The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, that is, that he is present in his body, blood, soul, and divinity.
I have no difficulty in understanding how Christ's human soul and divine nature as the second person of the Blessed Trinity are present in the Eucharist, because they are spiritual realities without physical properties.
Difficulties arise for me, however, with understanding how Christ's body and blood are present. The reason for this is that I, on this side of heaven, cannot conceive of a body or of blood in any way other than physically. I have a body that is physical, that is, it is composed of physical things like bones, muscles, organs, hair, and the like. In addition, I have blood in my body that is also physical, that is, it is a liquid that is red and tastes terrible. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I am willing to bet that, when the average Catholic in the pew hears that Jesus' body and blood are present in the Eucharist, he naturally and automatically thinks physically.
I have found that most orthodox Catholic theologians (including Pope Benedict) deny that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. They reject the idea that Christ shrinks himself down so that there is a little Jesus in every host (a childish view, if I must say so). They also reject the idea that the physical properties of a body (bones, muscles, organs, hair, etc.) are present.
There are four things that make this matter confusing for me.
First, the Roman Catechism or the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in its explanation of the Eucharist, describes the meaning of the Real Presence: "....all the constituents of a true body are present, such as bones and sinews." The late Fr. John Hardon takes a literal or physical view when he says, "He is therefore in the Eucharist also with the essence of those dimensional features that we commonly associate with a living human being. The explanation of how these physical properties are possible is part of theological speculation, but the fact is a matter of faith (John Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, 462)."
Second, the post-resurrection narratives of the gospels (which are not designed to explain how Christ is present in the Eucharist) teach that Christ's glorified body had physical properties. It bore the scars of the crucifixion; and Jesus told the disciples that he had flesh and bones and was not a ghost. Yet, Jesus, in his resurrected body, transcended physical laws in that he could appear anywhere and disguise his appearance.
Third, I do not know which, if any, of the Eucharistic miracles has been authenticated by the Church; but these definitely point to a physical presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
Fourth, the Church says that Christ's presence is a "substantial" and "sacramental" (not physical) presence. These terms are hard to understand because they are based on philosophy and metaphysics. As such, most theologians do not do a good job explaining them and how they differ from a physical presence.
Could it be that the most the Church can do is to speak apophatically, that is, to tell us what is not meant by the Real Presence but cannot tell us what is meant?
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Mind the Spirit of the Law Not Just the Letter of the Law
Gospel, Week 4, Lent
John 9: Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind
This Sunday's Gospel sets forth a contrast between the faith of the man born blind and the unbelief of the Pharisees. In the beginning of the chapter, Jesus refers to himself as the "light of the world", and this light had shot through the heart of the man born blind; whereas, it was rejected by the Pharisees. As such, they remained in the darkness of unbelief.
A key reason for the Pharisees unbelief was that they put more emphasis on the letter of the law and their interpretation of it rather than the spirit of the law, which is love for God and neighbor. This is most evident in their understanding of the Sabbath. They were far more concerned about what constituted and did not constitute work (i.e., letter of the law) than they were about the fact that God created the Sabbath so that he and people might reconnect in love (i.e., the spirit of the law). Their obsession with the letter of the law regarding the Sabbath led them to conclude that Jesus broke it; and thus, was not from God. Jesus may have broken the Pharisees' rigid interpretation of the Sabbath; but he never broke the Sabbath as God intended it, which was to do good to others.
We can make a similar mistake as the Pharisees made. We can become so focused on the moral teachings of the Church that, somehow, we lose the love of which those moral teachings are an expression. And once we lose love, we become self-righteous and quick to condemn others, just like the Pharisees.
Let me give an example. A girl comes to her sister (who is Catholic) and tells her she is gay and is moving in with her girlfriend. If the sister is a Catholic whose main focus is the letter of the law, then she will get angry, condemn her sister, and turn her back on her. Love for the sister will be completely absent. However, if the sister is a Catholic whose main focus is the spirit of the law, then she will agree to disagree and not turn her back on her sister. The Catholic will not justify her sister's lifestyle because the law says it is sinful, but she will also not turn her back on her sister because that is not a loving thing to do.
