There's lots of examples of such lies on display on the False Witness Union at present, and I just got the same list passed on to me in a private message, so I think it's about time that I address -- again -- some of the things said. It pains me that some Christians would feel it necessary to resort to telling lies about their brothers and sisters in Christ, but fortunately their lies wither under some cursory examination.

Here are some examples of [unbiblical Catholic] thinking. Perhaps, rather than criticize others for using Scripture, he should worry about the unbiblical and even wicked past history of the popes.

"Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) :
"The pope cannot make a mistake."

Okay, where to start? First, after half an hour on Google, I can't find any official source for this statement (the only known quotation from a "Catholic" source is from The Benedictine Network*). Indeed, the majority of sites I can find that quote this statement are anti-Catholic sites. Now, I don't necessarily doubt that the quote is legitimate, but I might point out that in the finest tradition of Uncle Screwtape, the problem is not that the quote itself is a lie. The problem is that the quote hides a lie behind a truth by betraying a probable context.

Popes rarely say anything with brevity, especially when making official statements. This would certainly have been true of Pope Gregory VII, given that he presided over a rather hectic time in the Church's history -- when dealing with heretics and anti-Popes, one should speak clearly and with detail. Which means that the quote above almost certainly has been excerpted from a larger document, and has probably been taken out of context.

What do I mean by that?

Consider this article for a moment. In the middle of it, this passage appears: "This does not mean that the Pope cannot make a mistake or commit a sin or that he can teach on any subject which strikes his fancy or that he is inspired by God. It does mean that under certain conditions the Pope is preserved from error..." It would be easy enough to pick out "the Pope cannot make a mistake" from that statement and cite it as "proof" of something, but of course to do so would betray context horribly, and would in fact completely reverse the meaning of the statement. And therein is the lie behind the truth.

Is that what has happened here? Hard to say -- where is the source text from which this quote was excerpted?

It should also be noted that Gregory VII was something of an early reformer in the Church. He decreed, among other things, that clerics who had obtained any grade or office of sacred orders by payment should cease to minister in the Church, that no one who had purchased any church should retain it, and that no one for the future should be permitted to buy or sell ecclesiastical rights, that all who were guilty of incontinence should cease to exercise their sacred ministry, and that the people should reject the ministrations of clerics who failed to obey these injunctions.

Let's move on to another statement from the False Witness Union.

Pope Paschal II: (1099-1118 )
"Whoever does not agree with the Apostolic See is without doubt a heretic."

The problem that most non-Catholics have with this statement (it is true) is that they don't understand what heresy is. Only a baptized Catholic can be a Catholic heretic, because a heretic is one who rejects a core teaching of his or her religious denomination. To flip it around, I -- being Catholic -- am not a heretic to Islam, because I have never been a Muslim. Obviously, I disagree with many core teachings of Islam, but since I was never a Muslim, my disagreements are not heresies in their own right.

Now, it might also do well to point out that Paschal II also presided over some rather troublesome times in the Church's history; when dealing with severe problems in times when tensions are running high enough to lead to bloodshed, one needs to take a hard line...the same way a parent with squabbling children needs to be somewhat more of an absolutist than a parent with children who are playing together agreeably.

The point is, it's not actually unbiblical to say that someone who disagrees with a doctrine is a heretic. It's simply a proper understanding and use of the term. And to speak in such a truthful manner is, I think, rather biblical...wouldn't the Reader agree?

Pope Innocent IV (1243-54):
described himself as "the bodily presence of Christ."( presumably by a kind of transubstantiation at his election)

Again, I can't find a source for this statement apart from the Benedictine Network (not a trustworthy source, see *) and several anti-Catholic sites. It is possible that there is some confusion here between the Catholic notion of alter Christus and what Innocent IV said, but absent the official source document for this statement, there is little to go on.

It is telling, though, that only those who already dispute the authority of the Pope are the only source for this statement, and in much the same way as the first quoted statement, one suspects that the real truth of the statement hides a sinister lie.

Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
"Every human being must do as the pope tells him."

Now here is the first example of a statement which has more evidence for it. The source of this statement is a papal bull, Unam Sanctam, which was a statement on papal supremacy.

"The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority. The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ's sheep. "

Now, how unbiblical does that sound? There is some expansion available on the above statement; let's take a look at it:

"- Under the control of the Church are two swords, that is two powers, the expression referring to the medieval theory of the two swords, the spiritual and the secular. This is substantiated by the customary reference to the swords of the Apostles at the arrest of Christ (Luke 22:38; Matthew 26:52).

- Both swords are in the power of the Church; the spiritual is wielded in the Church by the hand of the clergy; the secular is to be employed for the Church by the hand of the civil authority, but under the direction of the spiritual power.

- The one sword must be subordinate to the other: the earthly power must submit to the spiritual authority, as this has precedence of the secular on account of its greatness and sublimity; for the spiritual power has the right to establish and guide the secular power, and also to judge it when it does not act rightly. When, however, the earthly power goes astray, it is judged by the spiritual power; a lower spiritual power is judged by a higher, the highest spiritual power is judged by God.

