Jack Chick & company should repent

I know people want my opinion about Jack Chick and his company of religious "tracts."

Here is my opinion.

Jack Chick and his employees ought to get tattoos, each of which says "Mark 9:38-41."

And then they all ought to take a life long vow of silence against criticizing ANY faith of the children of Abraham: Jews, Muslims, Christians (especially Catholics.)

I've avoided saying anything about them because unlike them I actually understand the scriptures, so I just ignore them. However, they have done damage, continual damage, eroding people's faith, and this is why they sure could use a daily dose of looking at their tats "Mark 9:38-41."

Here is the scripture, by the way. And Mr. Chick, I won't even "charge you a cookie" for an English language translation of this passage (I don't know if perhaps you have an alien version of the Bible that YOU use, huh?)

Mark 9:38-41

John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him because he wasn't following us."

"Don't stop him," said Jesus, "because there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name who can soon afterwards speak evil of Me. For whoever is not against us is for us. And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of My name, since you belong to the Messiah-I assure you: He will never lose his reward."


Well gosh, if Jesus says anyone who gives a cup of water in His Name will NEVER lose his reward, I guess it's sure all right with Jesus to give a "magic cookie" (reverent people refer to it as the Communion wafer, unlike Chick & company) or consecrated wine in his name too.

Are not enough people misguided and suffering in this world? Jack Chick and company, please shut up with your total FAIL trash talk of Catholics, Muslims and whoever else you take a dump on because of your lack of faith and understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Message over!

Thoughts about the altar in churches - part 1/2

I want to write a reflection about what an altar in a church means to me. I'm determined, however, not to stay up late tonight blogging! So I will write this in two parts, saving my reflection and some scripture references for the second part, and for context and background, copy here four paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church about altars.

1181 A church, "a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful-this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial." In this "house of God" the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.

1182 The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen).

1383 The altar, around which the Church is gathered in the celebration of the Eucharist, represents the two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the Lord. This is all the more so since the Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself, present in the midst of the assembly of his faithful, both as the victim offered for our reconciliation and as food from heaven who is giving himself to us. "For what is the altar of Christ if not the image of the Body of Christ?" asks St. Ambrose. He says elsewhere, "The altar represents the body [of Christ] and the Body of Christ is on the altar." The liturgy expresses this unity of sacrifice and communion in many prayers. Thus the Roman Church prays in its anaphora:

We entreat you, almighty God,
that by the hands of your holy Angel
this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven
in the sight of your divine majesty,
so that as we receive in communion at this altar
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son,
we may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace.

2570 When God calls him, Abraham goes forth "as the Lord told him"; Abraham's heart is entirely submissive to the Word and so he obeys. Such attentiveness of the heart, whose decisions are made according to God's will, is essential to prayer, while the words used count only in relation to it. Abraham's prayer is expressed first by deeds: a man of silence, he constructs an altar to the Lord at each stage of his journey. Only later does Abraham's first prayer in words appear: a veiled complaint reminding God of his promises which seem unfulfilled. Thus one aspect of the drama of prayer appears from the beginning: the test of faith in the fidelity of God.

***

Just to reassure you of the scriptural basis, here are the references for the statement that Abraham built altars.

Genesis 12:7-9
The Lord appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So Abram build an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him. From there he moved on to the hill country east of Bethel, pitching his tent with Bethel to the west and Ai to the east. He build an altar there to the Lord and invoked the Lord by name. Then Abram journeyed on by stages to the Negeb.

Genesis 13:18
Abram moved his tents and went on to settle near the terebinth of Mamre, which is at Hebron. There he built an altar to the Lord.

Here is an interesting aside. Abraham made a peace pact with Abimelech, king of Gerar (these were Philistines). You can read the reasons why they came to respect Abraham's God and to make peace in Genesis 20-21. The place where they made their peace pact was Beer-sheba. Read what Abraham did to mark that place.

