A Catholic Mom in Minnesota

Hey ladies, if you get a chance go over and say "hey" to Tracy at A Catholic Mom in Minnesota. She has always been 100% supportive of us and now her little boy is going through a hard time and she could use a little TLC!







Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!

The Dake Bible, and Catholic Editions

The Dake Annotated Reference Bible, which Candy recommends, is considered controversial. Dake was a rather shady character, with some unorthodox view. Elena has previous written two posts with the background information, which you can read here and here.

Candy does address Dake's views:
I believe Dake to be wrong about "planet heaven," his view of the trinity (3 Gods, instead of 3 in 1), and the gap theory.

Candy's highest criteria in a Bible is whether or not it can cause one to question the authenticity of the Bible. The last time Candy wrote on this topic, I asked her what she meant by that. She replied that it was in reference to those footnotes you often find in Bibles which say "This verse not found in the earliest manuscripts." She said that she felt, especially for new Christians, that this could cause one to doubt the authenticity of the Bible.

Personally, I think if you are recommending a Bible with the new Christian in mind, that Dake's heretical views on the Trinity alone would be enough to rule it out. I understand this isn't a problem for Candy, but I worry that her glowing review could lead others into believing that Dake is a trustworthy source. She did address that this time, with the above comment, but in previous editions of this article, she didn't add the disclaimer.

Her second choice Bible, the Scofield, comes from a similarly controversial choice. Scofield is primarily associated with the dispensationalist movement, and unlike Candy, he is a premillenialist.

It is fitting that Candy prefers the Dake and Scofield, because both lacked formal theological training. Candy has said before that she feels that theological study can hinder one from truly interpreting Scripture, because you bring preconceived notions to your study of Scripture.

I read the Bible through several times before I had any type of real Doctrinal Teaching. That is a blessing, because that means I was able to read the Bible several times on my own, without anyone else’s interpretations getting in the way. The first several to dozen times through the Bible, I used text only, or reference Bibles,- no study Bibles.

For those who may be interested, let's look over some Catholic study Bibles.

Personally, I think the gold standard is the Navarre Study Bible. The notes are so extensive, that the full edition runs to a 12 volume New Testament! The commentary is taken mostly from the Doctors of the Church, and Early Church Fathers, so you are really getting an education in history by reading through the notes. I have the medium edition, which is a 3 volume New Testament. I'd like to start chipping away at the Old Testament on my Christmas list.

A similarly well received project is the Ignatius Study Bible, which is primarily written by prominent Catholic apologist Scott Hahn, with several co-authors. However, it is still being written, and currently only available in a series of paperbacks, as far as I am aware. I use an inexpensive Ignatius Bible for when I want to read the Bible without the in depth study of the Navarre, because I prefer the Revised Standard Version.

The Catholic Answer Bible is written geared towards apologetics, but I have not actually looked through it personally.

The Oxford Catholic Study Bible also looks promising, but again, I have no personal experience with it.

For those of you with a King James Version bent, be sure to try out the Douay Rheims Study Bible. It's pricey, but look that list of contributors to the commentary!

Please chime in with your favorite Bible versions in the comments, especially if you've seen some of these that I haven't.

Mary Anne explains it all.

At Candy's suggestion, I did emaill Mary Anne Collins and to my surprise received an actual e-mail back today! I asked her why she calls herself a former nun when she never actually took vows.

She writes:

"Some people have asked me why I call myself a former nun when I never made vows. According to "The Catholic Encyclopedia," if a monk or a nun has been accepted by a religious order (which I was) and has been given a religious habit (which I wore), then he or she is a monk or a nun in the broad sense of the term. [Note 1] So I refer to myself as a former nun."

Note 1. "Novice" in the 1913 edition of "The Catholic Encyclopedia," Volume XI. This article is available on-line. The term "novice" refers to both monks and nuns who go through a period of training and preparation. In Section II, "Juridical Condition," the article states that a novice in a religious order is a "regular" in the widest sense of the word. (A "regular" is a technical term for a monk or a nun.)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11144a.htm

NOTE: The article often speaks of "he" when modern usage would be to say "he or she". Section I, "Definition and Requirements,"specifically mentions nuns. And it gives instructions regarding married women who want to become nuns. So the article is about both novice monks and novice nuns.

So there you have it!  

Doc’s Sunrise Rants » Leaping The Comb

Doc’s Sunrise Rants » Leaping The Comb

We get mentioned elsewhere in the blogosphere.

Well since they asked...

One of Candy's commenters writes:

I have always found it interesting that Elena only comments when you discuss anything related to catholicism. Exercise videos, healthy living, keeping house, homeschooling, ect have no interest to her, at least not on this blog.

Well, I like exercise videos and own several.  I have reviewed a few on my other blog.   I write some about keeping house and we have links in the side bar as alternatives to Candy's home management binder.  Many of those resources are free.  I get a lot of hits looking for those links.  I believe that a home should be clean and orderly, but I also think that it should be lived in.  It should serve the people who live there, not the other way around! 

I also write A LOT about homeschooling.  In fact I write an article for the carnival of homeschooling just about every week on my other blog.  I also have many links on del.icio.us about homeschooling here and here.  I have a homeschooling blog too.

On this blog we have limited ourselves to discussing theology and Catholicism.  I'm afraid that if I were to comment on some of Candy's other posts, they probably wouldn't get posted anyway.  

Those "loving" Catholics.