- This authority, although granted to man, and exercised by man, is not a human authority, but rather a Divine one, granted to Peter by Divine commission and confirmed in him and his successors. Consequently, whoever opposes this power ordained of God opposes the law of God and seems, like a Manichaean, to accept two principles."

The declaration, then, that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman pontiff stems from the belief that the authority given to Peter was of divine origin, and that this divine authority is conferred on each successor to Peter as the head of the Church. To stand in opposition to this is to stand in opposition of the divine mandate imposed by Christ, and in a sense is to put worldly concerns over the concerns of faith**.

Is this unbiblical teaching? Peter was the rock on which Christ founded the Church, the Church that the gates of hell cannot prevail against. Christ commissioned Peter to feed His lambs, tend His flock, and feed His sheep. Catholicism follows in apostolic succession (see: the Nicene Creed) from Peter, and the Catholic pontiff is charged with no less a responsibility than was Peter. How can this be disputed, without disputing the very commission Christ gave to Peter, and thus disputing the Bible itself***?

What else has been said in the False Witness Union?

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903): "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE, ( Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894 p.304 )

Here again we see that Uncle Screwtape is at work, for this is indeed a most grevious example of ripping a quote clean out of its context and turning a truth into a vehicle for a lie. It is for saying things like this that I rightly label the CWU as the False Witness Union.

Here is the complete text of PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE (The Reunion of Christendom), one of many encyclical letters published by Pope Leo XIII. And here is the proper context of the quoted text above:

"A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fullness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and Reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.

This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief.

But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith."

The statement "we hold upon this Earth the place of God Almighty" is a confession of the Church's mission to spread the Gospel and Truth of Christ, its mandate of evangelism, and its desire that all might come to know Christ and be saved through Him. It is not a statement declaring that the Church usurps the authority of Christ, but rather an acknowledgement that, as humanity was made stewards of Creation, so too has the Church been made the steward of Christ's Truth in the world. Her mission is to see that all might be saved and know whatsoever is True, and her desire is unity with all her fellow Christians in Christ Jesus, to be an unblemished bride and a seamless cloak for the Lord.

This is what the False Witness Union calls "unbiblical", then. What else do they similarly call unbiblical about Catholicism?

Pope Pius XI stated on April 30, 1922

"You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth."

This statement is highly dubious; the only recorded source for it that I can find online is the website of "a former Catholic priest" who is now an ardent anti-Papist. Such entities are a dime a dozen on the Internet, and I note that this one does not cite any sources for his wild claims about what various Popes have taught.

To be fair, the first three parts of the statement are all true -- it is only the conclusion which is false. Of course, to this, we must ask whether this statement was uttered infallibly or not, and if not then it is of no particular concern: the Pope is not immune from error in his normal speaking, nor even in his encyclicals (which are not statements of doctrine).

And that a human can be in error is not unbiblical -- indeed, it is a part of the reason the Bible exists!

What else have the False Witnesses to say?

"God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution…

The sentence of the priest precedes, and God ascribes to it."

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Christ gave His authority to the disciples, who have passed that authority on to their successors through the tradition of apostolic succession. The above teachings are actually very Biblical, especially in light of a certain teaching in John 20:

[21] Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Here, Christ is explicitly commissioning his apostles (and, by extension, those who follow in the authority of the apostles) to forgive sin, to lead His Church on Earth. If the apostles retain any sin of any person, Christ obligated Himself to consider that sin retained, because it is by His power that the sin is retained. Likewise, if the apostles forgive the sin of any person, Christ obligated Himself to consider that sin forgiven, because it is by His power that it is forgiven.

It is odd that supposedly biblical Christians failed to notice that the parallelism of the first sentence above, especially, follows directly the parallelism of Christ's own speaking. The concept itself is biblical, and in this case the speaker made it really easy to pinpoint the exact Scriptural origin for the teaching. But some people are too blinded in their hatred to remember the truth.

"The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate Laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts Of Christ."

Decretal De Translat, Episcopal Cap

The False Witness Union's top poster has thrown this one around a fair bit in the past, and I note that -- again -- the only online mentions of "Decretal De Translat" that I can find are from anti-Catholic sites. I cannot find the source document itself in any form, and so cannot adequately analyze the context of the quote. This should give the Reader pause, of course, as to the validity of the statement as a condemnation of Catholicism as unbiblical.

Of course, it's also probable that the author of this statement was simply in error; the above is certainly not a statement of Catholic doctrine, and so is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Catholicism is unbiblical.

Should a sinful Pope be obeyed?

"A sinful pope . . . remains a member of the (visible) church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience,"

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ (vicar meaning "anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior" -- in essence, an appointed servant), and carries the authority of Peter in his office. At the same time, the Pope is human, and all human beings are sinners at various times. St. Peter was likewise a sinner, as was St. Paul, and yet both men were treated as authorities within the Church. The simple fact that a man is a sinner does not strip away his commission from Christ; it merely re-affirms his need for Christ.

