You Must Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

Moving to our fifth apologetics topic in our big "Top Ten" doctrines most disputed by non-Catholics: Transubstantiation.

The Catholic Church defined the doctrine of transubstantiation at the Council of Trent in this way:

"Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

This is to say that the reality of the bread changes into the actual body of Jesus Christ, even though the perceivable aspects of bread do not. Subtance is what is essential to a thing. Accidents are what are incidental to a thing. If you cut off the legs of a dog, it is still a dog. Thus, legs are accidental to a dog. If you burn a dog to ashes, it is no longer a dog. Thus you have changed the substance.

Transubstantiation teaches that God changes the bread's (or wine's) substance without changing the accidents. Thus while it is Christ, it still tastes, smells, and feels like bread.

First Objection: "Why define it? It is a mystery."
As Anglicans we always said, "It is a mystery. Why define it?" The answer is quite simple. If you don't define doctrine it will be distorted and lost. Saying "It's a mystery," is not responsible. That sort of answer can justify anything. Why can women be priests? It's a mystery.

The Trinity is a mystery and yet we define what is Nicene Orthodoxy. The Person of Christ is a mystery, but we don't believe that Monophysites are legitimate. Atonement is mysterious, and yet we define it. The most mysterious elements require boundaries to insure orthodoxy.

Second Objection: "Transubstantiation is Aristotelian and we don't think that way anymore."
Theology must be defined and often this requires philosophical language. Anyone who has actually studied Aristotle will see that Transubstantiation is a formal rejection of Aristotle's metaphysics. In fact, Wycliff made this argument against transubstantiation and he sited Aristotle to justify his position.

For Aristotle substance and accidents can never be divorced. Yet transubstantiation teaches that they can indeed be separated. The substance of bread changes while the accidents remain. Aristotle would have never allowed for such a miracle in his worldview.

The terms "substance" and "accidents" are used by Aristotle (in their Greek equivalents). But that shouldn't matter. You have to have a pretty hefty dose of Plato and deeply Greek understanding of metaphysics to grant that Christ is "homoousia" (of same substance) with the Father. That Christ has two natures in one "hypostasis" is pretty philosophical. And yet such language is appropriate. If we don't define using highly specialized language we lose the mystery. These philosophical categories are helpful categories and a seven year old can understand it. It looks, tastes and feels (accidents) like bread but it is really (substance) the Body and Blood of Christ.

Why is the Miracle of Transubstantiation Necessary for Our Salvation?
Remember the Passover. It was not enough to simply slay the lamb and place its blood on your doorway. That was only half of it. You also had to eat the lamb. This is how you fully participated in redemption. Likewise, with the Old Testament sacrifices, eating the sacrifice was involved. Eating denotes our participation in what God has accomplished.

Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world by his precious blood-shedding on the cross. But God also wants us to eat of that Lamb, just as the Jews ate the Passover lamb. Christ said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you." That is why "on the night in which he was betrayed, he took bread..."

He instituted the means by which we participate in the one sacrifice of Calvary - the Holy Eucharist.

But if the Eucharist is just a symbol then we don't really partake of the real sacrifice. It's smoke and mirrors. That is why the Catholic Church has always taught that the Eucharist truly is the Body and Blood of Christ. When a Catholic receives Communion, he receives the entire body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ and receives the eternal life and love of Christ, and thus the infinite grace of the Trinity. Therefore, the Eucharist must be the very same Christ, the very same substance of Him who died and rose again for our salvation. This is my Body. This is my Blood. Why not trust Him on it?

Can One Justify Current Episcopal Ecclesiology?

Last time I counted there are six Episcopal diocese who have appealed for alternative primatial oversight. And yet if I understand it correctly (and I may not), these six diocese will remain be members of ECUSA. And yet at the same time they will not be "in communion" with ECUSA.

Is conservative American Anglicanism confused with respect to the biblical doctrine of the Church? You can't be "inside" "not in communion" and submit to "alternative oversight" all at the same time and call yourselve a visible church. At the end of the day this arrangement can only be justified by appeal to the "invisible church" of the true Anglicans. And a real body is not invisible.