Also in Amanda's comments Candy wrote:

So, they got to have their "voice" heard, and now I"m back to that good ole' delete key. And let me tell you - they are a nasty bunch, espcially the "loving" Catholics making threats to my person and family. I've NEVER seen such vial stuff.


Girl, we are in the midst of spiritual battle. Stay the course. I've seen too many good Christian blogs taken down because of these people. Don't let Satan win. Keep up the good work on your blog, you are doing God a service.

I replied:

Candy, I hope you were not referring to Kelly, or Kitkat, Angie or me? We stuck to the theology and the topic and even went into greater depth on our own blogs, but we were strictly theology and nothing else.

Sorry if I left any of you off the list - I have a summer cold and was under the influence of Nyquil when I wrote that.  Anyway.  

To which Amanda writes:

I'm not Candy so I don't know what particular individuals she's referring too, but there were people, from your own list there, who know they do not agree with Candy, came anyway and left sarcastic remarks, so unless sarcasm is part of Catholic theology, that's not a very accurate statement.

I didn't realize a little sarcasm could be considered a threat to family or "vile stuff."   shrug...

No Mother or Father

Although Candy allowed some comments this week she didn't allow all and she deliberately manipulated others.

In the Mary Collins thread toward the end, loyal Candyite Amanda wrote this as her way of explaining that Christ had no mother:

Another thought came to me as I was making supper (meatloaf and potatoes in the oven now smelling WONDERFUL!!!) As another commenter asked recently, about this fellow Melchisedec. Melchisedec was used repeatedly as an illustration of Christ.


" ...even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, WITHOUT MOTHER, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."
-Hebrews 6:20-7:3-


That's pretty strait forward!

Well, it's not quite that "strait" forward. Father William G. Most gives this commentary on the book of Hebrews:

Also the way the Epistle comments on Melchizedek as being without 
father or mother or end of days, is homiletic freedom.

Four kings had attacked five kings, including the king of Sodom. 
The four took spoils, and took Lot, nephew of Abraham as captive. 
When Abraham heard of it he gathered 318 of his retainers, and set 
out against the four kings, and defeated them. On his return the 
King of Sodom met him and suggested Abraham keep the goods, but 
give him the people. Abraham refused to keep anything, seemingly 
because of an oath he had taken when Melchizedek, king of Salem, 
met him. Melchizedek brought out bread and wine. Was that just a 
refreshment for Abraham, or was it meant as a sacrifice? Later 
Christian writers understood it as a sacrifice.

His name is taken to mean either King of Peace (Salem) or King of 
righteousness (sedeq). These are plausible etymologies.

Abraham gave him a tenth of all the spoils of the military 
expedition.

Melchizedek is described as without father or mother, without 
genealogy. Genesis indeed does not give any lineage for him. Thus 
he foreshadows the Son of God, a priest forever.

Then our author exclaims: How great is Melchizedek - Abraham gave 
him tithes, recognizing his superiority. The descendants of Levi 
received tithes too in later times, as the offspring of Abraham. 
Yet Melchizedek, who has not the same genealogy as them, received 
tithes from the father of the chosen people, Abraham. Further, 
Abraham received a blessing from Melchizedek - but one receives 
blessings only from a superior, not from an inferior. So again, 
Melchizedek, type of Christ, is superior to Abraham.

In fact since Levi who was to come from Abraham, was still in the 
body of Abraham, we can say that Levi too paid tithes to 
Melchizedek - and so the levitical priesthood is less than that of 
Melchizedek.

Amanda is trying to say that her verse is saying Christ had no mother, but it is really referring to Melchizedek.

I did write a comment pointing that out.  However, Candy did NOT allow that comment although it too was respectful.  Instead she lets Amanda have the last word on that. She also lets Amanda have the last word on my link to Catholic Answers which explains the Catholic perspective on the title Mother of God.

Elena out of a LARGE amount of quotes and references, only 1 or 2 were from the BIBLE. I really couldn't care less what such and such catechism or so and so person says, I am a follower of CHRIST (and the Bible says He is the Word-God's Word is the Bible- made flesh) not man, so I really don't care one little bit about what man has to say on the matter. And none of that addressed my point of dividing God into separate pieces. So....no, I didn't find that helpful in the least.

Yea...quotes from pesky men like the early church fathers.  Whatever. 

Just Asking . . .

Anne T. left a comment on Candy's blog which contained this bit of information:

I don't know any former nuns, but I know several former catholics. They left mostly due to the relationship the catholic church has with the mafia. Some people believe if they make a huge donation to the church that will forgive them of the knockoff they did.

I suspect that we have a majority of Catholics in our audience. Please confess--do you have any mafia connections or know people who do?!

I think I must be missing out, living in the Bible Belt for so long. I do admit, many of my relatives are caught up in the "good 'ol boy" network, but that mostly involves getting a good deal on a used Mustang which comes with a Confederate flag bumper sticker (which is considered a plus).

Challenging William Webster

In the article by Mary Ann Collins which Candy recently posted, the primary source for information was a book called The Church of Rome at the Bar of History by William Webster. Although Mary Ann Collins says in the article that "primary sources about Catholic doctrines and history come from the Catholic Church" this book is not written by a Catholic, but by a former Catholic.

She mentions several times in her article that she recommends recourses which are "respectful and gentle" in their approach. I appreciate that, in this article at least, some of the wilder anti-Catholic claims do not appear. William Webster is certainly a better alternative to Dave Hunt and Jack Chick.

William Webster is a former Catholic who converted to Evangelical Christianity. Since that time, he has written quite a lot about Catholicism, and he has come to the attention of Catholic apologists.