Genesis 21:33-4
Abraham planted a tamarisk at Beer-sheba, and there he invoked by name the Lord, God the Eternal. Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines for many years.

A tamarisk is a tree.

This is an example where careful readers can discern information about what is appropriate in the worship of God, and what is not, not only by what is stated, but also observing the role modeling of the Patriarchs and the Prophets. Abraham demonstrated faith to God by building altars and invoking God's name as Abraham traveled and relocated. Abraham also showed that one can commemorate a profound occasion (such as the pact with the Philistines) through a mundane object (such as planting a tree) and the invocation of God's name to bless the event. This is much as we do today, when we build a building, plant a garden, erect a plaque or some other commemorative device, and then bless it with the name of God.

Another comment and then I will wait until writing part two for my commentary about altars. Just to further mutual Christian and Muslim understanding, this is for Christians. The Muslims understand that Abraham created altars and other commemorative locations throughout the region, and one of the early endeavors by the Muslim people was to determine which of those locations still existed in their place and could be identified as such. This is the origin of some of the locations that Muslims consider very holy.

Archbishop Niederauer statement very good

I am very pleased with the statement by the Most Reverend George H. Niederauer regarding the scandalous misstatements by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Read it in its entirety at this link.

http://www.catholic-sf.org/FPArticle14b.htm

***
I think the statement is excellent in both its pastoral and its doctrinal balance. Archbishop Niederauer takes the time to allow the reader into both the doctrinal and the pastoral thought process and this is very valuable to both the faithful and to observers of the Catholic faith. He has done a great service in the construction of this document.

Some within the Catholic community have expressed disappointment at his statement stopping short of a bottom line ultimatum regarding the continued receiving of the Holy Eucharist sacrament by Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, that is not appropriate until after their face to face conversation. But I would also point out something that I am sure Archbishop Niederauer is referring to but not yet closing the door until they have had clarity of dialogue. That is that, as you read in the letter, the Church understands that some of the faithful may grapple silently in their hearts with one or more of the Church's teachings, yet still receive the sacraments in good heart. The difference is when people try to publicly, or privately (though we have no way of knowing those instances) attempt to lead faithful individuals or the community as a whole away from Church doctrine and undermine their faith. In a word, that is "leading someone into sin," something that Jesus Christ warned against in no uncertain terms.

When Speaker Pelosi made her scandalous representations of herself being an expert in Church doctrine AND then stating her "interpretations" which were in direct opposition to some of the most fundamental of Church doctrine regarding the sanctity of life, in my opinion she was publicly attempting to lead the faithful into sin. She was not a person, an individual, grappling in her heart with an issue, even one as basic as the sin of abortion, who nonetheless keeps her doubts to herself or her family and her pastor, and who can continue to receive the sacrament in good faith and heart. I know there are certain Catholics I could mention who grapple with understanding why lying and thievery are so wrong. (*lame laugh*) But it is when a Catholic takes to the public secular "pulpit" and promotes defiance of Church teaching that they need to be barred from the Holy Eucharist.

If after their conversation Speaker Pelosi acknowledges that she does not speak for the Church, that she did not fully understand the sanctity of life doctrine and its infallibility in that it is consistent from the very Apostolic beginnings of the Church, and she furthermore retains her internal conflict and support of abortion into an individual matter of her own soul, then I expect that Archbishop Niederauer is leaving room for allowing her to continue to receive in good faith. I believe this is why, correctly, he describes the internal dilemma that some faithful may have about an issue, but still receive the sacrament in good faith. It is the attempt to be a "Piper" to lead the faithful into having doubt about their doctrine by a self proclaimed "expert" that is so scandalous and places her in jeopardy of being sinfully unworthy of the Holy Eucharist in sacrament. I wish them well in their dialogue and commend the Archbishop for his very balanced but firm, appropriate and comprehensive letter that leads up to the anticipated pastoral conversation and outcome.