Not exactly an unbiblical concept, is it?

Now, a lot of Popes have been sinners to rather large degrees. Sadly, we might have expected as much, given that not everyone proves himself able to resist the temptations of power. A lot of Popes have said some pretty detestable things, and/or have done some pretty detestable things. I grant all of this freely, and in the False Witness Union the Reader can find a list of handy examples. One can also find examples of Popes contradicting each other, which I also grant has happened throughout history.

But all of these examples, stated as they have been, are acts of bearing false witness on the part of the members of the False Witness Union, and I think that the big problem they encounter is that they do not understand -- by accident or on purpose -- what Catholics mean when we talk about papal infallibility. They seem to think that it means that every little statement by the Pope is an incontestable reflection of Catholic doctrine and teaching.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I wrote about this before, but I suppose it bears repeating.

Papal infallibility.

A lot of the Protestants I talk with on the Gamespot Christian Union forum seem to...well...they just don't understand the concept at all. And to be honest, that comes as no surprise. Many Catholics don't really understand the concept of infallibility, and in particular that it is such a limited thing.

That is to say: the Pope can't just look up at the sky and call it green, when clearly it is blue. The Pope is not being infallible there, he's being a dork. And we Catholics would probably call him a dork as well for doing so.

Infallibility is more limited than that. In fact, it is so limited, that it even takes on one of those characteristic Catholic "quirks" that crop up once in a while. Consider:

The Pope's words are infallible in only certain specific situations.

The Bishop of Rome's words are not infallible, not ever.

And yet, they are the same person, the Pope and the Bishop of Rome.

But jest aside, it is perhaps best that we start looking at infallibility in the Papacy by looking at something entirely different to begin with. Mark Shea, with his typical incisiveness, chronicles his encounters, from his younger, non-believing days, with Christian moral principle, making the particular observation that "[w]hatever may be wrong with Christians (of whatever stripe) at any rate their insistence on revealed inviolable truth had landed even the least of them on their feet... They may believe in a goofy and harmless six day creationism, but by God they are not such fools as to prostitute themselves to the "Might Makes Right" philosophy which much of the academy, claiming to be wise, now fondly embraces. Fools that Christians were, they had not the "sophistication" (nor the permission of Almighty God) to define all relationships as power plays and call Good "whatever wins." Indeed, these glorious fools still say and think that Auschwitz was simply evil and cannot be "contextualized" out of the pit of Hell. They still believe in and practice love (that great 60s buzzword) as a thing in accord, not with "good vibes," but with God's eternal and unchanging will. Love--painful, sacrificing, ecstatic and wonderfully co-dependent--is still in fashion for them. For it is no fashion but a command.". And in the middle of this revelation, he found a paradox: "So I was confronted with the strange paradox of "dogmatic" Christian (and especially Catholic) theology salvaging my secular education's own best treasures while secularism went a-whoring after power. I wondered why.".

G.K. Chesterton, a man of unappreciated brilliance, once wrote (and Shea cites him on this), that "the modern world, with its modern movements, is living on its Catholic capital. It is using, and using up, the truths that remain to it out of the old treasury of Christendom.". That is to say, the fundamental progression of academic thought in the modern age from the enlightenment of the Rennaissance to the power-focused and censorous sanitization of fell-good relativism is reflective of the way in which much of the Protestant reformation was seen as a sanitization of Catholicism, a retention of what was thought to be "good" and a discarding of what was thought to be "bad". But no truth that came out of the Reformation was a "new" truth -- it had all been discovered years before, and can still be found to be confirmed and enriched in Catholic doctrine (much like many of the truths of academia can still be found in the old principles of the philosophers).

But wheras Protestantism had managed to hold onto those truths, of course, academia had lost its truths in pursuit of the abstract notion of Reason, in the illusion that this was somehow a thing apart from the old truths of faith. But, as Shea notes, "the Enlightened who held a childlike Catholic faith in the validity of Reason were not immortal. For without the safeguard of other Catholic dogmas to balance their faith in materialism they were eventually forced to conclude that reason itself is, at root, simply a function of molecular activity in brain tissue if materialism is the only truth. Thus truth itself became relativized till, by the time I got to high school and college, the shredding of the whole cloth of Catholic truth had resulted in a deeply rooted cultural assumption (180° opposed to the Reformers and their popish opponents) that no one can know truth about anything at all. Even the few old fashioned ideologues (such as Carl Sagan) with a 19th century faith in atheistic rationalism are starting to look rather antique, for they have largely been replaced in the academy by new-fashioned ideologues with an even stronger faith in atheistic irrationalism.