My New Son - Jude Ambrose Josemaria

Here is my son on the way home from the hospital today. He shall be baptized, Jude Ambrose Josemaria Marshall.

Jude because I prayed a novena (a nine day prayer) through St Jude that I might find a job. On the ninth day of that novena I was offered my current position in Washington DC. Also I was ordained to the Anglican priesthood on the Feast of St Simon and St Jude.

Ambrose because he is a saint that my wife and I admire. Also, Joy's grandfather is named Ambrose. For every third generation, an Ambrose has been named in their family in honor of a recusant English priest who was drawn and quartered after baptizing their family's baby named Ambrose.

Josemaria after St Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei. I have gained a deep devotion to this holy man and his writings. I attend daily Mass at the St Josemaria Chapel (at the Catholic Information Center) and my boss (and father and friend) is a priest of Opus Dei. Also, my son was born on June 26, the feast day of St Josemaria.

Captions Contest

"You see Your Holiness, I'm thinking you shoud have a pair of drop-down flat-screen TVs installed right about here."

The Lincoln Temple?

My father-in-law is in town for the birth of our son (pictures coming soon!) and going to all the sites of D.C. I noticed in his tour book that the Lincoln Memorial is dedicated as a "Temple."


Engraved directly over the head of Lincoln (not visible in the picture) are the words:

IN THIS TEMPLE
AS IN THE HEARTS OF THE PEOPLE
FOR WHOM HE SAVED THE UNION
THE MEMORY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
IS ENSHRINED FOREVER
Lincolnian Hyper-Dulia? Anybody know the story behind this?

Our New Son

My beautiful bride just gave birth to our fourth child, a son. Seven pounds and seven ounces. Ten toes. Ten fingers. Please join us in our prayers of gratitude to the Lord who has blessed us so richly. And pray for the baby as he prepares for baptism.

Catholic California

California's Catholic population is growing by more than 13 percent each year, and by 2025 Catholics will make up more than one-third of the state’s population, according to a demographic study conducted for the California Catholic Conference.

Full text from Catholic Online.

Hippies, John the Baptist, and Salisbury

Many years ago when I was in England with my wife, we visited Salisbury for St John the Baptist's feast (June 24). We took the short trip to Stonehendge to see the ancient monument. But when we drove up, I said, "What the heck. This looks like Phish concert!" There were hippies everywhere, smoking joints, wearing robes, playing jamband music. "Is Stonehenge always like this?"

And then I remembered, the Feast of St John the Baptist's Nativity (June 24) was instituted to "cover" the pagan festival of the summer solstice. The fact that I was in the area for St John the Baptist and the hippies were there for the summer solstice were not unrelated events.

Anyway, they were back again this year for the solstice. Lots of weird stuff. Divining rods and geodes with "energy".

Something to remember, Christ is born on the winter solstice, when days begin to increase. John the Baptist was born on the summer solstice, when the days begin to decrease - thus fulfilling the words of John the Baptist: "He must increase, but I must decrease."

Happy belated St John the Baptist Feast!

So How's the Liturgy?

If an Anglican has Roman fever and admits it to another Anglican, the answer is common: "Got Roman fever? Go to a Catholic Mass. It will cure you instantly!"

So now that I'm a Catholic, Anglicans/Episcopalians feel compelled to ask, "So how's the liturgy?"

As an Episcopal priest, I surely loved the reverent liturgy and music. I loved standing at the altar and hearing glorious polyphonic chant swirling around me. Coming from this context, I knew from what I had heard, that Catholic liturgy and music were, well, sub par.

I am very glad to say that this has not been my experience as a Catholic. In Fort Worth at St Patrick's Cathedral (where I was received) they have all altarboys (no "girl altarboys"), organ, and choral music from the loft. They used Latin (e.g. the Agnus Dei) and the celebration was reverent.

