic and disregard THE CHURCH'S CONTINUOUS teachings on abortion."
It's funny that Ms. Miller had to go all the way back to 1999 to find a poll on American Catholic views when Pugh, Gallop and probably Zogby do a poll on Catholic positions on social issues every year. Did I mention that none of the recent polls I saw can substantiate the unreferenced poll's 50 percent claim. I don't doubt she found one because it's so much more powerful to say "half the people think this way and half the people think that way. You are free to choose too." But you are only free to choose one thing. Eat the fruit or obey God. Believe in your own moral clarity, as did every tyrant and evildoer, even Judas who said "the money should be spent on the poor." A little morality is a bad thing. But true saints say that they are wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked and they "buy ointment to smear on your eyes so that [they] may see." (Rev 3:18)
No one can say to God, "It's complicated" as though God was hasty in his moral framework - that he forgot compassion or the realities of real-world life down here on planet earth.
But finally there's this common misstatement that any Newsweek writer should be able to determine is a far cry from an accurate or clear statement,
"But the 40 million Americans without health care might not agree."
So what does she mean?
1. "... 40 million who aren't currently receiving health care services at this time"? I'm sure you'd agree that the bigger the number, the better - all things being equal.
2. "... 40 million who could not get heath care under any circumstance, should they become ill"? That would horrible! But alas, it's not the case. We currently share the cost of those who don't pay for health care - for whatever reason. They simply go to a provider that offers services without proof of payment (a hospital near me has a big sign that reads that they can assist if you can't afford health care). This is not equivalent to the uninsured, as many individuals pay for care as they go (I have paid for health care out-of-pocket several times during my life). So it clearly doesn't mean that.
3. "... 40 million who don't have an active health insurance policy." Oh, that makes sense. But remember that some people, especially young males on their own, pay as they go. They rarely get sick and they probably come out ahead by saving the premiums every month. Yes, there are some who should have insurance, but they don't. I'd much prefer to cover a small portion their cost while we look for common sense solution as opposed to attempting to reshape one sixth of our national economy in a giant government experiment. Duh!
Simply put she could have, should have said,
"But the 40 million Americans without health care COVERAGE might not agree."
But she didn't because she's a master manipulator - or a writer who lacks enough mastery of the English language to accurately convey a point.
In either case over one third of America has been wordsmithed into unrighteousness and ignorance by fair sounding people like Lisa Miller who apparently cares more about the approval of her psuedo-intellectual friends than her own integrity, accurately informing her readers, and most importantly her eternal soul's right standing before God.
Unfair? I think it's unfair to give people like Ms. Miller this potent platform that sedates the gleefully ignorant and encourages defiance, rebellion and sometimes apostasy among the once faithful. I've seen too many victims to stay silent. Ms. Miller is a player or a pawn - either way she needs to see the error of her ways. Write Comment
“The cell (zygote) results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being. Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote.” Dr. Keith L. Moore1
“(Fertilization is) that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual.” Dr. Louis Fridhandler2
“A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.” Encyclopedia Britannica3
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception….I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage….” Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni—professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the U. of Penn.4
“[A]fter fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” “[This] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” Dr. Jerome LeJeune—professor of genetics at the U. of Descartes in Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s syndrome5
“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive….It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception….Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.” Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School6
“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward manner—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.” Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School7
“The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.” Ashley Montague, geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers (unsympathetic to the pro-life cause)8
“Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.” Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, cofounder of NARAL9 (statement made as an atheist, views based on the biological facts, nothing even remotely religious).
“I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.” Dr. Landrum Shettles, obstretrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York10, his intrauterine photos of preborn children appear in over 50 medical textbooks
“The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.” The First Internation Symposium on Abortion11
“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” The Official Senate Report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill”12
For further reading, please visit: http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html (Life Begins at the Beginning—A Doctor Gives Scientific Facts on When Life Begins). 1The Developing Human:Clinically Oriented Embryology, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1977), 1 2“Gametogenesis to Implantation,” Biology of Gestation, vol. 1, ed. N.S. Assau (New York: Academic Press, 1968), 76 3“Pregnancy,” The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., Macropedia, vol. 14 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974), 968 4Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981. 5,6,7,8Id. 9Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979). 10Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103 11John C. Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing, 1988), 42. 12Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7. 13Raul Hillberg, The Destruction of European Jews (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1967), 567-68. Write Comment
Blog 