Yet trendy irrationalism is hopeless too. For "no truth" means, in real life, "no way of saying it's wrong to shoot someone for a pair of Nikes." There is no way to write coherent laws to punish unpleasant people like child pornographers (Next on Geraldo: "Kidpornos: Bottom Feeding Scum or Cutting Edge Artists?") There's no way you can speak with anyone about anything coherently. So when Rationalism is sacrificed on the altar of "Revolt Against Religious Dogma" by its usurping bastard Irrationalism there is only one option left: the worship of power which now grips the liberal academy (and will, I fear, soon grip our culture as a whole).

In contrast, to all this the Magisterium states there is such a thing as truth possessing a real shape and texture. The Church dares to say definitely "You cannot believe whatever you like and call it true since truth is from God, not created by humans. You cannot deny the Trinity and call it 'alternative Christianity.' You cannot practice witchcraft and declare it to be 'diversity in the Body of Christ.' You cannot write the Book of Mormon and reconcile it with Scripture. You cannot interpret the Bible privately. You cannot pass laws that declare black white by main force. You cannot run a nation--even a secular one--on terms which defy the will of God in Christ."

The Church says this because she still quite scandalously claims that she is, by direct apostolic succession from Christ Himself, the pillar and foundation of the truth (as Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:15) and that she is therefore competent to speak truth to the nations.".

So when someone asks how we Catholics can be sure that when the Pope speaks in a situation befitting infallibility (i.e. statements of doctrine made ex cathedra, but we are coming to explore that more in a moment), the first reason is that he is, as the head of the Church, speaking in direct apostolic succession from Christ, and as such is speaking as a pillar and foundation of truth, in keeping with the teachings of St. Paul.

But that is only where the reality begins. Where it ends is something totally different. For as Shea notes yet again, "unlike the rigid ideologies which are coming to dominate the culture, the supreme irony is that infallibility does not mean never having to say you're sorry. For the gift of infallibility necessarily implies that the Church receiving it needs it. It is because those Borgia Popes, pedophile priests, radical nuns (and worst of all, because people like me) fail in their individual lives to obey that which the Spirit infallibly reveals through the Church that the Church must be supported by Christ at every step or she is ruined. That's the point of all those Acts of Contrition. Not exactly prideful--especially in contrast to the arrogant noise from the academy that all is Race War, ****War and Gender War (accompanied by threats against chattel students who dare to differ). In comparison to these snarls from elitists in the Vanguard of History, the Church's claim of infallibility is refreshingly humble and hopeful. For it is just another way of expressing confidence in Christ's promise to guide us none-too-bright sheep into truth, freedom and love "even unto the end of the age.".

And so the second reason why we believe that the Pope is saying God's will in those infallible situations (however rare, I cannot stress enough), is that we need those statements to be from God, because we are a church of human beings (as all churches are), and we fail and fall into sin time and again. If Christ is not inspiring us at every stage, we have only our human selves...and we are lost.

But let's take a look for a moment at the actual doctrine surrounding infallibility. Within the Catechism of the Catholic Church, infallibility is definied as "the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and the bishops in union with him can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful. This gift is related to the inability of the whole body of the faithful to err in matters of faith and morals.

Two articles of the Catechism add to this definition:

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Now, what we can draw from this are several observations. For one, the above passages confirm what Shea had observed earlier...that the Church, in apostolic succession from Christ, is given a share in Christ's own infallibility and grace, for the preservation and guidance of the Church through the workings of the Holy Spirit. As such, as was noted by St. Paul in the letter to Timothy, this gives the Church the ability to speak in capacity as a pillar of truth and revelation from God -- in essence, this is how the Church derives moral authority.

But we can also observe that infallibility is limited. It doesn't apply except when the Pope is making a statement on a definitive act of doctrine pertaining to faith or morals (such as the Assumption of Mary, or that procurement or administration of abortion is a sufficiently grave moral evil that any Catholic who engages in the act receives an automatic excommunication without need for official declaration). And what is more, it doesn't apply when the Pope is making a statement on his own -- infallibility is not the Pope's personal playground, for it applies also to the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church, the bishops), and in fact it is the Magisterium's task to oversee those articles of doctrine that are ultimately put forth ex cathedra (i.e. from the Papal seat, which is the only place infallible statements can be delivered from).

So the final reason, and the most important reason, why Catholics believe that the Pope, in those rare times when he speaks with infallibility, is actually speaking God's true will, is because this is what the Spirit has bestowed on the Church, and through the office of the Magisterium and through all Catholics everywhere the Spirit watches over what is said, guides what is taught, and ensures that nothing is spoken as a binding article of faith that is contrary to God's plan for humanity, or contrary to God's truth.

This is why even a sinful Pope is still regarded as having authority, because Catholics believe that the Spirit simply won't let the Pope speak in error when it's really important. We are all sinners -- even the Pope -- and we are all in need of Christ's aid on a continual basis, but Christ has mercy on us and guides our teaching. When Christ commssioned Peter to tend the flock, that wasn't the end of it -- Christ didn't go "hands off" and leave it solely up to Peter to guide the Church. Christ guided Peter at every step, and in the same way Christ guides the successors of Peter when they deal with the flock.

