Regarding Cardinal Sarah's Comments on Holy Communion in the Hand

A few days ago, Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, authored a preface to a new book by an Italian priest, Fr. Federico Bortoli, entitled "The Distribution of Communion on the Hand: Historical, Juridical and Pastoral Profiles". The full preface can be found here, and one can only hope the book will be translated into English at some point soon. In any case, Cardinal Sarah makes many good points throughout, quoting many saints and popes in the short preface. He points out the following:

Why do we insist on receiving Communion standing and on the hand? Why this attitude of lack of submission to the signs of God? May no priest dare to impose his authority in this matter by refusing or mistreating those who wish to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Let us come as children and humbly receive the Body of Christ on our knees and on our tongue. The saints give us the example. They are the models to be imitated that God offers us! 

But how could the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the hand become so common? The answer is given to us — and is supported by never-before-published documentation that is extraordinary in its quality and volume — by Don Bortoli. It was a process that was anything but clear, a transition from what the instruction Memoriale Domini granted, to what is such a widespread practice today (...) Unfortunately, as with the Latin language, so also with a liturgical reform that should have been homogeneous with the previous rites, a special concession has become the picklock to force and empty the safe of the Church’s liturgical treasures. The Lord leads the just along ‘straight paths’ (cf. Wis. 10:10), not by subterfuge. Therefore, in addition to the theological motivations shown above, also the way in which the practice of Communion on the hand has spread appears to have been imposed not according to the ways of God.

Holy Communion of Mary Magdalene- Bernardino Campi

Some Passing Thoughts on A Couple of Essays

About a month ago, Pope Francis' letter to the Argentine bishops on the implementation of Amoris laetitia (AL) in regards to the civilly divorced and remarried was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Dr. Edward Peters, a canon lawyer, addressed this with some clarifying remarks from Fr. Z over at his blog. I had posted some thoughts over there, and so as not to lose them in the shuffle, I'll post them here as well. I mainly wanted to bring up an excellent essay that had been published in print by Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. A couple quick points though before I post those thoughts in response to Dr. Peter's essay...

I'm getting really tired of all the bad mouthing of His Holiness in certain pockets of the interwebs. It's really disgusting to see how he is being talked about in some quarters. Until proven otherwise, I take Pope Francis' words at face value: "I am a son of the Church". As I am too, I believe that there are many people out there who are twisting the pope's words in AL, and now in this published letter. After studying the issue I agree with both Dr. Peters and Fr. Raymond J. de Souza that "it is possible to read the Buenos Aires guidelines as consistent with the Church’s traditional teaching..." I defer to these men who are experts on the situation. I simply add my thoughts to this just to bring attention to what Fr. Brian Harrison had to say. My comment follows after the jump. It'd be best to read Fr.Z's comments linked above first before continuing.

The Country Wedding- John Lewis Krimmel

On Parishes Becoming "Sacrament Factories"

There's a term I've heard bandied about in some Catholic circles. The term is "sacrament factory" or "Mass factory". It has a negative connotation, that's used by priests and laity alike, and it refers to something like this: people show up for Mass on Sunday, maybe holy days, and they might go to confession once in a while. They'll baptize and confirm their kids as well, if they have any. There is no other involvement in parish life. Priests who use this term say they feel like they're just used for the sacraments and all they do is pump them out. One gets the image of a cow who continually pumps out milk until they're dry.

We need to stop this to get people more active in the parish, they say. We need to copy what our Protestant brethren are doing, they point out, because they are drawing people in who are joyful and "on fire". Here's the problem I have with this phrase, though.

Reflecting on the Different Interpretations Given for Amoris Laetitia

I had refrained from posting this long exchange I had had regarding Amoris Latetia for a while, but it seems that the controversy surrounding it just won't go away. I decided it was time for me to post this lengthy discussion so that others can see what is at stake here. We have several bishops contradicting several other bishops on the interpretation of AL. That in itself is scandalous, and even more so are some of the interpretations we've gotten, namely from the Bishops of Malta.