Stephen Ray, who is himself a convert TO Catholicism, has gotten into a sort of convert vs. convert battle of words with Webster. In his book, Upon This Rock, Ray challenges Webster's book and charges Webster with selective editing.

I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster's response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, "No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were 'exclusively' related to the bishops of Rome." [2] What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome's primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy.

Webster then wrote an article, refuting Ray's book. Ray now has a 17 part debate with Webster on the issue of papal primacy on his website. At this point, Dave Armstrong (another convert to Catholicism) weighs in with two different articles refuting William Webster.

One article which Webster wrote was regarding the development of the Bible canon, which the Catholic Monarchist responds to here:

As the article continues, Webster displays a most serious ignorance when it comes to the use of the terms "canonical" and "non-canonical." He makes use of quote after quote of church figures in the act of explaining that the deuterocanonical books are "noncanonical," supposedly to prove that they were not considered part of the Bible, but the reader can distinguish for himself what the terms actually mean, because Webster helpfully gives him the definition in this quote from one Cardinal Cajetan:

Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.

The Cardinal has explained it: Non-canonical doesn't mean "not in the Bible." It means "not confirming matters of faith." By this rule, of course Tobit and Judith and such are not canonical. But look at what he says a breath before the definition: "and any other like books in the canon of the Bible." So he has just called them canonical BEFORE calling them non-canonical--which means that he does NOT mean they are not to be included, but rather that they do not confirm the faith.

John Betts writes about the same article on his website, but from a different angle.

Another article, on Sola Scriptura and the Early Church is tackled by the American Catholic Truth Society.

While Mary Ann Collins does quote from it, William Webster wrote another book with David King titled Holy Scripture: Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. Phil Porvaznik writes about the misrepresentations in it here.

There are lots of resources available about William Webster, but this is plenty to get you started.

Organ-ic Chemist: Catholic Carnival 183

Organ-ic Chemist: Catholic Carnival 183

Will the real Mary Collins please stand up!

I was clicking and reading through the links Kelly put up yesterday (great job Kelly!) and fount this very interesting bit of information about Mz. Collins.

Here they have various samples of her "biography" where first she says she didn't take vows, and then it gets changed to she was asked to leave, and later for health reasons. So which is it? A very interesting read and if you have any doubts as to whether or not this lady is for real, this definitely won't alleviate them!







Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!

Another comment I left on Candy's blog.

After years of no longer being a Catholic, I attended a Catholic funeral. When I went into the church something hit me hard. It had always been there, but I had never noticed it before because I was used to it. There were statues of Mary and the saints. They looked solid, real, as if they represented people of power. Jesus only appeared as a helpless baby in Mary’s arms, as a dead man nailed to a cross, and as little wafers of bread hidden inside a fancy box. Visually and emotionally the message was very clear - if you want real power, if you want someone who can do something for you, then go to Mary and the Saints.

Of course every church is decorated a bit differently. In my church we have a huge mosaic of Christ surrounded by the apostles. There is also a statue of the adult Christ as the Sacred Heart on the side.

Be that as it may, I thought Ms. Collins assessment was interesting. Because it seems to me from reading the scriptures that Jesus wants all of us to do what we "can do" to spread the gospel, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, minister to the sick etc. Jesus left US to do those things. Canonized saints in the Catholic church are ordinary people who have striven to do those things and have done them well.

There is a saint coming up for canonization soon Candy that you might be interested in. Her name is Zelie Martin. She was the mother of St. Theresa. She had five daughters. She also lost several children in infancy. She maintained her household, she took care of her children and her husband and she even ran a successful lace making business. She is an example of an ordinary person living an extraordinary life in Christ which is what we all strive for.

One Final Mary Ann Collins Post

Candy writes: For those who've heard the gossipy rumors that Mary Ann Collins (the ex-nun who wrote the below article) does not exist, please know that what you've read/heard are nothing more than rumors. Mary Ann and I are in email contact - and I can attest that she is real, genuine, and truthful. God bless her heart for putting herself out there, in spreading the Gospel, in telling the truth, and in the sharing of her experiences.

This is a bit of a red herring. Clearly, someone is writing under the name of Mary Ann Collins, and so she does exist. He/She/They may be using a pseudonym, or that might really be her name. Maybe she was a novice at a convent for a while, and maybe she wasn't.

It really doesn't matter. You know why? Because the information in her writing is still wrong. As I've written before, just because a person used to be a priest or nun doesn't mean that that person is an accurate source of information about Catholicism.

Mary Ann Collins On Mary Worship, Part II

Picking up where I left off, I had some time to try and track down this accusation:

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

I checked several secular history sources, and none mention anything to do with this. The Nestorian controversy was going on at this time, but that was the only thing remotely related to Mary. Pope Gelasius is mostly referred to for setting the setting the Bible canon, which historians now think was a later Pope, for declaring Manicheans heretics for not taking communion under both kinds, and for combating another Eucharist-related heresy.

Pope Hormisdas gets even less mention in online encyclopedias than Pope Gelasius. Pope Hormisdas is reunited the Eastern and Western Church, after he convinced the Eastern Church to repudiate the heresy of Monophysitism. Monophysitism says that Jesus has only one nature, and that is his divine nature.

I think this Webster guy that she quotes so much is just making stuff up, and I'm not the only one.

The next section concerns parallels of Mary and Goddess worship.