May our Lord give us the grace and wisdom, not only to mind the letter of the law, but also not to neglect the love the law commands.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Jesus and We Quench Each Other's Thirst
Gospel, Week 3, Lent
John 4:5-42: Jesus Meets the Samaritan Woman
In this Sunday's Gospel, Jesus reveals that God thirsts for us and that we, ultimately, thirst for God.
Jesus begins the dialogue with the Samaritan woman by asking her for something to drink. The thirst Jesus experiences is more than just physical thirst, it is the thirst that he, as God, has for us; as such, it is a thirst that comes from his love for us. God thirsts for our hearts. And, in some way I cannot fully understand or explain, there is a sense in which God's thirst is unquenched when we do not give him our lives. God has put himself in a position where he is incomplete without us.
Jesus reveals our ultimate thirst for God when he tells the Samaritan woman that the water in the well will make her thirsty again. Again, this is more than physical thirst. Jesus is saying to us that our ultimate thirst for happiness can only be satisfied when we give ourselves wholly to God. Everything else we depend on for happiness will leave us thirsty. God has put us in a position where we are incomplete without him.
Jesus and we quench each other's thirst when we give ourselves entirely to each other in love. Jesus has done this perfectly since our baptism. May God give us the grace this Lent to do a better job at giving ourselves wholly to him, as we promised at our baptism.
Jesus reveals our ultimate thirst for God when he tells the Samaritan woman that the water in the well will make her thirsty again. Again, this is more than physical thirst. Jesus is saying to us that our ultimate thirst for happiness can only be satisfied when we give ourselves wholly to God. Everything else we depend on for happiness will leave us thirsty. God has put us in a position where we are incomplete without him.
Jesus and we quench each other's thirst when we give ourselves entirely to each other in love. Jesus has done this perfectly since our baptism. May God give us the grace this Lent to do a better job at giving ourselves wholly to him, as we promised at our baptism.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Do I Really Need a Mediatrix With the Mediator?
In his book, True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, St. Louis Marie de Montfort (along with St. Bernard and St. Bonaventure) makes the point that, due to our impurity, we need Mary to be our mediatrix with the Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ.
At some level, probably due to my Protestant past, I have a problem with this intellectually/theologically. The incarnation means that God, through Jesus, has given us access to himself. Because Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, we can go directly to God in prayer.
However, I know from my experience, that I am a better person when I go to God through Mary. So, in my head, I have a slight problem with this. But, in my life, I have seen how effective it can be.
I think that Christ's mediation has opened the door to other, subordinate, mediations. Of these subordinate mediations, Mary's is the most important. When I go to Mary in prayer, I am, at the same time, going to Jesus in prayer. And when Mary blesses me with grace, it is Jesus who blesses me with grace through Mary. In other words, Jesus' mediation is the source of all grace. Mary's mediation, as the channel, draws on Christ's.
So, it is not that I either go to Christ or I go to Mary. Rather, it is I go to both Christ and Mary. The two mediations are inseparably united with Mary's being entirely dependent on Christ's.
Do I really need a mediatrix with the Mediator? The Church and my experience would say that I do.
At some level, probably due to my Protestant past, I have a problem with this intellectually/theologically. The incarnation means that God, through Jesus, has given us access to himself. Because Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, we can go directly to God in prayer.
However, I know from my experience, that I am a better person when I go to God through Mary. So, in my head, I have a slight problem with this. But, in my life, I have seen how effective it can be.
I think that Christ's mediation has opened the door to other, subordinate, mediations. Of these subordinate mediations, Mary's is the most important. When I go to Mary in prayer, I am, at the same time, going to Jesus in prayer. And when Mary blesses me with grace, it is Jesus who blesses me with grace through Mary. In other words, Jesus' mediation is the source of all grace. Mary's mediation, as the channel, draws on Christ's.
So, it is not that I either go to Christ or I go to Mary. Rather, it is I go to both Christ and Mary. The two mediations are inseparably united with Mary's being entirely dependent on Christ's.
Do I really need a mediatrix with the Mediator? The Church and my experience would say that I do.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Two Positions on How God's Grace & Our Free Will Interact
Within Catholic theology, there are two primary perspectives on how God's grace and our free will interact.