This exchange is mostly with a person I had already talked a bit with on the subject. Unfortunately, this time around it didn't end so well, as my interlocutor, who is a 50-something with a degree in theology, didn't think I was worth the time as I was simply an "autodidact". The thing is, my sources all came from saints, popes, and bishops... as well as our Lord! At the outset, he would interact with my arguments, by the end, he refused to. How my questions were continually dodged will be obvious. Please note, that I don't claim to be a know-it-all. I don't. But the Church does. I asked more than once, that if I was wrong, then show me my error! It didn't happen; my arguments were instead ignored. Perhaps I could've been more pithy, but as I'm a student, I learned a lot through this exchange, and citing as many sources as possible helps me keep things straight. I can only hope that in this excessively large post, someone is able to understand the point I'm trying to make, and can see the evidence I have from the Tradition of the Church to back it up. That is, AL has not changed Church teaching on the reception of Communion for the divorced and remarried that continue to live together more uxorio. My words will be in blue, my interlocutor's in red, and eventually, my words will turn back to black to interject towards the end.

The Apparition of Christ to the People- Alexander Andreyevich Ivanov

Expansive Dialogue Regarding The Church's Infallibility and Apostolic Succession

Some of you may remember that I wrote a series of articles on Catholic365 that stemmed from dialogues I had with a Baptist (and five-point Calvinist) pastor which were posted here on this blog. I then continued to turn those dialogues into essays, however, there was one last dialogue between this pastor and I that I haven't posted yet. It was in response to this essay on the Church's infallibility and how that specific charism relates to the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The reason I hesitated for so long in posting it is because of the length of our discussion, how sprawling it was, and how off topic it eventually got before I decided enough was enough.

Perhaps I went on for too long; there is that saying about casting pearls before swine after all, and shaking the dust from your shoes. But it's my hope that someone might benefit from what is written here, and hopefully, I can eventually make this into an essay or two after doing some modifying. In any case, posting this dialogue will in the very least show people how stubborn Calvinists can be when they are backed into a wall, i.e., perfectly valid arguments not being addressed but instead deemed "invalid" and then with a wave of the hand, seemingly dismissed.

Below is the very long conversation we had. Unfortunately, the original conversation is deleted from Catholic365 as the pastor has been banned. I saved our conversations, but at certain points I did not save the entirety of my interlocutor's posts, and instead only included the relevant quotes I was replying to. I apologize for any confusion that may result in reading this, but I will try to make this as streamlined as possible for easy reading. My words will be in blue, and the pastor's in red. I begin by replying to relevant parts of the pastor's first comment on the above article. After my initial reply, I will include his full replies. My words will be in blue and "Tom's" in red:

Gérard de Lairesse- The Institution of the Eucharist

What To Do About Confusion?

The whole confusion surrounding the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia truly saddens me, and I just don't understand how there can be so many contradictory interpretations of this document among not just theologians, clergy, and laypeople, but between bishops.

I was just made aware of an interpretation by Bishop Benno Elbs of Feldkirch, Austria who told an Austrian newspaper that regarding the doctrine telling us the D&R can't receive Communion,

"The doctrine is changed inasmuch as the door is now open. People have done this before, but now with the Pope's blessing, they can, so to speak, make this decision with their conscience... If it's in a footnote or not isn't significant to me. The entire document breathes the spirit that the individual finds in his own conscience a way to deal with life's situations."

Bishop Benno Elbs

The Elephant(s) in the Room

With a new year just beginning, the same controversies that plagued the last continue. It appears that all the discussion surrounding Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Latetia (AL) will continue into 2017. In an interview, Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the four cardinals who submitted the dubia, explained that a formal correction could appear in the new year if the dubia were not addressed. Things are getting pretty serious, and how things will play out is anyone's guess. I sincerely pray there will be no division and all will be resolved by God's grace. I've read a lot of commentary on the issue, and had some discussions with others on this as well, and it all seems to boil down to a couple of issues that are the clear "elephant, or elephants, in the room". One of those, taken from a conversation I was a part of can be seen below:

"Is the idea that refraining from sexual intercourse from a civilly-married partner is too large of a burden and too great of an expectation?"