Mary Ann Collins does not use The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop as her source, but that is the original, completely discredited book which really started the Catholic=pagan argument. Many Bible Christians consider The Two Babylons as very authoritative on this sort of thing. Christians such as Ralph Woodrow, who has his own evangelistic association.

Mr. Woodrow found The Two Babylons so compelling, he wrote his own book about the pagan origins of Catholicism. But then, he started actually checking Hislop's citationsand they were not what they were purported to be. So Mr. Woodrow recanted his book, and wrote a different book called The Babylon Connection? debunking The Two Babylons.

The final section is How Did We Get Here:

The Early Fathers used Scripture as the standard against which they tested Church tradition. The modern Catholic doctrine that Church tradition is equal in authority with the Bible is contrary to the writings of the Early Fathers.

A survey of the Early Church Fathers does not support this.

She again cites Webster here, and this assertion of Webster was challenged in this article.

Notice the sleight of hand by Mr. Webster. He equates St. Irenaeus’s and Tertullian’s understanding of Tradition to mean Scripture. Both of these Fathers clearly understood Tradition as a substantive and coordinate authority alongside Scripture. These same Fathers believed that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are found in Tradition as well as in Scripture. However, they do not make the misguided conclusion that Tradition is equated to Scripture since Tradition includes the same doctrines that Scripture contains. The primary difference between Scripture and Tradition is that they convey the same teaching but through different mediums. One transmits the doctrines via the written Scriptures while Tradition transmits these same doctrines through the life, faith and practice of the Church. If Scripture is equated with Tradition than the writings of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian are reduced to nonsense.

The Pope is said to be infallible whenever he makes an official decree on matters of faith and morals. According to Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for the Pope to teach false doctrine. Catholics are expected to obey the Pope without question even when he is not making an “infallible” statement about doctrine. They are expected to submit their wills and minds to the Pope without question.

I covered Papal infallibility and other Pope issues here.

The history of the early Church shows that the Bishop of Rome was considered to be just another bishop. For example, Pope Gregory (590-604 A.D.) explicitly stated that all of the bishops were equal. He specifically repudiated the idea that any one bishop could be the supreme ruler of the Church.

No, that is not the case. Regarding Pope Gregory, Webster is again mentioned by name in this article.

In the seventeenth century, the Catholic church officially condemned Galileo as a heretic because he taught that the earth revolves around the sun. . .The “infallible” pronouncement of the Catholic Church regarding Galileo's teaching was wrong.

There was no infallible pronouncement about Galileo. For more information on the Galileo case, see this article.

There is a brief mention of Marian apparitions, however, she does not mention that Marian apparitions are considered private revelation, and are not required belief for any Catholic.

That concludes my survey of Mary Ann Collins lengthy article. If I didn't address something that you would like more information about, please leave a comment.

Catholic Answers on Mary Mother of God

This is a good article.  it also follows with quotes from the early church fathers who also considered Mary the Mother of God.  If I am blaspheming, as Candy says, then so were they!  At least according to Candy B.

• 
  

  Mary: Mother of God

  
  

  Mary: Mother of God Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine. A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3). Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ. Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ. To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God. The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do. Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God. The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord.

  
  

  tags: Mary, Catholic, apologetics

  
  

Mary Ann Collins On Mary Worship

Candy's current offering is a copy of an article by Mary Ann Collins.


Because the article is so extensive, I'm going to break it into sections, rather than go through the entire thing point by point.

Introduction:

We get reminded of Catholic abuses of power:
I always thought that abuses of power by the Catholic Church were something
that happened long ago.

See our article on Catholic Atrocities.

She mentions statues in churches: There were statues of Mary and the saints. They looked solid, real, as if they represented people of power.

I wrote about statues here, and Elena covers statues and crucifixes here.

There is a section on Devotion To Mary, which begins with pointing out the riches of the church: Vast sums of money are spent on jeweled crowns and lavish clothing for some special statues of Mary.

I wrote about the riches of the church here. I noticed that her source here is Dave Hunt, who is not a reliable source of information.

She brings up Mary as Mediatrix: De Liguori said that people should pray to Mary as
a mediator and look to her as an object of trust for answered prayer.
The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary.

See my Something About Mary post.

Next section: Catholic Doctrines about Mary

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was first introduced by a heretic
(a man whose teachings were officially declared to be contrary to Church
doctrine). For centuries this doctrine was unanimously rejected by popes,
Fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church. (Note 13)

ALL-HOLY -- Mary, "the All-Holy," lived a perfectly sinless
life. ("Catechism" 411, 493)

In contrast, Mary said that God is her Savior. (Luke 1:47) If God was
her Savior, then Mary was not sinless. Sinless people do not need a Savior.

Mary Ann gives a Catechism citation, but doesn't show what it says:

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the "New Adam" who, because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross", makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the "new Eve". Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

These paragraphs of the Catechism show that the Catholic Church teaches Mary DID need a Redeemer.

Catholic Answers explains it in this way:

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

Matthew 1:24-25 says, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." "Till" (until) means that after that point,
Joseph did "know" (have sexual relations with) Mary. (See Genesis 4:1 where Adam "knew" Eve and she conceived and had a son.)

2 Sam 6:23 says that Michal had no child until the day she died. Does that mean that she bore children after her death? Until does not have the same connotation in the Bible as it does in modern English. It carries no implication of what happened after that time.

My Something About Mary covers these subjects, and this article contains links which show that these teachings were ACCEPTED, not rejected, for centuries by the Early Church Fathers, Popes, and theologians.