Commentary on the 9th of Av

This weekend is a fast day of Judaism, commemorating with mourning the destruction of the First and Second Temples, which took place on this same day, though hundreds of years apart. You can read a good explanation here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisha_B%27Av

Notice that there is a definite tone that many Jews kind of wonder what this has to do with them anymore. I've noticed in the years that I've been alive that even in my time there has been a rapid diminishment, even among the wise, of what the relevance of the destruction of the Temples means to the modern Jew. This diluting of understanding is part of the overall problem that all faiths have with flourishing within a society that has increased its separation from God. People no longer understand what they had and what they lost on even its most fundamental basis. So here is a reminder.

The Temples were the place where one "gave back to God" in the form of sacrifice. It used to be that people's entire lives were permeated with the understanding that one went into the Temple to thank God for what they received, and to "give back to God" a portion of what they had, rich or poor. They did it in the form of sacrifice (of animal, grain or oil) and monetary donations to the Temple. Jesus points out to the Apostles "the widow's mite," how even the poor widow gave what she had to God. Prayers were also conducted in the Temple but again, against the constant backdrop of sacrifice to God (for example, the priests who conducted daily incensing with the burning of incense being viewed as sacrifice to God, as indeed it was as precious materials were burned in order to create incense pleasing to God).

So Jews wonder today why they should mourn the destruction of the Temples. They should do so because it is recalling that for two thousand years now there is not the permeation among the pious of the "giving back to God" God's portion of what he has given to them. In many ways this is how Jews and Protestants (and other Christian non denominationals) are very different from Catholics and Muslims. Catholics and Muslims retain sacrifice to God, the Muslims doing so in the Haj and Catholics doing so in the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist in the daily Mass). Jews and non-Catholic Christians have, in my eyes, a much more "Bible study" and Torah study focus in their relationship with God. They view "giving back to God" as being fulfilled in liberal social agendas. And while that is charitable and truthful reflection of God's love, that is not the same as sacrifice to God. I've explained before that Jesus did not eliminate the need for sacrifice to God; he offered himself once for all, but also as the form of bread and wine, a bloodless sacrifice that one does not need the money changers in the Temple. Sacrifice in the Catholic Mass is reverence to God, giving him "his due" and it is free.

So if I were to counsel Jews, especially those who are more liberal and secularized, why this day should invoke a pathos and a mourning, even in these modern times, it would be to explain that when the Temples were destroyed, Jews lost their places where they could "give back to God a portion of all that he has given to them." That is different from the golden rule and liberal social good works. This is taking a part of what you have and giving it to God in the way he has instructed he wishes to receive it, no more and certainly no less than that. Catholics understood that Jesus transformed sacrifice to God from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, but he did not declare the elimination of sacrifice. This is what we celebrate in the Mass. Likewise, Muslims have a full understanding that the Haj sacrifice to God is separate from the good deeds of the giving of alms to the poor and the needy.

Now, I am not making a commentary that orthodox Judaism is flawed; far from it. I am explaining that orthodox Jews do have a fuller understanding of what was taken from them when the Temples were destroyed, and thus it is correct to be serious, sober and mournful in commemorating this fast day, if you are Jewish. In a way the recognizing that Jews lost the means by which they "gave back to God" is a sacrifice, a prayerful and respectful sacrifice, when one contemplates this. When the Temples were destroyed, a means that the pious had to please God was taken away from the people. God understands, of course, but it is helpful to remember that this is a sad loss for the people, more than obviously God, who does not in the strictest sense "need" anything from humans. However, people are healthier if they retain a continuing activity of sacrifice to God because it brings them closer to God in understanding his ongoing gifts to you.

Imagine if when the Temples were destroyed if God went, "Hmm, well, they can no longer sacrifice meat and grain to me so why bother letting them have meat or successful grain harvest at all? I mean, if they no longer sacrifice to me, why should I give them anything?" Of course that does not happen because God understands the travails of his people, and all that has happened. God continues to shower prosperity and goodness on humanity, even when they do not sacrifice to him in return what is due to him. That is all the more reason to love and honor God and yes, to fear him, because fear means that you understand what it would be like to lose your precious relationship with him.