"It may be that this question is THE elephant in the room re[garding] AL.

"From my own... experience re married couples, especially a Catholic woman married to a non Catholic man, yes, this may well be an unreasonable ask (sic) for a variety of reasons."

To which another person replied, citing the Council of Trent, Session VI: "CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema."

What's being referred to here is the apparent (not actual) contradiction found in one interpretation of AL's footnote #351 (on page 237) and section 84 of Pope St. John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio (FC) which reads:

"[T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

"Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.'"

The rest of the conversation, or at least the relevant portions, will follow below. I believe this conversation was very fruitful, and I was able to learn quite a bit, especially by reading more of the papal documents promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI; documents I had never given the time of day to read, but now realize the entirety of these documents are a great treasure of the Church. My words will be in blue, my main interlocutor's in red, and other people chiming in during the conversation will be in other various colors:

Pope St. John Paul II

The Differing Interpretations of Amoris Laetitia

As we get to the end of the new year, the controversey stemming from the varying interpretations of Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia grows more and more concerning. From distressing rumors to new interviews with those who submitted the dubia, it seems that our Church and our leaders need lots of prayer heading into 2017. Not too long ago, I was engaged in a discussion with someone on one Catholic apologist's Facebook wall. It was pretty amicable. I was trying to show how the varying interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, and those coming from just the U.S., are already contradictory, and prove why the dubia is definitely needed. Here is the great, original post from apologist Dave Armstrong's wall:

My Opinion as to Pope Francis Answering the Four Cardinals' "Dubia"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

I stated many times in the combox for my long recent post on the topic that I think it would be good for him to answer and clarify: that it is *always* better to clarify than not to. 

I'm very reluctant to criticize the pope at all, due to my very strong Catholic reverence for the office (NOT due to some silly notion that he can never be criticized, which I have NEVER believed), but I have to call it as I see it, as an apologist who may be asked about it. 

I know from my own experience as a writer and apologist (which is a teaching function), that writers can be misinterpreted. Writing is an inexact art and we are too often insufficiently clear and precise: all the more so in proportion to the complexity of the subject matter. 

So if I am asked questions about *my* meaning and intent, I'm always quick (and glad) to clarify. In fact, I *appreciate* the opportunity, because I figure that if this one person didn't accurately understand me (either through his fault or mine, or both), chances are there are many others out there who also didn't. It helps no one, and hinders the development of a topic, to not be properly understood. 

Infinitely more so for the pope, who is the leader of all Catholics and our supreme teacher, if any one person can be said to be so . . . 

This topic (exactly who in difficult marital situations can receive Holy Communion, and why) is, of course, very complex, too. So that is a second good reason, I believe, and humbly submit, for him to clarify. 

Whether a non-answer "proves" he is a liberal or heterodox in general and/or on the disputed point, is another matter entirely. I would think not; however, it may very well make him *look* like he is, or that he is being "stubborn" or unnecessarily intransigent, or lacking pastoral and prudential wisdom, etc.. and that isn't good, especially given the wide and ever-growing "skepticism" or criticism sent his way, about this, and in general.
It's becoming increasingly inexplicable why he would not simply clarify the thing and be done with it. Again, that's not the same as denying that he may have a good reason; only to assert that it is difficult (as this thing becomes more and more controversial) to speculate as to what it might be. 

I'm not even denying that there can be any number of "hard cases" where communion for at least one party is perfectly admissible according to traditional Catholic morality and discipline. But, as the questions indicate, complexities and confusion need to be cleared up as to specifics. It's also true that those who have nefarious heterodox intent (as I believe I have already written in the past) will exploit any confusion or (rightly or wrongly) perceived "loopholes" as a license to depart from true Catholic practice, just as they did with Vatican II and the reform of the Mass. Yet another good reason to clarify with great specificity... 