The Incarnation means that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Mary
was only the mother of Jesus as man, and not the mother of Jesus as God.

I did an article on this just this week.

There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary.

If we are going by the criteria that "if it isn't mentioned in the Bible, it didn't happen", then I think you must also conclude that Mary is still alive, because her death isn't mentioned either.

The Bible contains everything we need to know in order to attain salvation. It does not claim to be an exhaustive compilation of all miracles which ever occurred, even just concerning Jesus.
John 21:25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

There is actually historic evidence, or lack of it, for the Assumption or Dormition of Mary; lack of a body. While the tomb of Mary has been a tourist attraction since the earliest centuries of the Church, the tomb is empty. No early accounts mention there every being a body in the tomb. Certainly, there is Biblical precedent for a person being assumed into heaven. As we keep talking about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, it would be fitting if her body is hidden, just as the Ark remains hidden.

The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation.

I think the testimony of the early Church would disagree.

Okay folks, I'm out of time. Feel free to discuss in the comments, and I'll work on part two later.

My comments on Mary- Not the Mother of God

Because I haven't done so for a long time, and because I figure, "what the heck"... I did leave a comment in Candy's com box.

www.keepingthehome.com: Mary - Not the "Mother of God."

So Jesus existed even before the world began. Jesus came first - not Mary. - Candy B.

It's a strawman argument. Catholics don't believe and the church doesn't teach that Mary preceded Jesus. So you can fight that fight if you want to, but Catholics would side with you on that one.

Nonetheless, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans and many other Christians believe that the conception of God almighty, creator heaven and earth, in Mary's womb with her consent is a great mystery. And in that sense Mary indeed is the Mother of Christ, i.e. the Mother of God.

More Mary

Candy has two new Mary posts up, both by Mary Ann Collins, who is possibly a former nun.

I've noticed that though Candy places great emphasis on not relying on other opinions for Biblical interpretation, she posts a lot of articles that seemed to have influenced her opinion. I was actually surprised to see her quote Mary Ann Collins, because I was thinking she was going to cite an article from Jesus Is Lord titled Is Mary Jesus' Mother? I would link to it, but it seems down at the moment. Perhaps that is why she went with a different source.

I think my previous article more than covered the small piece Candy quoted from Mary Ann Collins. I did notice that this "The Incarnation means that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Mary was only the mother of Jesus as man, and not the mother of Jesus as God." doesn't really explain Candy's adoptive mother comment. If Mary was the mother of Jesus as a man, then she still wouldn't have been an adoptive parent.

We have already covered most of the topics in the large article by Mary Ann Collins. I will try to put up a post later today with links to our posts on those topics, and cover anything we haven't done already.

A Moment of Catholic Beauty

This is my favorite piece of music. I listen to it mostly during Lent, when it is most appropriate, but I was also listening to it while I gave birth to my second son. This is the Miserere Mei Deus, or the 51st Psalm.



You can read a short history of the piece here.

The Medici Pope Leo X first mandated the silent recitation of Psalm 51 at the conclusion of Tenebrae. Each Catholic soul across the world considers, then, David's desperate poetic plea for God's mercy. The Pope's own singers, however, quickly adopted the practice of a fully polyphonic performance of the Psalm (later in the fifteenth century, Palestrina contributed a setting). Allegri joined the papal choir in 1629, serving for the rest of his life. In the 1630s he composed a setting of Miserere mei for Holy Week that eventually became his greatest musical legacy. The papal choir sang it every year from the seventeenth century until the choir collapsed in 1870. The penalty for copying its music, which the papal choir considered its exclusive property, was excommunication.

This is the piece which Mozart copied from memory, after hearing only once.

I did just comment on Candy's blog. My computer blipped and I'm not sure if it went through or not but I basically asked her to.

1. Explain why the Greek word used in the scripture is trigon, which literally means to eat, gnaw and masticate. It is a literal word.

2. No where else in scripture does of the spirit mean symbolic! Jesus literally means that this is literally spiritual food that is to be eaten.

3. That throughout scripture there are incidents and events that prefigure other incidents, events. It is not unusual then for Jesus to describe the Eucharist before he formally institutes it as the last supper.

Will she address these? I doubt it.

Mary Was Just A Vessel

In Candy's most recent post, on the 6th chapter of John, she included a note about the birth of Jesus.

Of course, in Jesus' case, He is not the son of Joseph. Joseph and Mary were the "adoptive" parents of Jesus while on this earth. Jesus’ Father is God.

She has now removed this, because she said it was being misunderstood. However, previously she wrote something similar:

Mary was just a chosen vessel to carry the flesh of Jesus, until he was born.

I was initially surprised at this, but I since learned that this is a common belief among some Fundamentalists. Catholic Answers writes:

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

First, if Mary "was just a chosen vessel" does that really mean that there was nothing special about her? The Bible contains another account of a vessel which carried God, the Ark of the Covenant.

The Scripture Catholic website writes the Biblical parallels between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary:

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God's Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke's conspicuous comparison's between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the "woman" clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

You can read a more in depth study about Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant here.


Second, if she only carried the flesh of Jesus, then she did not carry his Divinity. The early church found the issue of whether Mary was "Christotokos" the Christ Bearer or "Theotokos" the God Bearer very important. Nestorius said, like Candy, that Mary only bore Jesus' humanity, but that God was not contained in her womb. This Rock has a good concise history of the Nestorian controversy.

If Mary only bore the flesh of Jesus, then where was the Divinity? When did Jesus become both fully human and fully Divine?