So these are the kinds of things I would recommend that you prayerfully contemplate on the 9th of Av.

What I was like receiving the sacraments

Trying to be nice here and share some pleasant memories, and also think of questions and distortions that many might have about my point of view and experiences.

It is not at all difficult to be the "someone" (I've explained that before but basically when I say the "someone" I mean how I was born with total knowledge and context as witness to the reality of the one God, the content of the events in the Bible, and also the Qur'an) and still be a child and young adult.

For example, when I first had to start going to Confession (the sacrament of Penance & Reconciliation), unlike other children, I had nothing to confess. But I also am a born diplomat and was not ready to get into it with the nuns over a period of years how unlike other children, I didn't even have the little boo boo sins to confess. So I confessed things like lying, when what I meant was I'd say to someone "It's hot today," while one could argue that it was warm and not hot. So I'd think of a few instances where opinion could be held in speech but where I was not lying, but I could honestly "give that to the priest to work with" (they didn't ask too many questions about context or I'd have had a dilemma). So I managed to find things to "confess" that sounded "typical kid," but so I'd not be lying in the confessional either. So that's what Confession was like for me. I liked praying the prayers given as penance, but I could also appreciate wanting to get a priest who was one who gave out "light and easy" penances! :-)

My First Holy Communion was great. My father was still alive and he wore a wonderful suit and I had the whole communion dress, veil, gloves, white missal and purse, and I loved them. There are photos of me and my dad taken by my brother, and they are treasured because like I said, my dad did not live throughout my childhood and my Communion was one of our last big family events before he died. So I could enjoy all the aspects of Holy Communion because not only of my faith but my assurity of knowledge. Yet, I could still have the angst of a child, especially because I can witness to the sanctity of the sacrament itself. For example, in those days you could not touch the host with your hand, so the nuns spent plenty of time warning us that it would stick to the tops of our mouths and not to panic! But we could not touch inside our mouths to loosen the host. So the nuns got all of us pretty anxious! And sure enough, the first time I received, it stuck to the top of my mouth, and also my friend who was next to me. We panicked and got all weepy! The nun in front of us in the pew told us, just keep rubbing with our tongue and not to panic and that it would dissolve, and it did. So this is another example of how I could be "the someone" and also have a very human reaction in not wanting to mess up the rules! Gosh when I think how irreverential so many are today, I wonder how far adrift and negative everyone has become. It is sad. But anyway, it was a fine day even though I got teased for the crying. It was a very sunny and beautiful spring day in upstate New York, back when we had long and snowy winters.

One thing that made me and two other children very sad was that we could not receive our first Holy Communion, and also our Confirmation, which I am about to reminisce about, with the rest of the Catholics in our school class and age group. Three of us had to be "a year behind" because of arbitrary decision that December 1 birthdays were the cutoff point. So those of us with birthdays right before December were made to wait a year with the "little kids." We all found that to be terribly mortifying that we were held back from our class just because we had October and November birthdays. So I was not with my classmates when I had religious instruction for my first Holy Communion or Confirmation. In a small town and with kids you grew up with and attended class together with year after year, that was really shattering and the first real pain that I received that was unjust and unfair. I still remember sitting in religious instruction classes with kids I didn't know at all because they were a year behind me, and me and the two others just suffered through it.

By the way, in fairness, it was not the Church that caused the problem, it was the school system that let kids into kindergarten and then assigned subsequent grades based on the December 1 date. So I was in a grade where my best friend was just about a year older than me. The Church does its sacraments by age of eligibility. So one must be seven years old to receive one's first Holy Communion and go to Confession. That is because seven is the age where children are deemed in the church to be old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. Thus children become "responsible for any sins that they commit" at the age of seven. That is why the Church assembles classes according to age, and not by school grade. And that makes perfect sense in doctrine even though it hurt to go through. So I have little tolerance for people today who rail against doctrine because of "hurt feelings" and it not being "fair." It IS fair and it IS correct; that is why it is Church doctrine. So suck it up and be obedient to the Church doctrine, as I was as a child, even when it hurt me a LOT.