That doesn't make them immune from sin, but it does make them immune from leading the flock into error. No Catholic doctrine can be promulgated without express consent from Christ.

The Reader is welcome to consider this "unbiblical" of course, but in doing so the Reader would be...well...wrong.

---

* the Benedictine Network is a group of Catholics who identify as neither orthodox, Western, or Eastern. They don't exactly seem to be fully faithful Catholics (having penned articles like "Zen Christ") and I wonder at whether they are in full communion with Rome. And they actually have a bit of an anti-papist streak of their own; they take some issue with the Church's structured authority.

What an interesting development this is! So desperate are some evangelical Christians to condemn Catholics that they would turn to the documents of liberal-minded, "ecumenical" Catholics to find statements. One wonders when Richard Dawkins will be cited to likewise further the cause of the arguments of the denizens of the False Witness Union?

---

**Now isn't that almost the most concise history of the Reformation ever written?

---

*** And one notes that many evangelicals do exactly this, turning to arguments which dispute the authority given to Peter in plain contradiction of Scripture. Even the watcher is not innocent in this regard.

A more artful example of totally missing the point I would be hard-pressed to ask for. The watcher has updated his previous post with the following commentary.

EDIT: It seems that he has now proclaimed that because we use certain Scripture, that equates us with Westboro.

The Reader will note that I do no such thing. It is not the citation of the relevant Scripture that is the issue; it is the interpretation of the teachings that is the matter at hand. As I said previously, Westboro's adherents are principally guilty of taking many of the very same verses cited in the False Witness Union thread grossly out of context, and using that misrepresentation to justify their position that God Hates X (X being somewhat variable, according to Mr. Phelps' tastes).

Given that the members of the False Witness Union are also often strangers to Biblical context, I don't think I'm particularly unjustified in noting the similarity in their thinking. And herein is the caution. It is right to hate sin -- all righteous people ought to hate sin. But we are human and flawed, and we too easily conflate the sinner and the sin; in that act, we become hateful toward the sinner, and in so doing we become what the fanatics of Westboro have become. We become as murderers in the eyes of God.

My point is that it starts with interpretation or, more accurately, misinterpretation. My initial remark was, and remains, that since the denizens of the False Witness Union have in the past demonstrated little to no talent at Scriptural interpretation, their exultation of God's hatred seems a perilously close flirtation with justification for their own hatreds.

And indeed, the watcher's own hatred (of Catholics) leads him to commit an act of false witness almost immediately after saying the above.

In essence, he is demeaning the use of the Word of God.

I've no problem with the use of the Word of God, as the Reader will know. In plain point of fact, I often make use of the word of God. Here is a recent example. My personal website is full of many more such examples.

What I object to is the incorrect use of Scripture -- simply citing the Bible is, after all, not enough, because the Bible does not self-interpret. This is what causes the Westboro problem -- the adherents thereof interpret the teachings concerning God's hatred as justification for their own hatred. Some of the denizens of the False Witness Union have demonstrated a similar thinking in the past, and continue to demonstrate it in their current anti-Catholic threads. Some of them also demonstrate it on the various religion threads that appear in OT.

Indeed, the watcher himself is one of the worst offenders where interpretation of Scripture is concerned, because he doesn't even attempt to do it. He is content to vomit out a wall of quotes from Scripture free from any notion of context, and then uses absolutely no exegesis to tie them to his point. And since Scripture does not self-interpret, he is left looking as though he has just committed multiple instances of non-sequitur.

He comes by it naturally since the Roman Catholic Church has declared that it traditions and teachings, when they contradict the Word of God, take precedence over the very Word of God.

What's really funny about this example of false witness is that the watcher's own citations contradict it later. It is true that the Church holds that the revelation that the Spirit brings through apostolic tradition is essentially equal to the revelation of Scripture (since we do not presume that God has finished speaking to humanity), but equality is not the same thing as abgoration. Tradition does not abrogate Scripture, and Scripture does not abrogate Tradition, because the two are both aspects of God's divine revelation to humanity. Scripture is finalized and need not be added to. Tradition is ongoing, and reflects that God continues to speak to humanity as humanity continues to exist in His creation.

And here's the real kicker. There is nothing in Tradition which is not in harmony with Scripture, and nothing in Scripture which is not in harmony with Tradition. God's revelation does not contradict God's revelation, after all.

What follows in the False Witness Union post is hardly worth commenting on, as it is the watcher's usual collection of anti-papist rhetoric which he cites from various sources in substitution for doing his own research and thinking. Misrepresentations and misinterpretations of statements, cherry-picked and taken grossly out of context, are the norm in his statements, as is the mistaken belief that were the Pope's position truly valid, the Pope himself would be sinless. That is nowhere stated in Catholic doctrine, and it is the height of ignorance to suppose that the Pope's authority in the Church is diminished because he commits sin. Every human being is a sinner, including the authors that the watcher cites; note, however, that he doesn't suggest that we disregard them.