Martin Luther had no problem with the title "Mother of God."

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Martin Luther, Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther's Works, Pelikan et al, volume 21, 326)

Martin Luther is following in the footsteps of the early Christians by hailing Mary as the Mother of God. Here is a sampling:

"Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19 (c. A.D. 350).

"If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead." Gregory of Nazianzus, To Cledonius, 101 (A.D. 382).

"And so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God. For no one, you say, brings forth what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, say something later on. In the meanwhile we will now prove by Divine testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the Mother of God." John Cassian, The Incarnation of Christ, II:2 (A.D. 430).

Also from Candy's previous writings:

Jesus holds believers more important that his mother - thankfully she is a believer also: "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked [blessed in Mary]. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." -Luke 11:27-28 Candy

I find this a very interesting quote. Notice that Jesus did not say "blessed are they that hear the word of God, and have faith alone." He said "and keep it," which sounds like works. While Catholics do not believe we are saved by works, the importance of works is reiterated time and time again in Scripture.

A verse which Candy did not quote:

Luke 1:28: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Highly favoured? Blessed among women? I thought Candy said that believers were more important than Mary?

Luke 1:30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

Found favour with God? I thought she was just a chosen vessel, randomly plucked from the mass of humanity.

Luke 1:42: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

There's that blessed among women thing again.

Luke 1:48: For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

All generations will call Mary blessed. But Candy says she is not blessed, not at all. And in that, she is contradicting the Word of God.

Candy's specific look at John 6

Let's take a closer look at Candy's notes:


verse 35 To partake of the bread of heaven - one must come unto Jesus. He is that spiritual bread that feeds our souls. He is that living water that satisfies our spirits. If we partake of the bread and drink of Jesus, our souls will never thirst or hunger again. 

These verses are specifically:
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.

I suppose Candy would be shocked to learn that there is a very popular contemporary Catholic Hymn that Catholics sing regularly that comes directly from these verses!!!
In fact it is one of my favorites and I find it to be very, very moving.



See verses 51 and 54. This cannot be referring to any Communion, Eucharist, or Mass - else, one would never have to eat or drink food again, after partaking of the "host" and wine. (Talk about saving money on groceries, if this were the case.)

I don't grasp her logic here. Obviously the Early Church Fathers, and the apostles realized that he was not talking about groceries! Catholics today understand that partaking in the Eucharist is mainly a spiritual food.


verse 40 This is the Gospel. This message is repeated over and over and over again, all over the Bible. Jesus wants it to be clear, that the will of God is that we partake of the bread of life, by believing on Jesus.

40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."

Obviously Catholics have no problem with vs. 40. And because we BELIEVE in the Son, we do what He tells us to do in the rest of the chapter, which is to eat his body and drink his blood!

verse 42 This is a logical fallacy, called "Genetic Fallacy." This is when people dismiss what someone says, because of who that person is, where they came from, or because of actions of that person in the past. This doesn't change that what the person is stating at that very moment may be the absolute truth. Of course, in Jesus' case, He is not the son of Joseph. Joseph and Mary were the "adoptive" parents of Jesus while on this earth. Jesus’ Father is God. Notice how Jesus doesn't waste time correcting the wrong assumptions of the people. He stays with His point, and continues on with what's important.

Um...Mary was not an "adoptive" parent. Jesus was conceived and grew in her womb and he was "Born of a virgin" which is scriptural. I challenge Candy or any of her followers to find a single verse that describes Mary as "adoptive."

verse 45 Thus, those who really are seeking out the truth will come to Jesus.

I have no problem with that verse although I think how that happens can be somewhat of a mystery (although call me a cynic -I have a hard time believing it happens every weekend in a Meeze room!)

verse 48 Verse 47, again tells us that everlasting life is through Jesus. Verse 48 again makes the point that He is the bread of life. If we believe on Him (verse 47) then we have partaken of the bread of life - and our souls will be filled.

47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life. 47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.

I note that there is a problem here for Candy and she never addresses it. How does one "partake" of the bread? I suspect that her answer includes some sort of vague rhetoric about believing and spirituality. But these verses are very, very graphic that Jesus is discussing actual eating and digesting. And she addresses it not, because she understands it not.

verse 49 God provided physical bread from heaven, when he provided manna to the Israelites in the wilderness. Yet, the Israelites chose not to believe on God, so they had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, until all of the unbelievers died. Then, the children of the unbelievers got to finally enter the promised land. The manna was a physical food. It kept them alive physically, but not spiritually. They died spiritually, when they chose not to believe God.

Read my prior article for a full explanation of how the Eucharist is prefigured throughout the Old Testament.

verse 50 Yet, if one believes on Jesus, then he is partaking of that spiritual bread of life, and though his body may die, the person them self will not. Their body will sleep in the grave, and the soul and spirit of that person will go to God, until the day of resurrection.


verses 52-53 Many of the people were not listening to what Jesus was saying, so they thought that they had to literally eat and drink Jesus. Their minds were still on the free bread they received earlier. Remember verse 26, our key verse? Reread verse 26, then go down and reread verse 42. These people weren't listening to Jesus. They wanted to eat some free bread. They dismissed what Jesus was saying about everlasting life, so they didn't understand what Jesus meant when He said he is the "bread of life."