In classes for Confirmation you get to choose your "saint name," called your "confirmation name." It becomes one of your middle names. Well, for boys that was great. But back in the early 1960's in a poor town girls had no access to books and so forth giving them choices of names. You basically got to choose between Mary and Catherine. I'm not exaggerating. Even Anne was not discussed as a possibility. So the girls basically chose one or the other and I went with Catherine. Cultists like to get all in a tizzy about that, looking for "a reason" that I "chose Catherine" (you know, past lives and all that). Well, bumble f's, in my class I still remember sitting in my usual seat (far right row about five seats back) and hearing, "Which will it be? Mary or Catherine?" LOL! There was no leafing through the missal being "inspired" by one saint or the other, or by other women. If a girl had said, "How about Anastasia" the nun would have undoubtedly beat her senseless! It is NOT how things were done back then. So there was absolutely no significance to my choosing Catherine.

I didn't mind, though, because I was honoring a saint by that name that I knew of very well. That was Catherine Laboure, to whom the Virgin Mary appeared and gave to her the Miraculous Medal. The Miraculous Medal had been revealed given to St. Catherine in 1830, and so by the 1960's I had already seen many miracles that resulted from this virtue. The Miraculous Medal was carried by many soldiers (including my dad) in World War II, and it also helped many conversions of dire sinners. So she was the Catherine that I had in mind.

Years later, of course, in a cynical and strange world, people got obsessed with Catherine of the wheel (since the method of torture is more interesting to humans nowadays than the context of the faith). And so some people I know "wanted me to have chosen Catherine of the wheel" so they could glom onto her torture and work that into my story, in their delusion. Others love Catherine of Sienna because she was a "mystic" and had these long rapturous "conversations" with Jesus, and so that camp "wanted me to have chosen Catherine of Sienna" so that they could, well, you get my drift. It shows how little anyone knows me. The saint I chose was the one that was a virgin who lived a quiet and holy life, only a century before, living to the age of 70 or so, but with one distinction. That is, the Virgin Mary appeared to her and gave her one of the greatest gifts for modern believers, one that had demonstrated its virtue for nearly a hundred years by the time I had to "choose" my Confirmation name. And that's as simple as that. She was a great lady by the way. I wish people would follow her example more than look for gory deaths or rapturous visions. She had to go against some strong personalities to get people in the Church to believe her, and then to get the medal worked and given to the world. She was beatified by Pope Pius XII in 1947 by the way, just about twenty years before my Confirmation. So she was very much of my real world and my priorities are always the here and now.

In Confirmation a Catholic is viewed as being an adult (age 13). It is one's Catholic bar mitzvah or bar mitzpah in a way. Again, it is another example of how the Catholic Church is the true church running straight and true from its roots in the Old Covenant to modern times. A Catholic child of 13 is viewed as being "an adult in the faith" and also a "soldier of Christ." That means there is knowledge that one can speak one's own mind about the faith, is responsible for one's own sin and also must be prepared to suffer or die for the faith. The highlight of it is the ceremony presided over by the Bishop, where each new "soldier of Christ" steps before the Bishop to get the symbolic slap on the face. Wow, were we excited about that! The slap symbolizes that each child is now a defender of the faith, and thus might face persecution and suffering. Of course the Bishop doesn't haul off and clout each kid, ha! But being kids, it gave us something to worry about. No one wanted to look like a wimp. Boys worried about that and girls worried about it hurting. So I worried about it hurting. So we lined up and approached him and just as the nuns promised, it was barely more than an open handed touch to the cheek, no slap at all really! But it was great performance anxiety for all of us young soldiers of Christ!

I hope you enjoyed my musings and reminiscing.