First, there is the Jesuit position, which states that God's grace woos and leads us to choose what is right but is never efficacious, that is, grace does not guarantee our cooperation. God's grace might lead us to the water, but it does not make certain that we will drink. The final decision as to whether or not grace is effective is our choice.
Second, there is the Dominican position, which states that God's grace not only woos and leads, but is also efficacious, that is, it guarantees our cooperation. God's grace leads us to the water and guarantees that we will drink. However, this guarantee does not do violence to or take away our free will. The will is totally free. Its cooperation is assured because of the influence of grace on the heart.
I prefer the Dominican position for one reason: it seems to eliminate boasting in a way the Jesuit position does not.
According to the Jesuit perspective, we can thank God for his wooing grace, for leading us to the water; but we cannot thank him for our choice to cooperate because this was totally ours. God gets the praise for leading us; we get the praise for making the right choice, and this praise we get seems to be a ground for boasting on our part.
According to the Dominican perspective, God gets the glory for everything, for leading us to the water and for seeing to it that we drink. In this, there is no ground for boasting on our part.
First, there is the Jesuit position, which states that God's grace woos and leads us to choose what is right but is never efficacious, that is, grace does not guarantee our cooperation. God's grace might lead us to the water, but it does not make certain that we will drink. The final decision as to whether or not grace is effective is our choice.
Second, there is the Dominican position, which states that God's grace not only woos and leads, but is also efficacious, that is, it guarantees our cooperation. God's grace leads us to the water and guarantees that we will drink. However, this guarantee does not do violence to or take away our free will. The will is totally free. Its cooperation is assured because of the influence of grace on the heart.
I prefer the Dominican position for one reason: it seems to eliminate boasting in a way the Jesuit position does not.
According to the Jesuit perspective, we can thank God for his wooing grace, for leading us to the water; but we cannot thank him for our choice to cooperate because this was totally ours. God gets the praise for leading us; we get the praise for making the right choice, and this praise we get seems to be a ground for boasting on our part.
According to the Dominican perspective, God gets the glory for everything, for leading us to the water and for seeing to it that we drink. In this, there is no ground for boasting on our part.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Glory is In the Self-Denial
When I think of the glory of God, I think of two things.
First, I think of bright light like the sun. Funny that in the Transfiguration, when Jesus reveals his glory to Peter, James, and John, the Bible describes it as bright light and says that Jesus' face "shone like the sun." (As an aside, I think the glory of God is his love in all its fullness.)
Second, I think of God's glory as being revealed in those events where his power and victory are clearly displayed, e.g., creation, the Resurrection, the Ascension, Pentecost, Judgment Day. I think I am correct in this, yet I know, through revelation, that the highest way God reveals his glory is through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. To my natural mind, this is strange because there is nothing glorious about the crucifixion; it is humiliation to the core. But, it is not just humiliation to the core; it is also love to the core; and since God's glory is the fullness of his love, and since love, by its nature, is sacrificial, the greatest display of God's glory is in the sacrificial act of the crucifixion.
The fact is, I have the same glory in me that Jesus had at the Transfiguration. It is true that this glory or love of God enables me to deny myself, to have my own little "crucifixions" throughout the day; however, it is more than that: it is in the self-denial. As God's glory was most manifested in the death of Jesus, so it is most manifested in all the ways I die to myself.
First, I think of bright light like the sun. Funny that in the Transfiguration, when Jesus reveals his glory to Peter, James, and John, the Bible describes it as bright light and says that Jesus' face "shone like the sun." (As an aside, I think the glory of God is his love in all its fullness.)
Second, I think of God's glory as being revealed in those events where his power and victory are clearly displayed, e.g., creation, the Resurrection, the Ascension, Pentecost, Judgment Day. I think I am correct in this, yet I know, through revelation, that the highest way God reveals his glory is through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. To my natural mind, this is strange because there is nothing glorious about the crucifixion; it is humiliation to the core. But, it is not just humiliation to the core; it is also love to the core; and since God's glory is the fullness of his love, and since love, by its nature, is sacrificial, the greatest display of God's glory is in the sacrificial act of the crucifixion.