The discussion of Catholic persecution of Protestants is interesting, but the watcher conveniently glosses over the fact that various Protestant groups persecuted Catholics as well -- every side has blood on its hands as far as this bit of history is concerned. Such appeals to emotional revulsion add nothing to the argument, as both sides are guilty, and I do hope that the good Reader is able to resist such blatant attempts at emotional manipulation. It is another form of false witness on the part of the watcher.

Footnote: what really makes me chuckle is how the watcher insists on only attacking Roman Catholicism. Since I am baptized in the Eastern (Ukrainian) Rite of Catholicism, can I infer that his critiques do not actually apply to me?

My lovely wife Grace
has a kind, pretty face
And a silly manner
Which makes me more a fan of her

I actually discussed the liar and bigot Mr. Chick a while ago. It took three blog posts to do so completely, and they can be viewed at the links below:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Some unfortunate GS users seem to think the man is a credible witness for Christ, when in fact he is anything but. It is a sad and terrible thing that so many supposed "witnesses" for Christ in the end bear only false witness against their neighbour, all because they have allowed hatred into their hearts.

So in the Christian "Witness" Union, it was asserted that in my theology I reject the Old Testament. Which is rather like suggesting that I reject the validity of the Apocrypha. Which I don't, in case that wasn't clear.

So I guess it's become the False Witness Union, has it?

...from this to this.

This Christian "Witness" Union give me the jibblies.

I'm going to take bite a tempting fishhook and respond to one of the things said in the anti-Catholic thread in the "Christian" Witness Union that I alluded to previously. In due time, I'll respond to more of what he's said, but I'll begin with his throwawy comment about Catholics and our "wafer god", since all I have to do is re-post something I wrote previously.

Here's what the originator of the anti-Catholic thread had to say, one of his criticisms of Catholicism. Keep in mind that this is apparently a college-educated person writing this.

- the wafer god, basically they have an idol in their hands, if you dont accept that wafer as jesus christ, you shall be accursed. They basically are sayying thatthe wafer is jesus himsel in the middle ages if you didnt accept the wafer as jesus, you will die.

He's talking, of course, about Eucharist, the source and summit of Christian faith. And also, both inside and outside of Catholicism, one of the most misunderstood aspects of the faith.

Catholicism makes what seems, initially, to be a very bold claim: that Christ Jesus literally becomes present in the breaking of the bread at each and every Mass, that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, retaining only the "accidental" (to use the Aristotelean term) of qualities of each -- the bread and wine still look like bread and wine, and still taste like it. But, contrary to the "if it quacks like a duck" thinking of the rest of the world around us, Catholics nevertheless boldly assert that despite the fact that the bread and wine seem, by all appearances, to still be bread and wine, they are in fact anything but.

It's a bold declaration of complete faith...faith not in the Church (as an institution), nor faith in the priest, nor faith in the wafer itself. No, it is a declaration of faith in Christ, an affirmation of the Catholic belief that Christ really is Lord and King of all creation, and the He does so love the world -- and everyone in it -- that He desires to draw to Him those who profess their need for Him.

Equally, it is a declaration of faith in a Christ whose love and desire to be in communion with those who profess their need for His promise of salvation and forgiveness of sin that He will make Himself present to them, in keeping with His promise that He would be in the midst of any number who gather in His name. We all must die in due course and will, in so doing, end up before the Lord. But prior to that, Christ -- out of love -- elects to come into our presence too. His love for humanity is so great, and His desire to be in communion with us so powerful, that He will step down, but for a moment, to be with us in our present-tense reality, appearing before us in a guise at once hidden and yet obvious, as surely as He appeared to the disciples walking on the road to Emmaus.

It's a powerful belief. But then, Christ is Lord and King of all creation -- it is proper that a teaching pertaining to the direct intersection of Christ and the world is powerful.

Within Scripture, the first hints of the Eucharist are presented in the Gospel of John, in chapter 6. The close association between the Eucharistic revelation and the Paschal Meal is at once obvious.

[4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
[5] Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?"
[6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.
[7] Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little."
[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him,
[9] "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?"
[10] Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
[11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
[12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost."
[13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.
[14] When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!"
[15]Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

These are not usually the verses cited in any apologetic concerning the Eucharist, but I would like to preface my analysis by noting the significance of the event within them. A large multitude has gathered to see and hear the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus -- deeply moved -- worries after the need of the people to eat. There is precious little food available to achieve that end, of course -- to feed five thousand, two loaves and five fishes would amount to mere crumbs per person.

And so Jesus effects a miracle, both as a sign to the people and as a test of faith for the disciples. I've always thought the scene's portrayal in the movie "Jesus of Nazareth" captured the mood of the disciples perfectly, and I am still struck by the image of the apostle John holding forth an empty basket, apologizing that what little is in it is all he has. And yet, when the camera pans back to the basket, it is overflowing.

