"A Humble Servant's Catholic Blog"

In Part 1 we discussed the literal vs. symbolic interpretation of John 6 in the Bread of Life Discourse. (Click "Part 1" to review if needed.) We left off explaining why a strictly symbolic intperpretation makes no sense. This brings us to the second question: WHY did the Jews understand Christ literally, and why should we also? The answer goes back to the beginning of the Pascal Lamb of the Passover and comes to full light as the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New. There is a WONDERFUL book that goes into the details of this: Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist , by Brandt Pitre. I won’t pretend to be able to summarize 240 pages of his book here, so I recommend anyone who wants to delve into this topic to get a copy. I’ll just tap on some Scriptural background. Something often forgotten in the movie portrayals of the Passover events is a very critical fact: the lamb had to be EATEN. It was not sufficient to sacrifice the lamb and spread the blood on the door

" ...and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um. " (Jn 6:53-59, NRSV-CE). For those who prefer an older translation, compare that to the equally graphic text in the DR or KJV. To help give the picture of what the Jews heard, take a look at the ancient Greek translation of Christ’s words. The first 2 occurrences of “eat” here are translated to the root “phago”, which carries the same meaning as “eat” in English (verses 53 and 54). But thereafter, Christ uses a

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which explains the what, why, how, etc…of Catholic doctrines, says this about Baptizing infants: “Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.” (CCC 403) “Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flow

When I met the woman who would later become my wife, one of the things that impressed me was how well she knew her Faith.  In fact, she could (and did) tell me  more than a few things about it that I (as a "cradle-Catholic") had not known or understood.  Perhaps the difference between us was a "because I have to" or "my Mom is making me learn this" attitude on my part.  Whereas with her, she WANTED to know the Truth.  She wanted to open her heart to God and let Him guide her where HE wanted her.  That attitude was one I would not fully adopt until I was already an adult.  For your reading pleasure, here is my wife's conversion story, "Led Home by the Sign of His Cross":  I was raised in a Protestant home. My mom grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, and my dad didn't grow up in church, but was baptized as an adult, the same day I was baptized as a three-month old. We attended a Presbyterian (PCUSA) church, and it was there that I

In A Catholic Response to "The Scandal of NFP" I pointed out where Church Militant TV overstepped in trying to tell lay Catholics who use NFP just how "serious" their reasons need to be, misrepresented what NFP is, and implicitly linked NFP use with contraception, among other things.  I sent that article to CMTV for a response.  What I got was an email reply from the CMTV Executive Producer that did everything EXCEPT address my concerns.  I responded to that with a rebuttal and I have received the go-ahead from CMTV to post this in its entirety.     Because a few links (to sources that he wanted me to study) were not in my final response, nor was this article that I refer to as "anti-Catholic propaganda", I am providing a link HERE to a Catholic Answers Forum thread where these appear in their entirety on Page 2 of that thread.   The purpose of posting this is 2-fold:  1) to help people recognize logical fallacies in arguments, regardless of the topi

On “The Vortex” episode released September 5, 2013, Mr. Michael Voris discusses what he feels is a scandal in the making centered around a Catholic couple’s welcoming, or not, of children per Catholic Doctrine. In all honesty, I believe Mr. Voris is sincere and is focused on what SOME Parishes SEEM to be doing…which is advertising NFP as a form of “Catholic Birth Control”. But, his Vortex episode does not make this distinction…that’s my own appraisal, giving him the benefit of the doubt. If we take his episode at face value, not only does he misrepresent what NFP is, but he crosses over a boundary in trying to discern for every Catholic couple whether they can use NFP or not. Here’s just a quick overview on NFP: NFP is information that can tell a couple whether they are fertile or infertile, whether they can increase or decrease their chances of conception, on any given day (by engaging in an act, or abstaining from it). Sex is an act. Contraception is the acting-against-con

A video was posted to Facebook which plays a clip of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd responding to a Christian Pastor who asked how the Prime Minister could justify his stance on Same-Sex "Marriage" while simultaneously identifying himself as a Christian. "Why", the Pastor wanted to know, "should Christians vote for [him]" when he holds values that are contrary to Christian belief. (The title of the video is "A Pastor Asks A Politician Why He Supports Gay Marriage. It Seems He Wasn't Prepared For His Reply" It can be found on YouTube quite easily.) Prime Minister Rudd responded, first by subjecting Christian Truth to his personal subjective opinions, and then avoided answering the question altogether by throwing out "strawmen" and resorting other fallacious reasoning tactics. While some same-sex "marriage" supporters will think he made some good points (and Christians will think otherwise), I'd like to give

Here are some true/false questions (with answers to follow) from The Missionary's Catechism by Russell L. Ford. Mr. Hammon sent these to me to serve as a fun, thought-provoking exercise on various Christian topics. I'll post the answers in the "comments" section, but try to answer on your own first. :) Feel free to discuss any question more in depth. True or False : 1. God changes, becoming more perfect each day. 2. The Incarnation is when God became man. 3. Mary is the Mother of God because she gave birth do a divine Person. 4. The Annunciation is when Mary was conceived. 5. Jesus is our Redeemer because He shed all His blood for the forgiveness of our sins. 6. Jesus ascended into Heaven to be our Mediator with the Father. 7. God did not give us free will, but predestined our entire lives. 8. The Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church 9. St. Peter founded the Catholic Church 10. The Pope is the successor of Jesus. 11. The Pope is the visible head o