The fact is, I have the same glory in me that Jesus had at the Transfiguration. It is true that this glory or love of God enables me to deny myself, to have my own little "crucifixions" throughout the day; however, it is more than that: it is in the self-denial. As God's glory was most manifested in the death of Jesus, so it is most manifested in all the ways I die to myself.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Encouragement for Self-Denial in Lent
A Catholic nun I follow on Twitter asked if it was possible for her to love Jesus and hate Lent. This tweet gave me a chuckle because it is honest and because something inside me also hates Lent with all its self-denial. Call it the flesh. Call it concupiscence. Call it the fallen nature.
But as I am sure sister would agree, there is something inside of me that wants to throw myself headlong into Lent and heroically deny myself. Call this the loving encouragement of God the Holy Spirit.
I have found the Holy Spirit encouraging me with two thoughts to get me through Lent.
First, my self-denial is in union with the self-denial of Christ who denied himself all the way to the cross for the redemption of the world; therefore, my self-denial, if patiently borne, is also for the redemption of the world.
Second, there are millions of my brother and sister Catholics who are also struggling to deny themselves during Lent. I am not alone in this.
But as I am sure sister would agree, there is something inside of me that wants to throw myself headlong into Lent and heroically deny myself. Call this the loving encouragement of God the Holy Spirit.
I have found the Holy Spirit encouraging me with two thoughts to get me through Lent.
First, my self-denial is in union with the self-denial of Christ who denied himself all the way to the cross for the redemption of the world; therefore, my self-denial, if patiently borne, is also for the redemption of the world.
Second, there are millions of my brother and sister Catholics who are also struggling to deny themselves during Lent. I am not alone in this.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Reflection on Gospel for Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Matthew 7:21-27
I do not know anything about building a house, but I would think that building a house on sand is probably easier than building one on rock or on a foundation. In the same way, I find it easy (like building a house on sand) to build my life on the Pope's teachings but harder (like building a house on rock) to build it on his love . In other words, it is easy for me to be orthodox or with the Magisterium in my head but difficult for me to be orthodox in my heart, that is, to love. In this sense, I am not much different than the people in today's Gospel who called Jesus, "Lord, Lord". They seemed to have the correct knowledge of things in their head since they were able to do mighty things in Jesus' name. But our Lord never knew them because they never did the will of the Father, that is, they never loved God and neighbor.
I have read most of Pope Benedict's encyclicals and several of his books and have found that, intellectually speaking, his works are very orthodox and profound; however, they also flow from a man who deeply loves Christ, and this love comes through every word he writes. The Holy Father is orthodox in his mind and heart; and if I am going to be the complete Christian Jesus calls me to be in today's Gospel, I must imitate Pope Benedict's mind and his heart. If I do this, through God's love for me, I will be building my life on the rock and will be able to stand on judgment day.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
God's Love and Hell
Theos agape, God is love! But how does this love of God for humanity harmonize with the doctrine of hell? How could a God of love send people he loves to a place of eternal torment?
Before I attempt to answer this question, I have to say that the reality of the one (i.e., hell) does not cancel out or make the other (i.e., God's love) a lie or vice versa, so we have to consider the reality of hell in light of God's love for all.
First, God has given us an immortal soul that is meant to be in union with his love forever in heaven. Because God loves us so, he wants us to be with him in heaven. Loving fathers like to be with their children, and God is no exception.
Second, an aspect of this immortal soul God has given to us is free will. With this free will, we can choose to love God or we can choose not to love him. Our love for God cannot be forced. God, in his love for us, will gently woo us and draw us to himself; but he will never force us to love him.
Third, after we die, there are only two eternal "places" (states of existence) where our souls can exist forever: heaven and hell. If we have chosen to love God during our earthly lives, then we will want to love him, and be loved by him, forever in heaven. However, if we have chosen not to love him, then we have proven, by our failure to love God, that we do not want heaven because that is where God is and we do not want to be with him. In this case, heaven would be ultimate pain because we do not like associating with people we do not love.
Fourth, the choice of hell is ours first, not God's. By our failure to love God and our neighbor in this life, we put ourselves there. God honors our choice (though it breaks his heart) because love accepts the fact that it can be rejected.