The one who is not listening here is Candy. Jesus DID SAY THAT THEY HAD TO LITERALLY EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD!!! That is LITERALLY WHAT HE SAYS:

53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

and because they did not understand that He was speaking of His mystical resurrected body in the Eucharist they left. THEY LEFT BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SAME UNDERSTANDING THAT CANDY DOES! They thought he this was a reference to cannibalism. I submit that if Candy had been with that group of disciples with her current understanding, she would have agreed with them, and she would have left too.




verse 56 We partake of the bread of life, via believing on Jesus (see verses 40 and 47, where Jesus explained this). We partake of the blood of Jesus via accepting His death on the cross.

I called it! A paragraph of vague gobbeldy gook wrapped around scriptural feel-good talk that totally takes the focus of what is actually happening in these verses.

The rest of her take is pretty much summed up in my prior article.  Candy's explanation has to go through many gyrations which are only necessary if you are trying to find a way to avoid the correct Catholic interpretation.  Jesus said "

55

"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

.  What Candy presents is a way of wiggling past what He Actually Said. 

But what is key in this passage, and what is one of the key points that solidifies the Eucharist for me and why I WILL ALWAYS BE CATHOLIC is this:  The word "Spirit"  IS NEVER used as a synonym with "symbol."  Ever.  Jesus is not saying here that this is symbolic!  If He were it would be a complete departure from how that is used anywhere else in scripture! 

And I have yet to read a non-Catholic Apologist, explain that away.  So it is not surprising that Candy is unable to do so as well.

A review of John 6 and the Eucharist for Candy.

In light of Candy's look at John 6 today, Kelly and I thought it was important to bring this article forward from last fall.  

John 6:51-55

A There is good news here. I don't have to have a "take" on it, I just need to read the Bible, and see what it says about said passage. Roman Catholics take these verses and try to use them to prove that their IHS cracker in each mass is Jesus Christ Himself. However, that is NOT at all what said passage says. RCs are stopping at verse 55 or earlier, and are therefore interpreting the scripture incorrectly. Lets follow the biblical principle of scripture interpreting scripture, shall we? Is it okay to drink blood? NO:

Well let's look at the entire passage then.


Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Remember this is where Candy says we Catholics stop and therefore misinterpret the passage.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

I find this quite stunning. The disciples reject Christ's teaching of the Eucharist at John 6:66. 666!

"
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
68
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."
70



Now back to Candy Brauer's comments.

"Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people." -Leviticus 7:27

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood." -Acts 15:29a

It is clear that it is a both Old and New Testament command that we are not to drink or eat blood. God is consistent, and He does not contradict Himself.

Since the Bible is the Word of God, it cannot contradict itself, thus, Jesus can't literally mean that we are going to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and he didn't mean that. He explains to the disciples that what he said was not literal. Read further in the same chapter:

If Candy has such a love for the Old Testament, she might learn something THE EUCHARIST’S LONG SHADOW ACROSS THE BIBLE (This Rock: January 1999)"from this article.

In the sacrifice of Isaac and the offering of Melchizedek there is a Eucharistic imprint that deserves serious consideration and prayerful meditation. In fact, the Eucharist is present in the three distinct stages of salvation history: In the Old Testament it is present as a type; with the arrival of the Messiah it is present as the event; and in the age of the Church it is present as a sacrament. The purpose of the figure or type was to prepare for the event, and the purpose of the sacrament is to continue the event by actualizing it in Jesus’ mystical body, the Church.

From the marital-covenantal theme that the Holy Spirit inaugurates in Genesis and develops in the succeeding books of the Bible until its culmination in the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rev. 21), the Eucharist is seen as the sublime consummation of Christ’s marital oneness with his bride. This union is anticipated in the covenants God established with the human race through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Esra, and Nehemiah, all of which find their fulfillment in the marital covenant that Christ established with his church: "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Lk. 22:20).

In a profound sense, as Raniero Cantalamessa points out in his book The Eucharist, Our Sanctification, the "entire Old Testament was a preparation for the Lord’s Supper" (p. 6). In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus proclaims the parable of the "king who gave a marriage feast for his son and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast" (Mt. 22:2–3). In this light, those servants can be seen as the Old Testament prophets.

The first of these was Melchizedek. St. Paul declares that Jesus is "a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 6:20) who, in offering bread and wine, is clearly a type of Christ (Heb. 7:1 ff; Ps. 110:4; Gen. 14:18). John’s Gospel (6:31) makes the connection between the Eucharist and the manna Yahweh sent to feed the Israelites in the desert (Ex. 16:4 ff), but it is Jesus who shows that the manna is a mere foreshadowing of the "true bread from heaven" (Jn. 6:32–33).

The greatest Old Testament figure of the Eucharist is the Passover (Ex. 12:23). That night when God smote all the first-born of the Egyptians, he spared the first-born of Israel. Why? "The blood shall be a sign for you upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you (Ex. 12:13). But was it the blood of the Passover lamb alone, into which a hyssop was dipped to sprinkle blood on their doorposts, that saved the Israelites? No. This was a type: What God foreshadowed by it was the blood of the Lamb of God—the Eucharist.

Catholics understand that we are not eating Christ's earthly mortal body the same as when he lived on earth 2000 years ago. We instead are partaking of his mystical body that, the resurrected body.