I haven't reversed myself, compared to what I wrote before, because I said this many times in the comments under my post, but one might say I have considerably "developed" my opinion and have a little bit more perplexity (in terms of speculation) than I had when I wrote my piece. 

In my opinion (as a mere lay apologist), I think in the *very least* that it would be good for the Holy Father to tell us why he is *not* answering, should he definitely decide not to. But better to answer...

The conversation that followed is below, with my words in blue, Dave's in green, another person's in orange, and my interlocutor's in red:

Is Praying Towards the East During Mass "Rubbish"?

On the ever hilarious Catholic Memes page, a new meme was posted regarding the ad orientem kerfuffle that's been going on since the Second Vatican Council... but more recently since Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Sarah, addressed a liturgical conference earlier this summer in London. Now before I go on, I get the joke that is trying to be made in this meme, pictured below with everyone's favorite green Muppet, Kermit. But not everyone does when first reading this meme. Apparently, there have been a few bishops in the US and UK who have told their priests that they should not (note, not barred) expect to perform the Ordinary Form of the Mass ad orientem, or with both priest and congregation facing the altar in prayer.

I personally do not like this meme as the meaning can be misconstrued, especially for someone who has no foreknowledge of what has been going on the past few months. At first glance, it looks like the meme is advocating that priests and laity should disobey their bishops. Do I think it's funny? Yes, but the way it was executed is pretty bad. I think there was a better way to make the joke, and to make the meme not appear as if it were giving approval to someone disobeying their bishop.

That being said, there was of course, a fiery discussion ongoing in the comments section, and one caught my eye. hence, the title of this blog post. One Latin Catholic woman (in red) said the following, with another Latin Catholic man (in green) responding to her. Many of the things she says are nonsensical, especially her assertion that since "God is in our midst", there's no reason to face the altar in a common orientation. If that were the case, then it shouldn't be a problem if, when we're about to receive Communion and the priest holds up the Eucharist saying "the Body of Christ", we turn around facing the people behind us and say "Amen"! But of course that would be a problem! Not to mention God is among us in a way that is different in the Eucharist, he is substantially there before us. Christains do not believe in a pantheistic god, that God is literally everything. God is Being itself. He is locally, and substantially present in the Eucharist, reserved in all the tabernacles throughout the world. The conversation is below. My words will be in blue:

Reflections on Corpus Christi

Obviously, the feast of Corpus Christi has long since passed, but I wanted to call attention to a holy priest I know. This is the man who has baptized my children, and he is a wonderful speaker and homilist who truly can be called a pastor of souls, and also loves the beautiful traditions of the Latin Rite. He actually posts many of his homilies in his parish's bulletins, so there are many that may catch your attention if you look, but this one really caught my eye and I thought would serve a good first look for those that haven't heard of him before. He talks about the Real Presence in his homily, which you can find after the jump here. But here's a snippet of it before you follow the link to read the rest:

Another college seminary story—we were going up for Communion in the line and the priest who was giving out communion in our line—dropped a host—and said to the seminarian “Pick it up—its yours.” 

Did he or anyone else in charge of the seminary think that that seminarians belief in Jesus Real Presence and his love for Our Lord in Holy Communion was enhanced by ‘Pick it up its yours” ? 

What a struggle during that time—and this time—to maintain our belief that after the Consecration—there is neither bread nor wine upon the altar—but the Son of God. The change in substance is not imaginary or symbolic or allegorical. That change actually happens and that is why the priest genuflects—and why we ring bells and chimes. 

Find the full homily here on the parish's website.

The So-Called "Altar Wars": Is All the Arguing Worth It?

So if you haven't heard, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, had some not-so startling things to say. He made a suggestion that pastors and bishops of the Latin Rite worldwide consider turning East towards the altar (ad orientum) in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. He said in part:

"I believe that it is very important that we return as soon as possible to a common orientation, of priests and the faithful turned together in the same direction—Eastwards or at least towards the apse—to the Lord who comes, in those parts of the liturgical rites when we are addressing God. This practice is permitted by current liturgical legislation. It is perfectly legitimate in the modern rite. Indeed, I think it is a very important step in ensuring that in our celebrations the Lord is truly at the centre."