Fifth, it is important for us to keep in mind that Theos agape, God is love! He has shown this love most clearly in the death of his Son, who went through the depths of death, not for his own sins but for ours, and came out alive on the other side, so that he might free us from our tendency not to love God by empowering us to love him now and forever, and so escape hell.
Think about it, and if you are inclined, please share your thoughts.
Before I attempt to answer this question, I have to say that the reality of the one (i.e., hell) does not cancel out or make the other (i.e., God's love) a lie or vice versa, so we have to consider the reality of hell in light of God's love for all.
First, God has given us an immortal soul that is meant to be in union with his love forever in heaven. Because God loves us so, he wants us to be with him in heaven. Loving fathers like to be with their children, and God is no exception.
Second, an aspect of this immortal soul God has given to us is free will. With this free will, we can choose to love God or we can choose not to love him. Our love for God cannot be forced. God, in his love for us, will gently woo us and draw us to himself; but he will never force us to love him.
Third, after we die, there are only two eternal "places" (states of existence) where our souls can exist forever: heaven and hell. If we have chosen to love God during our earthly lives, then we will want to love him, and be loved by him, forever in heaven. However, if we have chosen not to love him, then we have proven, by our failure to love God, that we do not want heaven because that is where God is and we do not want to be with him. In this case, heaven would be ultimate pain because we do not like associating with people we do not love.
Fourth, the choice of hell is ours first, not God's. By our failure to love God and our neighbor in this life, we put ourselves there. God honors our choice (though it breaks his heart) because love accepts the fact that it can be rejected.
Fifth, it is important for us to keep in mind that Theos agape, God is love! He has shown this love most clearly in the death of his Son, who went through the depths of death, not for his own sins but for ours, and came out alive on the other side, so that he might free us from our tendency not to love God by empowering us to love him now and forever, and so escape hell.
Think about it, and if you are inclined, please share your thoughts.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Theos Agape
The title of this blog is "Theos Agape," a Greek sentence that means "God is love" and is found in 1 John 4:8 in the New Testament. I chose this as the title of my blog because it gets at the heart of everything God is about, and thus, everything Christianity and Christians should be about.
Because God, in his very essence, is love, every action of his comes from love. The action of God that most clearly displays his love is the crucifixion of his Son for the salvation of the world. Sometimes, when we go through suffering, or when we see others suffering, we are tempted to question God's love. After all, how could a God of love allow us and others to go through such pain? This is a perfectly legitimate question to which no easy answer will suffice. However, through the cross, God says, as loudly as he can, that he loves us to the end; and no amount of suffering we go through nullifies this. In other words, God loves us the same, whether we are suffering or not.
Another of God's actions that displays his love is the commandments which he has given us to live by. These are found in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, the ethical sections of the New Testament epistles, and the conscience. These are expressions of God's love because he created us and has wired us for happiness; and he knows we will find happiness when we love him and our neighbor by keeping the commandments for his glory and our neighbor's benefit. In other words, a God of love created us to be people of love; and we will be truly happy only to the extent that we love. All the commandments are specific ways love expresses itself.
Think about it, and if you are inclined, please share your thoughts.
Because God, in his very essence, is love, every action of his comes from love. The action of God that most clearly displays his love is the crucifixion of his Son for the salvation of the world. Sometimes, when we go through suffering, or when we see others suffering, we are tempted to question God's love. After all, how could a God of love allow us and others to go through such pain? This is a perfectly legitimate question to which no easy answer will suffice. However, through the cross, God says, as loudly as he can, that he loves us to the end; and no amount of suffering we go through nullifies this. In other words, God loves us the same, whether we are suffering or not.
Another of God's actions that displays his love is the commandments which he has given us to live by. These are found in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, the ethical sections of the New Testament epistles, and the conscience. These are expressions of God's love because he created us and has wired us for happiness; and he knows we will find happiness when we love him and our neighbor by keeping the commandments for his glory and our neighbor's benefit. In other words, a God of love created us to be people of love; and we will be truly happy only to the extent that we love. All the commandments are specific ways love expresses itself.
Think about it, and if you are inclined, please share your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)