The word "mystery" is commonly used to refer to something that escapes the full comprehension of the human mind. In the Bible, however, the word has a deeper and more specific meaning, for it refers to aspects of God's plan of salvation for humanity, which has already begun but will be completed only with the end of time. The Eucharist is a mystery because it participates in the mystery of Jesus Christ and God's plan to save humanity through Christ. We should not be surprised if there are aspects of the Eucharist that are not easy to understand, for God's plan for the world has repeatedly surpassed human expectations and human understanding. For example, even the disciples did not at first understand that it was necessary for the Messiah to be put to death and then to rise from the dead. Furthermore, any time that we are speaking of God we need to keep in mind that our human concepts never entirely grasp God. We must not try to limit God to our understanding, but allow our understanding to be stretched beyond its normal limitations by God's revelation.

By his real presence in the Eucharist Christ fulfills his promise to be with us "always, until the end of the age" (Mt. 28:20). St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "It is the law of friendship that friends should live together...Christ has not left us without his bodily presence in this our pilgrimage, but he joins us to himself in this sacrament in the reality of his body and blood". With this gift of Christ's presence in our midst, the church is truly blessed. As Jesus told his disciples, referring to his presence among them, "Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it" (Mt. 13:17). In the Eucharist the church both receives the gift of Jesus Christ and gives grateful thanks to God for such a blessing. This thanksgiving is the only proper response, for through this gift of himself in the celebration of the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine Christ gives us the gift of eternal life.

We refer to this as the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, in the host.

Back to Candy Brauer:

"When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (The disciples made the same mistake Roman Catholics do. They thought Jesus literally meant that he should be cannibalized and vamparized)

Catholics don't make that mistake at all. We understand that we are partaking of Jesus Christ's true presence in the Eucharist in a divine in a holy mystical way. We understand that we are not cannibals or vampires.

But Candy is missing the point. What the disciples did not understand was that Jesus was speaking of his mystical body/true presence in the Eucharist, but he was very clear that it was himself that would be consumed and because the disciples did not understand it, they left.

And Jesus did not change his story.

Here is what This Rock Magazine had to say on this part of the chapter:
This Is a Hard Teaching (This Rock: September 1999): "Eucharist: Forceful Repetitions To many non-Catholics, the Eucharist is a thing to do occasionally as a remembrance of the Last Supper, but it is not the body and blood of Christ. They argue that passages such as John 6 are to be read symbolically.

So when Christ said, 'Eat my flesh,' he did not really mean, 'Eat my flesh' but 'Believe in me.' In defending the Eucharist to a Protestant, we can ask the same question we used in defending Christianity to a non-Christian: What did the people who saw and spoke with Jesus think he was saying? Did they think he was using symbolic language? If they misunderstood him, why didn't he correct them? Christ repeats himself to three different groups to emphasize his point. He does not withdraw it. When Jesus first made his claim, his hearers began to argue with one another. 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' They thought he was saying to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. And so they rejected this teaching and left. Did Christ change his teaching? Did he tell his hearers, 'No, no, you've misunderstood, here is what I really meant'? He did not. Many of the disciples who followed Christ-like many people of today-had this to say about the Eucharist: 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' When they left Christ, did he try to correct their thinking? It is unlikely that he would have allowed them to remain in error. Unlike the Jewish leaders he would later stand before, these were his followers, the ones favorably disposed to him. But even to them he repeated rather than retracted this hard teaching (John 6:60-66).

Next, he challenged the Twelve Apostles on the issue: "Do you also wish to go away?" He did not correct the "misconception" of his audience or the Twelve. Why? Because their understanding was true. They had not heard him wrong. There was no misconception. Just like he didn't correct the members of the Sanhedrain when confronted over his Messiah-ship, he did not correct even the thinking of those who loved him most because there was nothing to correct. There was no misunderstanding; the teaching was true and to be accepted. The disciples responded, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the holy one of God" (John 6:67-69). They were saying in essence, "Yes, this is a hard teaching, but we will take it on faith, for you are the Christ."

When we look at how his audience, disciples, and the Twelve interpreted the teaching of Christ, we soon discover that there was no other option left open to them other than the literal teaching of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The merely symbolic reading wasn't left open to them, and it isn't left open to us.

And why did they leave?

Christ in the Eucharist: "He continues: 'As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me' (John 6:57). The Greek word used for 'eats' (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of 'chewing' or 'gnawing.' This is not the language of metaphor.

Mrs. Brauer:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: (Here Jesus is giving us a distinction between spirit and flesh) the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit Jesus just said here that we are not to literally eat his flesh and blood, but spiritually), and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not." -John 6:61-64a

Candy makes the classic Fundamentalist error:

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

Read ALL of chapter 6, and you'll see that there is no way that Jesus is saying that we are to literally eat and drink Him.

Yes, do read all of Chapter 6 and I think it's clear that Candy Brauer's take on the Eucharist is severely flawed. She may live to regret all the disrespectful times she referred to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament as a "cracker."

I could not believe my good fortune then for Candy calling on the early church as testimony for her stand!!

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Jesus clearly tells us that to "spiritually" eat His flesh and drink His blood is to BELIEVE ON HIM. Hence, saved by grace through faith (see Ephesians 2:8-9), you do not receive Christ by physically eating and drinking something or someone. Believe to Receive. See Romans 10:9-11 and Mark 16:16.

Meanwhile, in regards to communion...

The IHS cracker is not Jesus Himself. The Bible nowhere states this. Communion is done in remembrance of Jesus, and is modeled off of the Last Supper. Did the disciples cannibalize and vampirize Jesus at the Last Supper? Certainly not.

What Did the First Christians Say?

Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).



I think it's clear that there is a little bit more to the Catholic Eucharist that Candy Brauer's assessment. Candy's readers would do well to remember that she is no way a bible authority or scholar.