There truly is nothing controversial in this, as facing towards the East has always been permitted since Vatican II, although it's something that isn't commonly seen in the Ordinary Form since the 1960's. However, many people have made a big deal about it, and it caused such a stir (apparently) that a clarification had to come out that the good Cardinal did not issue a mandate to be implemented this Advent, but merely a suggestion. I, and many others, thought that this being a suggestion was apparent. It seems to me that with all this correction and clarification going on, we've been seeing a lot more recently (and not just on this issue) the words of Our Lady at Akita in 1973 coming to pass: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops." We should never see cardinals opposing cardinals, as it's scandalous not only for Catholics, but other Christians and non-Christians as well... and yet here we are.

Robert Cardinal Sarah

Discussing the Differences Between Transubstantiation and the Sacramental Union

There aren't too many Lutherans that I know in my life, and those that I do are either former Lutherans or the practice of their faith isn't one that has many outward signs. That's why I was pleasantly surprised to have a great conversation with a Lutheran who belongs to the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church. In response to a meme on the different ways that various religions describe the Real Presence in the Eucharist, this person took the time to explain what Lutherans (at least those who claim to be LCMS) actually believe. While we know as Catholics that Lutherans don't possess valid sacraments, we are both close in our theology regarding the Eucharist. This was a very productive and informative discussion we had, and a very civil one as well. Below is the following conversation, with some closing thoughts by me after. My words will be in blue, and my Lutheran friends's (we'll call him John) in red. There were many people taking part in this conversation, but I'll just focus on the relevant parts of John's points and our the conversation between the two of us:

The Victory of Eucharistic Truth over Heresy- Peter Paul Rubens

Further Dialogue on Transubstantiation, Salvation and the Church's Authority

The following exchange took place in the combox of an article I had written in response to another combox discussion I had had with the same Protestant Calvinist. The article I had written was entitled "Transubstantiation, Scripture and Church Authority" and you can see the original conversation here on this blog. This was another learning experience for me, as I was able to better express my Catholic faith on items I had never gotten the chance to fully articulate. We will call the person I am debating with "Tom" and his words will be in red, mine in blue. A couple other Catholics joined in the conversation, represented by the purple and green fonts, one of which was a parish priest (who will be denoted in green).

Tom still believes that the Church has no authority to claim that what happens during the Sacrifice of the Mass is transubstantiation, and still won't concede that the Eucharistic species truly become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ. The conversation gets a bit skewed at certain points, but we get it reeled back in to the main subject points of transubstantiation and Church authority, as well as what salvation really means. Therefore, you will notice at some points I'll skip ahead in the conversation (marked by ellipses) so as to keep this dialogue somewhat on-track and readable. As I said before, if anything, it proved a great learning experience, and showed me why the Protestant understanding of the Eucharist and the hierarchy of Christ's Church is deeply flawed.

The Four Doctors of the Church

Cardinal Schönborn on the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation; What Does He Mean?

Yet another "papal presser" has taken place aboard the plane coming back from  his visit to the island of Lesbos. From CNA:

"Pope Francis on April 16 gave a 25-minute press conference for reporters during his return flight to Rome from Lesbos... 

"Frank Rocca (Wall Street Journal): Thanks, Holy Father. I see that the questions on immigration that I had thought to ask you have been asked and answered by you very well. If you permit me, I’d like to ask you another question about an event of recent days, which was your apostolic exhortation. As you well know, there has been much discussion about on one of the many, I know that we’ve focused on this a lot…there has been much discussion after the publication. Some sustain that nothing has changed with respect to the discipline that regulates access to the sacraments for the divorced and remarried, that the Law, the pastoral praxis and obviously the doctrine remain the same. Others sustain that much has changed and that there are new openings and possibilities. For a Catholic who wants to know: are there new, concrete possibilities that didn’t exist before the publication of the exhortation or not?

