The Primacy of Peter, established by Christ and confirmed by the Holy Spirit

Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam

Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul

Though our title to this article specifies the primacy of St. Peter as the Prince of the Apostles, we shall consider not only the God-given role entrusted to the Head of the Apostolic College, but also the establishment of the hierarchical structure of the Church in general.

We offer this little article as a work of apologetics: An attempt to demonstrate, from the scriptural witness alone, that the Papacy and the College of Bishops is not man-made but is of God. Rather than multiplying citations of the Sacred Text (indeed, there are many hundreds of references to the hierarchical structure of the Church in both the Old and New Testaments), we will consider only a few particularly important passages.

I offer this meager piece in honor of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, on this the 60^th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

If the whole Christ is present under both species of the Eucharist, why do we say "The Body of Christ" and "The Blood of Christ"?

When we recognize as dogma that “Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof” (Council of Trent, session XIII, chapter III), such that the body and blood of Christ are present both in the Host and in the Chalice, we may wonder why it is that the priest calls one species the body of Christ and the other the blood of Christ. Since we receive the whole Christ (body and blood, soul and divinity) when we receive communion, why does the priest not distribute communion with the words, “The body and the blood of Christ”?

As we consider the manner by which Jesus is present, whole and entire, under both Eucharistic species, we will come to appreciate the custom of the Church. Moreover, we shall see that what may seem to be a purely speculative question of theology bears great importance on the Catholic understanding of how the Mass is a sacrifice.

Four reasons why the Bread of Life Discourse cannot be a metaphor

Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, John 6:51-58

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. […] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. […] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Most, though not all, Protestants wiggle and fidget as they come to the Bread of Life Discourse in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John; and they have good reason to be disturbed! Our Savior speaks quite plainly of the Eucharist when he states, For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed (John 6:56).

The common solution for many modern Protestants (following the path set out by Zwingli) is to call upon the words which follow toward the end of the discourse: It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life (John 6:64). Appealing to these words, which reference the spirit as opposed to the flesh, these Protestants will claim that the Bread of Life Discourse is an extended metaphor.

There are four reasons why our Savior’s words in John 6:26-72 cannot be understood as an analogy or a metaphor. Among these, the second is perhaps rather unknown. [all four reasons come from Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma]

The Nativity of St. John the Baptist and the limbo of the children

The Child Jesus prepares his Precursor

The Nativity of St. John the Baptist

It is well known that most feast days commemorate the day that the given saint died. Occasionally, the feast will be on the day of the movement of the saints relics (as in the case of Sts. Thomas Aquinas and St. Benedict, according to the new calendar) or, for a pope, it will occasionally happen that the feast will fall on the day of the saints ascendance to the papacy (as in the case of Bl. John Paul II). However, it is almost entirely unheard of that a saint’s feast should commemorate his day of birth.

The principle reason why the feast day of a saint is (almost) never on his birthday is that a saint is not born holy, but grows to spiritual perfection through his life. There are, however, three important exceptions to this rule: The Nativity of Jesus (i.e. Christmas), the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and today’s feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. These three – Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist – are recognized by the Church’s liturgy as having been born holy and filled with the Spirit of God.

Obviously, the three births are different: For Christ was free of original sin without having needed to be redeemed, Mary was freed from original sin by a unique redemptive grace of preservation, and John the Baptist was forgiven original sin when still in the womb. Still, the grace of being forgiven of original sin and filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in the womb seems to be quite exceptional and extraordinary – how blessed St. John was to receive this gift!

In a previous post, we considered the special graces given to St. John and questioned what this might mean for the supposition of a limbo of the children. In our current article, we will discuss what limbo would be (if it did exist) and point out just how bold a claim it is when theologians speculate that non-baptized infants may go to heaven.

Does the Real Presence remain after a Eucharistic Miracle?

The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

Although there is a popular tradition which connects the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi with the Eucharistic Miracle of Bolsena-Orvieto, there seems to be little historical basis for such an assertion. The Catholic Encyclopedia credits the Feast not to the miracle of Orvieto, but to the visions of St. Juliana of Mont Cornillon, who lived in Belgium through the early part of the 13^th century.

However, though it may be true that there is little historical connection between this Eucharistic Miracle and the promulgation of the Feast of Corpus Christi, the popular devotion of the faithful (especially of those in Italy) and the great festivities celebrated each year in these two Italian towns, calls to mind this Eucharistic Miracle as we celebrate today this holy Solemnity.

As we consider the reality of Eucharistic Miracles, we may be led to a further question: If we believe that the Real Presence remains in the Eucharist so long as the accidental properties remain (i.e. that Christ is present so long as the Eucharistic species remains in the appearance of bread or wine), what are we to make of Eucharistic Miracles in which the species ceases to appear as bread or wine and instead is physically and accidentally changed into flesh and blood? Does Christ remain in the Eucharist after a Eucharistic Miracle? And, if he does remain, are we to conclude that the miraculously visible flesh and blood is physically the very same flesh and blood which was conceived and born of the Blessed Virgin Mary? In other words, is a Eucharistic Miracle something like a relic of Jesus?

In such a complicated question, we do well to turn to the Angelic Doctor for guidance. We recall that St. Thomas Aquinas is “the greatest theologian and impassioned poet of Christ in the Eucharist” – summus theologus simulque Christi eucharistici fervidus cantor (Bl. John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia 62).

The only difference between Christ's body in heaven and Christ's body in the Eucharist

"The Disputation over the Holy Sacrament" by Raphael

“In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant, that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, “Decree concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist”, chapter 1)

This alone is the one difference between Christ’s body in heaven and Christ’s body in the Eucharist is a difference of the mode of existence – not a difference of substance or reality, nor less a difference of identity (for there is only one Christ and he has only one body). The Church teaches that our Savior is present in heaven “according to the natural mode of existing”, while he is present in the Eucharist by another “manner of existing”, that is “under the species of those visible things” of bread and wine. As we consider this teaching from the Council of Trent, we will recognize why it may not be helpful to speak of our Savior as being “physically present” in the Eucharist.

I offer this reflection as the first part of a four part series on the Eucharist, in preparation for the solemn Feast of Corpus Christi.

The Trinity and our spiritual life

Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, John 3:16-18

God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

As the Catholic blogosphere goes wild with the latest scandal, we offer a final article on the Trinity for the Solemnity of this Sunday - we turn now to the role which the Most Holy Trinity must play in our spiritual life. Very often, while we recognize and believe that God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we do not recall how central the mystery of the Trinity is to our life of prayer. It will be good for us to examine our interior life and consider: How often do I meditate on the Trinity? Do I regularly meditate on the revelation of the Trinity which was given me in Christ? Am I utterly convinced of the love of the Most Holy Trinity, a love so great that the Son came to assume my sinful flesh and die so that I might live?

In previous articles from the past week, we have considered the Trinity per se as the central mystery of our Faith. Now, on the Solemnity, we look to the Trinity not merely as our salvation, but as the principle mystery which inspires our interior life. To this end, we must consider the love with which the Trinity sent the Son into the world. As our Savior tells us, For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whoseoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting (John 3:16).