We attend now attend the Catholic parish only three blocks from our house. I've only seen a lay eucharistic minister once and that a man in a suit. The vestments are beautiful. The chalices and tabernacle are gorgeous. The tabernacle is centered. The only problem is the building is in the round. Though the pastor and priest have done all they can make the place reverent. (One bonus of in-the-round parishes is that you can sit in the ad orientem side and look at the priest's back or sit on the other side and look at the priest in the face.) The pastor wears a biretta.

Last week for Corpus Christi, the preaching priest even dropped plugs for "communion on the tongue", confession, Eucharistic adoration, and dressing nice for the Eucharistic king at Mass.

The week before I was received my family went to St Mary of the Assumption in Fort Worth. Very beautiful choral music. Better than what you would hear in most Episcopal parishes. The priest intoned everything and the deacon (I think) intoned the general intercessions of the people.

We stopped in S. Carolina at Holy Spirit parish (formerly pastored by ex-Episcopal priest Fr Jim Parker). Again, nice. The priest even chastised the laity for not being more evangelistic like their Evangelical brethren.

Of course the Catholic Information Center in D.C. where I work is very reverent and beautiful. So far, I haven't encountered any strange sermons, heretical teachings, irreverence, or felt chasubles. I will say that generally the music could be better and I am still a little startled when I see people leaving the pews before the recessional hymn. But mostly I am pleased. And I think things will improve even more once the new translation of the Mass is put in place.

I'd be interested to hear your own experiences of the Catholic liturgy in America - especially from those who were once Anglican.

Relics and Images

Continuing the "Top Ten" doctrines to which non-Catholics object. So far I've covered three:

Papal Universal Jurisdiction

Indulgences and Treasury of Merit

Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead

I'm going to follow the lead of some of the comments and add the topic of contraception. I'll chalk up Papal Infallibility with my words on Universal Jurisdiction. Essentially, the argument is that Christ guards St Peter and his successors in the Papacy from officially proclaiming error with respect to Faith and Morals. I challenge anyone to demonstrate ONE instance in which the Papacy has proclaimed dogmatic error.

Moving along to the Catholic doctrine with respect to the Veneration of Relics and Images.

Relics
First, what is a relic? There are basically three kinds of relics:

First Class Relics: An actual body part of a Saint.
Second Class Relic: Something worn or used by the Saint during his life.
Third Class Relic (not truly a relic): Anything touched to a first or second class relic.

If it is right to venerate (not worship) relics just as we would venerate the US flag or the or the tomb of soldier. The Bible reveals that the relics of holy men and women can be and often are efficacious means by which God blesses people. We see this in Scripture with the following relics:

The mantle of Elijah divided a river. [2 King 2:8-14]

The dead bones of Elisha returned a dead man to life.

And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Eli'sha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Eli'sha, he revived, and stood on his feet. [2 King 13:21]

The hem of our Lord's garment healed a woman. [Matt 9:20-21]

Paul's handkerchiefs or aprons were used to heal diseases and drive out evil spirits.

So that from his (Paul) body were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirit went out of them. Acts 19:12

So if God used objects and bones to work miracles in the Old and New Testament, why not now? And why would we not hold such things with honor? But the most important reasons why relics are held with esteem is because the actual bodies of Saints will one day be resurrected and even though dead, they remain in the Body of Christ. They continue to be members of Christ.

Images
"Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image."

If you look at the context of the commandment, you'll see that it speaks to worshiping an image. This is wrong because God is invisible and without form. He is so transcendent that even His name is simply "I AM".

So why do Catholics venerate images? Firstly, it should be said at the beginning that Catholics do not "worship" images. They worship and adore God alone. They venerate and honor saints, regular people (e.g. George Washington or their spouses), relics, altars, flags, etc. This is a very important distinction.

Things have changed since the Old Testament. The Word was made flesh. Christ is the image (Greek: icon) of the Father. God manifested Himself and once and for all in Christ.