"Pope Francis: I can say yes, many. But it would be an answer that is too small. I recommend that you read the presentation of Cardinal Schonborn, who is a great theologian. He was the secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and he knows the doctrine of the faith well. In that presentation, your question will find an answer. 

"Jean-Marie Guenois (Le Figaro): I had the same question, but it’s a complementary question because you wrote this famous ‘Amoris Laetitia’ on the problems of the divorced and remarried (footnote 351). Why put something so important in a little note? Did you foresee the opposition or did you mean to say that this point isn’t that important? 

"Pope Francis: One of the recent popes, speaking of the Council, said that there were two councils: the Second Vatican Council in the Basilica of St. Peter, and the other, the council of the media. When I convoked the first synod, the great concern of the majority of the media was communion for the divorced and remarried, and, since I am not a saint, this bothered me, and then made me sad. Because, thinking of those media who said, this, this and that, do you not realize that that is not the important problem? Don’t you realize that instead the family throughout the world is in crisis? Don’t we realize that the falling birth rate in Europe is enough to make one cry? And the family is the basis of society. Do you not realize that the youth don’t want to marry? Don’t you realize that the fall of the birth rate in Europe is to cry about? Don’t you realize that the lack of work or the little work (available) means that a mother has to get two jobs and the children grow up alone? These are the big problems. I don’t remember the footnote, but for sure if it’s something general in a footnote it’s because I spoke about it, I think, in 'Evangelii Gaudium.'"

Here are some thoughts I've had on this, and it might seem a bit random, as it's more a stream of consciousness kind of thing, pieced together from thoughts I've put in some comboxes on other articles...

Pope Francis

New Article on the Real Presence on Catholic365

About a week or so ago, I posted a conversation I had with a Protestant on the issue of the Real Presence and the authority of the Church. Since then, I've edited the dialogue into an essay that was just recently posted over on Catholic 365. Even if you have read the actual discussion, please check out the essay version where I try to clarify things a little bit more. So far I'm two for two in writing new essays stemming from comments from a previous essay. Let's see if we can make it three for three... although I don't how much clearer I can get on the subject unless we start going onto other tangents. In any case, be sure to take a look and peruse around a bit on the site for some other good articles by other Catholics.

Dialogue on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence

Recently, I seem to be posting thoughts that must be considered controversial. This is the second time  in a row I've had a discussion with a Protestant after writing an article on the Real Presence. This article, which was originally posted here, but most recently on Catholic365 was the fruit of a discussion I had with someone who didn't subscribe to the Real presence. What followed in the combox from this article, was focusing more on how the Catholic doctrine on transubstantiation couldn't be found in the Bible. A decent dialogue ensued, and I only wish that my opponent had continued to answer my questions. As I'e mentioned before, I've noticed that discussions such as these help me to grow in my faith as I can more easily recall points I've studied before, or find valid answers to questions that I don't have an immediate answer to.

My words will be in blue, and "Tom's" in red. As far as this topic goes, the one thing I wish "Tom" would have taken from this was this line from the original post:

"Still, I've seen some have difficulty understanding how the Real Presence relates to the idea of transubstantiation. One thing to note is that the Eastern Catholic Churches (and Eastern Orthodox) don't use the term "transubstantiation", but do believe in the Real Presence the same way as Latin Catholics do. Transubstantiation is a term which attempts to define how the Eucharistic species becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and, Divinity of our Lord. One seems to think just because the term was coined in the 13th century, the teaching of the Real Presence did not exist before then. It most certainly did, as we can see the evidence from Apostolic times. That's why I think it'd be better if we refer to what transubstantiation points to, that is, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist."