Jesus takes the small quantity of food and makes it into a bountiful quantity of food; five loaves and two fish feed thousands of people. This is an incredible miracle, but it also prefaces an even more important revelation with a vital truth: Christ can make that which is scarce plentiful, that which is one into many, and that which is little into much. And the people realize this -- indeed, Christ withdraws from them, for the great revelation of his power had moved the crowd to entertain the thought of crowning him king (which would, of course, have likely caused a bloody revolution).

[16] When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea,
[17] got into a boat, and started across the sea to Caper'na-um. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
[18] The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing.
[19] When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. They were frightened,
[20] but he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid."
[21] Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.
[22]On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.

John continues his account with another important testimony of Christ's power, specifically a testament to His being master of all creation. The Lord is able to join his disciples in the boat after it had set out across the water, and all who observed the disciples in their boat from the shore saw only the one boat which held the disciples. Yet Christ, Lord and King even over the waters, is able to join them, walking out over the sea as though it were dry land.

All creation is bent to Christ's will, and over every aspect of creation does Christ have power. This will be important to remember shortly.

[35]Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

[36] But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
[37] All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.
[38] For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;
[39] and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
[40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
[41]The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven."

[42] They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
[43] Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves.
[44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[45] It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
[46] Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.
[47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
[52]The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

John then moves on in his testimony of Christ's sayings to this all-important teaching. It is a hard teaching for the assembled crowd to hear, though. Observant Jews all, they would of course have been mindful of the teaching of Moses that we, today, recognize as Deuteronomy 12:23-24. Consumption of blood, especially, was strictly prohibited for the Jews, and consumption of any flesh along with the blood that had been in it doubly so (it is also prohibited in the Book of Leviticus). Then there was the whole suggestion of cannibalism, which would have been regarded as even more problematic. With the teaching above, Jesus is beyond saying radical things -- He is saying impossible things...or, rather, impossible from within the context of only the Law.

And yet, he also speaks very plainly: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man 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."

I suspect that in this teaching, the true purpose behind God's giving of the law concerning the non-consumption of blood is revealed: there is but one blood that it is fitting for man to consume, that which is the most precious and holy blood of the Son of Man, the Son of God.

And when people doubt, Jesus rebukes them -- indeed, his words are almost defiantly challenging: "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? " He escalates the situation at this point, saying that if the people find it impossible that He suggests they eat of His flesh, they will be wholly unable to comprehend his rising again in glory and ascension into Heaven. This is also a teaching for us, looking back: Christ is Lord and King over all creation, and even over life and death. If Christ is so powerful as to master even death, and in so doing rise again and ascend into Heaven, is he not powerful enough to divide himself for us, and give himself to us, just as surely as he divided the loaves and fishes and bade them be distributed to the thousands who had assembled?

The Jews doubt this teaching, and many turn and refuse to follow Christ any longer. Some ask directly: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus does not answer them directly in that moment, but His answer does come. Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22 all tell of the same essential teaching that Jesus gives in His last celebration of the Passover meal. Below is Matthew's account of what transpired.

[26]Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."

[27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
[28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
[29] I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Jesus is again direct; of the bread He says "this is my body", while of the wine He says "this is my blood". There is nothing in His recorded words to suggest that he is being in any metaphorical in giving these teachings; he directly equates the breaking of the bread to the coming breaking of his body.

It is here that an objection can emerge, a temporal objection. Christ celebrated the Last Supper prior to his Crucifixion, and so His body had not yet been broken in suffering. How, then, could He give His broken body in its full reality to those sitting with Him at the table?

The problem with this objection is that it fundamentally fails to understand who Christ is; it communicates an ignorance of Christ Himself. Christ is Lord and King of all creation, and as such is Lord and King of time as well. Christ's Crucifixion happened only once, but its effects are eternal, stretching at once back to the dawn of time and forward to the end of time. All ages at once were incorporated into the one true sacrifice of Christ, and all ages participate in it -- this must be true, because Christ died for the sins of all humanity, not just for the sins of those living in the day and age in which He walked the Earth.

Christ's sacrifice was not only temporal; it was eternal. It is therefore not unreasonable in the least to suggest that He could share His own body, broken, with the gathered apostles at that Last Supper, even though the temporal event -- the Aristotelean notion of "accidents" may be relevant here as well -- of his suffering had not yet occurred.

One other objection is sometimes based on verse 29, above, but to this it serves to note that Christ Himself said that He "is the true vine" (John 15:1) -- if the wine is the fruit of this vine that is Christ, then let it be His blood just as He said it was.

Christ's true revelation in the breaking of the bread is later confirmed by His appearance to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, as chronicled in Luke, chapter 24.

[24] Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see."
[25] And he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
[26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
[27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
[28]So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further,

[29] but they constrained him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them.
[30] When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
[31] And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.

This account actually also lays out the basic structure of the Mass, which begins with an exploration and teaching not only of the Word of God, but of the unity therein; the readings from the Old and New Testaments are chosen specifically to demonstrate that the New fulfills the Old, and that the Old foretells the New.