The sacred image, the liturgical icon, principally represents Christ. It cannot represent the invisible and incomprehensible God, but the incarnation of the Son of God has ushered in a new "economy" of images. (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1159)

Christ was a true man and able to be depicted. If you took a photo of Christ it would turn out like any other photo. Thus, we can depict Him. And we can depict Mary and the saints with pictures and statues just as we would depict Abraham Lincoln in a memorial or have a picture of our wife on our desk at work.

Moreover, we can show honor to these images - though we may not worship them, because they are no God. We can salute a flag of the USA. We can salute an image of Mary. Mary gave a body and blood to the Christ for our redemption. If we salute a flag that symbolizes the USA, why not salute a picture that symbolizes Mary? Same goes with the cross or even a Bible. We show honor, but we don't worship. Worship is given to God alone.

The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone (Catechism of the Catholic Church #3132)

This "respectful veneraton" is what Catholics show to the physical signs of redemption in our midst.

God commanded images (two and three dimensional) to adorn His holy temple in the Old Testament. Catholics follow this Old Testament example and the earliest Christian worship places also were decorated with images.

Pentecostal "Spiritual Drunkeness"

This is one of the most frightening videos I've ever seen. The basis for this behavior is that since St Peter and the Holy Apostles were accused of "being drunk" on Pentecost, that they must have appeared as actual drunk fools. Check out the video. You've never seen anythingn like it.


Thanks to my friend Jeremy Kath for the tip.

Knights of Malta

I'll be joining the Knights of Columbus soon. They are a wonderful institution and I commend their history to you.

However, today I came across this picture of the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, Fra Andrew Bertie, from his recent meeting with the Holy Father. This guy looks incredible. I also saw some of the Knights of Malta at the Installation Mass of Archbishop Wuerl of Washington, DC. These people know how to dress up.

The Knights of Malta have an interesting and long history. Here it is from Wikipedia.

Putting the Episcopal Church in Perspective

I have recently read many statements by Episcopalians referring to the crisis in "the Church" and of people leaving "the Church."

Of course, by "the Church" they mean the denomination of the Episcopal Church. Others compare the conservative cause as something analogous to the epic struggle of St Athanasius against the Arians for the survival of "the Church."

I recently ran across a demographic number that puts things in focus. The entire Episcopal Church, conservative and liberal, is smaller than the single Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. In other words, the Catholic Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey oversees more souls than the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal denomination.

The Episcopal Church is thus about the size of one rather large (though by no means cardinalatial) Catholic diocese in the US. It is therefore irresponsible to speak of ECUSA as "the Church." Consider that the Episcopal Church is about the smallest mainline American denomination and that the Roman Catholic Church is about sixty times larger than the Episcopal denomination.

This does not mean that Episcopalians should be written off. They are souls for whom Christ suffered and died. He loves them tenderly and He is therefore very concerned about their faith and perseverance. Let us continue to pray for them and encourage them as they seek to follow Christ.

Just Got Back from the Washington Installation Mass

It was amazing. 8 or 9 cardinals. 70 bishops. 250 priests. 63 deacons. 7 Eastern Orthodox bishops and priests. One Virgin Queen and Empress. One Lord, Sacrifice, Priest, and King in the Order of Melchizedek. Lots of incense.

My impression of His Grace Archbishop Wuerl is that is a very warm man. He was comfortable in his new role and obviously very happy and grateful. He will certainly be a blessing.

"Jesus Our Mother"

At the General Convention Eucharist, the new female Presiding Bishop referred to “Our Mother Jesus,” who “gives birth to a new creation,’ and stated that “we are his children.”

This is entirely heretical. It denies the Incarnation. It is pantheistic. It is Gnostic in that it sees male and femaleness as incidental. It denies the the biblical revelation of who God is. The situation has spun completely out of control.

Future Presiding Bishop Katharine Schori's "Jesus Our Mother" Sermon

Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead

Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Treasury of Merit down. Eight more to go in the series. Today, we discuss Purgatory.

First off, what exactly does the Catholic Church teach on the subject? The following is from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please read carefully. The paragraphs below dispell many Protestant (and Eastern Orthodox) misconceptions about Purgatory:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. (St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39:PL 77,396; cf. Mt 12:31.)