Look for the following discussion to appear in article format over on Catholic365 sometime in the near future:

St. Thomas Aquinas Confounding Averroes- Giovanni di Paolo

Expanded Post on Apostles and Early Church Fathers on the Real Presence

I recently posted a discussion I had with a Fundamentalist on the belief in the Real Presence in the first 100 years or so of the Catholic Church. I took the relevant information from our discussion and modified it into an essay that was just recently posted over on Catholic 365. Plenty of Scriptural references from St. Paul and from the Didache are in this article, so check it out and be sure to peruse around the site for other articles on all sorts of relevant, Catholic topics.

Institution of the Eucharist- Fra Angelico

Discussion on Transubstantiation and Church Authority

Recently, I posted an earlier blog post of mine on transubstantiation. I was surprised at how many comments I got back on it, and the number of discussions that resulted from it. One such discussion I engaged in was with a Fundamentalist Protestant who had an issue with the belief in the Real Presence on the grounds that it wasn't apostolic. that is, no Apostle believed the Eucharist to be the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord. I would've loved to have continued the conversation a bit more, but I will post here the brief exchange that we had. Look for an essay to come from this conversation on Catholic 365 sometime in the near future, highlighting the relevant proofs and information I've posted in this exchange. My words will be in blue, and "Tom's" in red.

Christ Among the Doctors-José de Ribera 

On Particles

Some time ago, a Catholic friend and I were talking about the Eucharist after eating dinner one night. He was telling me about how the Eucharist at a church he had gone to for Mass had used bread that was a bit "crumbly" and wasn't being given to younger children who might drop particles of the Host. Why this church was giving out two different kinds of Eucharistic bread, I do not know. However, we then get into discussing the proper reverence for the Eucharist, and I argued how we must make an effort to find any particle that falls to the ground. My wife made a good point when she said to just receive on the tongue. While I agree, this isn't something every Catholic does.

He argued that if the particle was teeny-tiny, we shouldn't waste a lot of time scouring around for the piece of Eucharistic bread. I countered that we should. He then dropped a very small crumb, not much bigger than a grain of salt on the ground, and asked me to find it. I became a little frustrated, and of course couldn't find it. But I reiterated that if we can see the particle, we should pick it up and consume it, and should at least make an effort to find it if we see the Host fall to the ground. 

Some "Slick" Answers for Opponents of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence

About a month ago, a friend approached me with an idea to get a kind of "Theology on Tap" thing going before poker nights at a local bar. I thought it was a good idea, and what started out as inviting just Catholics to talk on various theological issues, soon grew into inviting people from other Christian denominations. While the first "conversation" has yet to happen, my friend made a nice resource online where we could all interact with each other and post sources that we could look over before our discussion.

Our first topic was going to be on the Eucharist, and after some people, including myself, posted some sources for the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and for the teaching of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, a Baptist posted some articles that were critical of Catholic theology. A couple of his papers were actually well-reasoned, and shed some insight on Calvanistic thinking towards the Eucahrist. However, one of the articles posted came from the ever dubious Matt Slick, writer for the Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry (CARM). If you haven't heard of him before, then you're one of the lucky ones. While some of the articles on his website have some merit, especially the ones against atheism and misunderstandings of Old Testament Laws, Slick has an anti-Catholic streak, and you can see it here on his article on transubstantiation.

Now in a few instances in this article, he accurately reflects what Catholic theology teaches in some place. Then in others, he offers a completely inaccurate portrayal of Catholic thought, giving a complete misrepresentation of the theology behind transubstantiation; thus Slick is attacking a complete caricature of Catholic beliefs instead of interacting with what Catholics actually believe. Now, I want to get relevant and helpful information to as many people as possible through this little blog. I come across a lot of very helpful essays, websites and blog postings that I want to share with people. While I do write some original apologetic essays, I want to give Catholics and other non-Catholic Christians alike access to these helpful sources that they might not have found otherwise. Therefore, I offer the following rebuttals (point by point) to Slick's article on transubstantiation, and in these rebuttals I will post links to various Catholic websites/blogs that can articulate this information much better than I can, and will summarize in my own words some of these other sources to help explain what you will find once you click on the links.

The Defenders of the Eucharist- Peter Paul Rubens