Very fine article re St Louis diocese adoration

This is one of the nicest articles I've seen about the 24 hour a day 7 day a week adoration of the physical presence of Jesus Christ, in the Holy Eucharist, known as perpetual adoration. If you read this even non Christians will understand much more about this devotion, just by reading about the people who do it, rather than the theology. You'll all find this very enlightening. And to those everywhere in the world who contribute, it makes a great difference, it really does.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/3701575B8FDD3BCB86257491000DE215?OpenDocument

snip

ST. PAUL — Stepping into the chapel with Bible in hand, Debbie Mueller touches her fingertips to a tiny basin of Holy Water and gets ready to pray. It's nearly 3 a.m.

She signs her name into a log book, and turns to say hello to Don Ziegemeier, who is kneeling in one of the pews nearby. He's been there since 2 a.m.

In front of them on a white altar, two candles glow inside red glass holders on each side of a cross. In the center is the monstrance, a special vessel containing the consecrated host that Catholics believe is the body of Christ.

This is the perpetual adoration chapel at St. Paul Catholic Church, where Mueller, Ziegemeier and other volunteers pray 24 hours a day, seven days a week, nearly 365 days a year. (The chapel is dark for 50 hours leading up to Easter.)

More about the Holy Eucharist controversy

While the talk about whether a politician who has public stance against Church teaching should or should not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist is settling down in the "drive by media," I know it is still on many people's minds. While I'm not speaking for any individual bishop or priest, I want to give those of you who are quietly pondering this subject another angle to think about it in a grace filled and charitable way.

=h=h=h=h=h

As you know, the grace of the Holy Spirit, God, and the Savior Jesus Christ can find some good and holiness in even the most dire situation. In Jesus Christ all things are made anew, and as Jesus himself said, when asked who can be saved, "For God all things are possible."

=h=h=h=h=h

I believe that the Holy Father, the Cardinals, the bishops and the priests tend toward a laxity in allowing public officials with the stances mentioned above to receive, if they are doing so reverently, even when they are unworthy, because they know the power of the Real Presence to change hearts. I firmly believe (and know for a fact) that some who have received unworthily in the past have experienced conversion in the stances that they previously held. This is what I have been watching and waiting for, for many years now, and while I preach charity and hold my tongue on this subject.

=h=h=h=h=h

Further, priests and bishops may be aware of a private conversion of heart that is still ongoing and in the process with certain individuals, and of course they appropriately hold their tongues too.

=h=h=h=h=h

Dear friends, the power of the Real Presence, and the Holy Spirit, cannot be underestimated. If one is going to err in one direction or the other, do consider that leaving room for the Spirit to work in an individual's heart is the wiser alternative. Even people who receive with kind of a mechanistic attitude toward it (and even the devout fall into that, being only human) are still open to its grace full transformative effect, slowly and subtly over time.

=h=h=h=h=h

Sometimes when momentous change is hoped for and prayed for, silence is the most appropriate rather than strident and self righteous advocacy. Those who speak should be those who have fullness of understanding of their own diocese or parish, such as Archbishop Burke. He is correct in stating his clarity of policy regarding how he ministers to his flock. This is part of proper formation of those who listen to him, for he is teaching the truth of the matter. But that does not mean that a different bishop is necessarily being weak or lax. It is a mistake to jump to that conclusion.

=h=h=h=h=h

I am not inclined to be harsh toward those who, on the face of it, received unworthily during the Holy Father's visit. I continue to pray that the many people, both public and private, who receive unworthily are experiencing the grace of full conversion and reversion through the power of the Real Presence.

=h=h=h=h=h

I hope that you find this a helpful and enlightening perspective. I continue to advocate to the Holy Spirit for the fullness of harmony and conversion of heart of all the faithful.

About receiving Holy Eucharist controversy

Known "pro abortion" Catholics have been observed receiving holy communion at Mass. This has understandably caused publicity and discussion. Discussion that is directed toward better understanding is good and fruitful. Discussion that is "holier than thou art" and hypocritical is not helpful. Here is what I mean.