This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them. (611 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41,5:PG 61,361; cf. Job 1:5.)

So first of all, Purgatory is not Hell. Secondly, only the elect, that is saved Christians, will go there. It is NOT a middle place. It is a place only for those on their way to Heaven. It is the final purification of those who die in fellowship with Christ.

There are Scripture passages relating to prayer for the dead. If one accepts 2 Maccabees (as quoted above) as canonical, then once must accept prayer for the dead. Many scholars believe that St Paul prays for a dead friend in 2 Timothy chapter 1:

[16] May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains,
[17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me --
[18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day -- and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Our Savior Christ also mentions that there is opportunity for forgiveness in this life and after death:

Matthew 12:32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

But the most convincing passage for me was 1 Corinthians 3:13-15:

[13] each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
[14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

First of all, each man will be judged and his work "will be revealed with fire." The good we have done will survive the fire and will be our "reward." The evil we have done will be "burned up" and "he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

Here we see that this kind of fire is not Hell, but "he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." The Greek word for fire is "pur" and it is the root from which "PUR-gatory" derives. Purgatory is that state of purification by fire for those who are already saved.

The Protestant might ask at this point, "Well if somebody is already saved, then why do that have to pass through this fire? Didn't Christ die for all their sins?"

Yes, Christ died for their sins and has redeemed them. But He died that we might become actually holy. "Be holy as I am holy." The fire of Purgatory is the fire of God's love causing us to "suffer loss" by a sort of final repentance from our sins. It is therefore painful because we must let go of the desires of the flesh and face our failings. This is what it means to "suffer loss". We can't get around the words of St Paul who says that Christians must pass through fire after death.

If Uzzah was killed by God for merely touching the Ark of the Covenant, then we must be fully sanctified to enter Heaven. The debt has been paid but we have not fully been transformed into the image of Christ. Christ died to make us actually and really holy. Purgatory is this final transformation by which our Christ-centered actions are acknowledged and our sinful affections are burned away.

Lastly, we must pray and offer works of repentance for the Christian departed because:

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

We are a family and we're all in this together. One thing I'm learning as a Catholic is that we really are one huge family in Christ. When we pray for the departed we are asking God "who is a consuming fire" to assist those who are undergoing their final repentance and purification as they prepare to entere His All-Holy presence.

I commend to you two of my recent blog posts:

Orthodox Judaism and Purgatory

CS Lewis and Purgatory

What Should an Episcopalian Do?

Recommended article via Al Kimel: Should Episcopalians Become Roman Catholics by Dr. Philip Blosser.

The Peril of Christian Private Judgment

Al Kimel (aka the Pontificator) has an interesting post on Protestantism's Eternal Protest.

As a recent Episcopal blogger noted, the recent decision on the part of the Episcopal Church to have a female presiding "bishop" is just the "rightful" response against Rome's error and tyranny, and (in his opinion) a victory for the "gospel of Christ."

Wow!

Cardinal Kasper to CofE on Women Bishops

Unfortunately GenCon 2006 has overshadowed this very important address by Cardinal Kasper to the Church of England bishops. Invited by Archbishop Williams, Cardinal Kasper describes the terrible consequences that would occur if the Church of England ordained women to the episcopate. The short of it: Rome could no longer have any serious dialogue with Anglicanism as an Apostolic body.

Kasper gives a helpful history of Roman/Anglican relations and also provides a very lucid (and Patristic) theological perspective on the nature of the episcopate. He also obliquely mentions the state of Anglican orders. Please take time to read it. It merits Anglican attention.

Cardinal Kasper addresses Bishop's Meeting of the Church of England.

Pictured above: Cardinal Kasper, Archbishop Rowan Williams and His Holiness Benedict XVI.

Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit

I must admit that this was the last and most difficult doctrine for me to understand. In fact, I've only understood it for a couple of months. As an Anglican, I always held the doctrine of the Treasury of Merit and Indulgences as a major obstacle to Rome. In fact, when Catholics asked, "Why not just become Catholic?" I would usually ask them about indulgences and the treasury of merit and watch them back down. It seems that even Catholics are confused about these teachings and may even be a little embarrassed of them. Luther. Tetzel. Catholics don't want to go there.

And so it was my "get out of jail free" card. The "ridiculous" doctrine of the Treasury of Merit was something that enabled me to remain Anglican in good conscience. As I began to seriously pray about becoming Roman Catholic I still had a major objection to the Treasury of Merit. It seemed so obviously medieval and late. I saw no Scriptural basis. I decided that if the rest of Catholicism was consistent, this doctrine must fit the system, even if I didn't understand it. So I decided to move forward and accept it as an act of the will.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches this about the Treasury of Merit:

1476 We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church's treasury, which is "not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy."

1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission in the unity of the Mystical Body."

After I made plans to be received into the Church, I was reading in the New Testament and crossed these words that I had read and heard hundreds of times:

Matthew 6:19-20
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.

The word "treasures" jumped off the page. Christ is teaching that we can indeed store up "treasure in heaven." Everytime we do something good for God, we "lay up treasure in Heaven." And thus there is truly a treasury of good deeds in Heaven.

And if we are full of charity in Heaven, then we would be willing to share this treasury with all, even our brethren not yet in Heaven. And thus we find that the gracious acts of Christ and all the Saints are indeed laid up in Heaven and can be shared.

The doctrine of the indulgences flows from this understanding. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1471 "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."

An indulgence is therefore a sharing in those treasures "laid up in Heaven."

It should be stated that the eternal guilt of a sinner is propitiated by the death of Christ alone. The Catholic Church does not teach that indulgences can get you out of Hell or save you. But the progressive sanctification of a Christian is accomplished by cooperation of the Christian with Christ in union with the whole Church. Indulgences do not affect whether we are saved, but once in a state of grace, the graces received through indulgences do assist us as we journey in holiness and Christian perfection.

Papal Universal Jurisdiction - The King and His Steward

This is the first in a series of "The Big Ten" doctrines that non-Catholics dispute. According to the Catholic Church, the Pope is the successor of St Peter and holds jurisdiction over the entire universal Church. The doctrine of the Universal Jurisdiction of the Papacy is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in this way:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (Lumen Gentium 22)

Part 1: Luke Chapter 12
Now this seems a bit much to both Protestants and Orthodox Christians. Did Christ give one man so much power? St Peter himself seemed to have questions about this:

Luke Chapter 12
[41] Peter said, "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?"
[42] And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
[43] Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.
[44] Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.

Christ says that the Master (i.e. Himself) will set a steward "over his household" and "set him over all his possessions."

Okay, so Christ has said it, we know it is true. Now that means Christ has a steward "over all His possessions." He didn't set an Ecumenical Council "over all His possessions." No, this universal jurisdiction is given to one single "steward." If you look at Luke 12:41, you will see that these words are addressed to Peter.

Non-Catholic Christians need to ask themselves, "If I believe the Bible, I must believe that Christ has set a steward over His Church until He comes again in glory. Who is this steward who governs for Christ and why am I not under him?"

Part 2: Matthew Chapter 16
[16] Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Here we see that St Peter is not just given preeminence as "first among equals." Rather, Christ explicitly gives one man the keys of the kingdom. "Whatever you (here the Greek is singular - denoting one man) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Thus, Peter had authority over all the earth. That is universal jurisdiction.

If if one should deny that the Petrine Ministry was not passed down through the ages to the Popes, still one must grant that during his life, St Peter did have Universal Jurisdiction to "bind on earth." This power is not relegated to "the West" but to "earth."

The Big Ten for Non-Catholics

For the next few weeks I'm going to address "The Big Ten" doctrines that are most disputed by non-Catholics. I hope to describe how I came to accept them as belonging to the Faith once delivered to the Saints. These are in no specific order:

1. Papal Universal Jurisdiction
2. Papal Infallibility
3. Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit
4. Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead
5. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
6. The Bodily Assumption of Mary
7. Justification not by Faith Alone
8. Prayer to Saints
9. Transubstantiation
10. Veneration of Images and Relics

Please fell free to comment in the days to come.

Catholic Information Center

I now work for the Catholic Information Center in Washington DC as the Assistant Director under Father William Stetson who serves as the Director.

Please explore our site.

I'm So Happy to Be Catholic!

Ecce Agnus Dei. Papal Corpus Christi procession. Beautiful. Swing down sweet SUV.

Hat tip to americanpapist.

New Mass Translation Poll

Poll on the new translation of the Mass. Click below:

Are you in favor of the new translation of the Mass?

And with your spirit!

The American bishops have passed many of the requested changes to the liturgical texts of the Mass. I understand it we in the pews will not actually hear the changes for another two years.

I look forward to hearing:

"and with your spirit"
"precious chalice"
"only begotten Son"
"under my roof"
and other such changes.

From the Comments: Canterbury and Rome

In the comments below I found a very good comment that I feel deserves a whole post.

Three points.

(1) What about the British Church BEFORE St. Augustine arrived at Canterbury? As you know, the sees of York and London (at least) date at least to the early 4th century and were not established by Rome.

(2) What if the pope is no longer "Patriarch of the West"? Are there not concomitant ecclesiological possibilities to do with the establishment of other patriarchates within the Western Church? Maybe this is unreasonable.

(3) But what about the establishment of an Anglican Use (or Rite) Personal Prelature, or again the establishment of an Anglican Use (or Rite) Personal Apostolic Administration, akin to that of Saint John Mary Vianney in Brazil?

There seems to be nothing endemic to Roman ecclesiology that would prevent one of the two possibilities of (3) above.

As to the first point, there was indeed a Church in the British Isles prior to the coming of St Augustine to Canterbury. Father WB (the author of the comment above) wrongly states that it was "not established by Rome." It was in fact established by Roman Catholic Christians. This is evident by the fact that these Celtic/British Christians used only Latin for their Psalter, Mass, and other liturgies. It was a Latin Church that lost contact to the wider Roman Church on account of the collapse of the empire.

As for the second point, I believe it involves a very good question. I myself wonder if the Holy Father is considering something like "Continental Patriarchs," e.g. Patriarch of South America or Patriarch of Africa. This would certainly provide a stronger global structure. However, I don't think that the Holy Father's dropping the title Patriarch of the West is going to provide any future justification for Anglicans to have their own sui juris Church. It is just not happening.

As to number three, that is a very wonderful suggestion. But it is necessary for Anglicans to initiate something with Rome. Rome does not have the time or resources to create possible canonical structures and hope that people will come and fill them. Rome nearly always responds to a need (and usually very slowly). If you look at Opus Dei you see that it grew as a movement first and then later Rome provided the appropriate canonical structure of a Personal Prelature.

Thank you Father WB for the good comments and questions.

Rebaptism?

Question
I hope this isn't too personal or off-topic, but I read that you were rebaptized upon your reception in the Roman Catholic Church. May I inquire whether that is true, and if so, why you felt that was appropriate?

Answer
I received "conditional baptism." This was the case because the Methodist church at which I was baptized had lost my record and certificate. The pastor who baptized me has since left the ministry and was not available. Since we had no records, I received conditional baptism because there was no empirical evidence of the event.

Conditional baptisms should not be foreign to Anglicans. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer describes the reasons for conditional baptism at the end of the baptism rite:

¶ If there be reasonable doubt whether any Person were baptized with Water, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (which are essential parts of Baptism), such Person may be baptized in the manner herein appointed; saving that, at the immersion or the pouring of water, the Minister shall use this Form of words.

IF thou art not already baptized, N., I baptize thee In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

It is worth noting that the Catholic Church believes that baptism leaves anindeliblee seal on the soul and therefore cannot be repeated. It also recognizes all Trinitarian Protestant baptisms as valid. However, in cases in which baptism is not certain, a conditional baptism is administered.