When I was a young child in the 1950's and early 1960's, I attended weekly Sunday Mass in my small town. Any given Sunday a good third or half of the Mass attendees did not approach the altar for communion! And this was not because they were politicians or great sinners. Until recently this was how a good Catholic discerned the day to day status of their spiritual life.

Catholics are supposed to go on a regular basis to Confession. They timed it so that they would go usually every few months. In the time just before their next Confession, good Catholics tended NOT to approach for communion, usually because they had something on their mind that they wished to bring up in Confession. No one thought anything about those who received on a given day and those who did not. The most pious of parishioners were as likely to have days of not receiving as anyone else.

Fast forward to these times. I have been astonished to see virtually the entire congregation of Masses march up to the altar to receive. And THIS is a generation that does not go to Confession as frequently as my peers did when I was young! You have less confession, graver sins and almost 100% receiving of the Holy Eucharist! Oh my God, I'd laugh if it was not so serious.

So those of you who drag the spiritual status of public figures into the spotlight may be better off pausing and contemplating this difference in the times I have discussed. Leave this topic to the bishops who must decide how best to serve individuals in their diocese and jurisdictions.

Catholic Mass as a time machine

Many sci-fi and fantasy fans enjoy stories about "time travelers" and some scientists try to research the principles behind such theoretical feats. What many people do not realize is that the Catholic Mass is an example of true "time travel."

Many Christians wish they could have "been there with Jesus," to know him and to talk to him when he lived and walked the earth. Jesus, as one of his last gifts, GAVE people the ability to do just that, generation after generation. Jesus gave the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (also called Communion), celebrated during the Catholic Mass, so that people throughout the generations can literally and physically be present with him during his Last Supper, and join with him in giving sacrifice to God. When a person attends a Catholic Mass, he is literally taken back in time to be with Jesus during the Last Supper. Jesus explains this very clearly when he instructed the Apostles to "do this in memory of me."

What a strange choice of words for someone who had not "gone" anywhere! He is right there with them, yet tells them to perform the breaking of bread and sharing of wine "in memory" of him. Jesus is explaining that the Apostles are to continue to have a gathering of the Last Supper, and that he, Jesus, will be physically there with them, just as he is at that moment. This is what is meant by the Real Presence. Jesus is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.

I think people need to be reminded what a treasure and marvel that this is. When they ask, "Do we HAVE to go to Mass every week? *sigh*" my reply would be to explain, "Yes, for two reasons. One is that Jesus affirmed the validity of the Ten Commandments and one is that you shall keep the Lord's day holy. People used to keep the entire day holy. Now with shopping, TV, chores, work on Sunday and other activities, you should be glad to God that Mass fulfills the 'keeping the Sabbath holy' without taking the entire day. And second, do you not want to do what so many say they wish to do, which is to be with Jesus, know Jesus, and be physically in his presence and for him to literally be present in turn? Then why do not people run to Mass? It should be one of people's greatest desires, not a 'burden.'"

I hope this helps shed some light on the literal presence of Jesus Christ in the midst of everyone who takes the time to attend to him.

Two quick points about the Eucharist

The transmutation does not take place if the priest is not in full orthodoxy of sanctity in the Catholic Church. So "women priests" and other outsiders can do it all they want; they might as well be eating and serving a Ritz cracker with cracker barrel cheese.

Those who are not suitable to receive and who do so anyway are basically putting themselves at risk. It is like if the ancient Israelites sneaked into the temple and ate the offerings to God. I'd not recommend that. So people like Archbishop Burke are trying to protect politicians and others who are too stupid to realize what they are doing when they insist on the Holy Eucharist even if they are unjustified, due to leading a segment of the Catholic population away from their faith by flouting disagreement with God's law.

Fr. Groeschel on Eucharistic Devotion

Excerpt from "In the Presence of Our Lord: The History, Theology and Psychology of Eucharistic Devotion" by Father Benedict J. Groeschel, CFR and James Monti (1997) Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division:

Eucharistic devotions of all kinds are coming back. A legitimate question is why. One may give many reasons, from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (if you are pleased by this comeback) to the decline of society (if you are not pleased). There is, I think, a historical reason that needs to be considered-especially by those interested in the pastoral life of the Church. We live in very lonely times. Modern people have more solitude in their lives than people did in the past. With the virtual end of the extended family, with the modern preference for privacy, with the solitude in the midst of a crowd that one sees as an obvious necessity in the multitudes of large cities-people spend much less time interacting in a personal way with one another. The impersonal one-way communication of the media now substitutes for the shared recreation and cultural activities of the past. One might compare the lively paintings of farm life in Pieter Bruegel or the friendly taverns of the Dutch masters to the lonely but commonplace urban scenes of Edward Hopper to get some sense of the loneliness of our times. There are still great public events where people experience each other with shared feelings, and they range from papal visits to rock concerts-but all in all we live in lonely times, and it appears that the coming age of virtual reality is even more likely to be an age of the solitary.

It should be no surprise then that the mysterious and personal presence of Christ should have a profound human appeal. Nor need there be any fear that this devotion could lead to any kind of spiritual isolation, so long as we carefully keep the Eucharistic Presence linked with the Paschal Mystery, which encompasses all men and women, and with Holy Communion, which draws together all the faithful disciples of Christ (page 173).

Help in understanding the Holy Eucharist sacrament

Here's an analogy that children and parents can understand about Jesus, as God's son, as a sacrifice to God on behalf of humankind, to save them from sin and create the New Covenant.

Little children receive all of their money from their parents in the form of allowance, or gifts from relatives. When it is Mom or Dad's birthday, or Christmas time, little children want to be generous and buy gifts for their parents, but are totally dependent on them for money. Lovingly telling your child that they don't have to spend money on you, that just a crayon drawing is gift enough, sometimes is not enough, because children by nature are generous and this is where generosity is nurtured. So as a godparent, I know that usually a parent arranges to give the child money and helps the child to shop for his or her own gift. Usually the Dad will take the child shopping for a gift for Mommy, and vice versa. So the loving parent provides the loving child with the very financial means for a gift for the parent.

In the Biblical times the children of God showed their love of the Lord by sacrificing (giving up) something of their own that is of great value to them, to give to God. Usually this was a perfect animal from the flock - often the purest and most valuable animal - but the poor could offer a pair of birds, or cereal with oil. Even for the poor this was great sacrifice, taking food out of the mouths of someone for some period of time, or at the least, eating into the surplus they had saved for times of crisis.

In the time of Jesus, God wanted to fulfill the actual sacrifice of valuable livestock or food from the families' stock to give to him in sacrifice, and complete this phase of human's gift giving to God. So Jesus Christ, the son of God through Mary and the Holy Spirit, allowed himself to be the last "bloody" sacrifice; the final loss of valuable life as sacrifice to God. He then drew upon the tradition that the poor could offer cereal and oil and instituted the Holy Eucharist. Thus God, the parent, is providing the very means by which his children can gift him and sacrifice to him. The bread is provided, the wine is provided, and the priest is provided. All that is needed is for this sacrament to be done reverentially and liturgically correct, in the memory of Jesus. And like all true gift giving, like the generous child at the parent's birthday or Christmas time, the giver of the gift, the parishioners who with the priest give the sacrifice of the Mass to God, in return flows an abundance of renewing grace. This is why it is still a "sacrifice" but it is also the "celebration" of the Mass.

I hope this analogy helps with understanding, and is also useful in discussing the faith with little children in your family.

Also, to my Muslim friends who might be reading as part of better understanding some of the mysteries of Christian faith, this sacrament does not refer to the generosity of alms giving (which rightly receives such mention in the Qur'an). Christians call that "charity" these days. This refers to sacrifice, or the giving of offerings, to God.