And once the Scriptures are opened, the bread is broken, and Christ Himself is revealed.

Notice the structure of events here. The two disciples have no idea that it is Christ to whom they are speaking; they think him only an especially wise fellow-traveller. And out of politeness and concern, they invite Him in off of the road in the evening, lest He risk being set upon by bandits as He continues in His way. It is only at the exact moment that Christ breaks the bread -- in a direct repetition of His action at the Last Supper -- that His full nature is made known to them. They saw but a man, but in the breaking of the bread they saw Christ fully revealed, and (for an instant) fully present in their midst.

St. Paul takes all of this into account in his sharp rebuke to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11). There is a real problem in the Corinthian church, which Paul briefly details:

[20] When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
[21] For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.

Essentially, there was disunity in the Corinthian church, and (what is more) there was needfulness which was being ignored. Those who were wealthy and had food ate and feasted, while ignoring the needs of those who had little, and yet still came to remember in celebration the Last Supper; Paul tells them, essentially, that in coming together to receive Christ when they have been ignoring the needy, they essentially commit a wretched blasphemy.

[22] What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

He then goes on to correct them, continuing his rebuke now with an explanation of just why their actions and inattentions have the gravity that they do.

[23]For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,

[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
[27]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
[31] But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.
[32] But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
[33]So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another --

[34] if any one is hungry, let him eat at home -- lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

Paul pulls no punches here -- he plainly says that if the Corinthians come together in remembrance of Christ's Last Supper when some among them are hungry from lack of food, the whole assembly will be condemned by their act of remembrance. Verse 29 spells out the vector by which this condemnation arrives: " any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." And in Verse 27, Paul is again very plain in his meaning: "whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

How can one eat and drink judgement if one is eating mere bread and drinking mere wine? Do bread and wine have power to condemn a man? No! Only Christ has that power...and indeed, the bread and wine are Christ Himself. How else can one profane Christ by receiving the bread and wine in an unworthy manner? Christ must be really, truly, and materially present in the bread and wine for these verses to make one iota of sense. For how can bread alone condemn a man? Christ has power to condemn, bread does not. If in eating the bread, a man can be condemned by it, then the bread must be literally Christ.

And moreover, it is a participation in Christ, and in His one true sacrifice. A common canard one encounters is that Catholics "re-sacrifice" Christ. This is not the case; the Eucharist is a participation in the aspect of the one true sacrifice which is eternal, and which reverberates through all ages of history. It is like the loaves and the fishes -- Christ gave his once-broken body to the disciples, and He gives it to us as well.

The Church uses the term "transubstantiation" to describe the moment at which the bread ceased to be bread and becomes the body of Christ, and the moment at which the wine ceases to be wine and becomes the blood of Christ. That is a term borrowed from Aristotelean philosophy, to describe a process by which something becomes something else save for its external attributes.

Many Christians object to this philosophy as an example of old paganism corrupting Christ's truth. But that doesn't make much sense when Christ Himself that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, against His Bride. How can mere natural philosophy -- which was not specifically related to pagan worship, but instead to how the Greek philosophers understood the world -- corrupt something which Hell itself cannot prevail against?

The assertion is ludicrous on its face, and demonstrates again a fundamental misunderstanding of Christ. And funnily, it is on this specific objection to transubstantiation that I often find Christians and atheists in agreement.

What I find both ironic and tragically interesting about Christian and atheist objections to the reality of Christ in the Eucharist is how they often seem to be founded on the same core thesis: "that's magic talk; it's not real!" Oh, differences in approaches exist -- the Christian objector will tend to follow up his declaration with a handful of verses of Scripture (often cited in a manner that is grossly out of context), while at the same time denouncing as pagan (and therefore necessarily incorrect) theological concepts like transubstantiation. The atheist objector, meanwhile, will attack the same theological concepts from an empirical standpoint.

And every once in a while, the two sides will switch it up -- the atheist will be the one citing Scripture, the Christian the one citing empiricism. It's a strange reversal, but it has happened. But the reversal is not the point, O Reader -- the point, such as it is, is that Christian and atheist find common cause, and employ essentially common means, in pursuit of an unknowingly unified anti-Catholic goal.

What is even more tragic, in the case of Christian denunciations of the Eucharist, is that many of the same people who would denounce the rather literal Catholic interpretation of, especially, John 6:53-56, absolutely insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 through 9. Present them with Christ specifically commanding that His flesh be eaten and His blood consumed, though, and you will be greeted with a litany of hasty denials: Catholics are misinterpreting Scripture, Christ isn't speaking literally, Catholics aren't understanding Christ's real meaning, and so forth.

It's a strange dichotomy, that they are willing to place more faith in the literal meaning of the words of the author of Genesis than they are in the words of He who supposedly is their Lord.

In the end, Scripture itself is remarkably consistent on this matter: Jesus promised He would be present when we gather in His name, He commanded that we eat His flesh and drink His blood (which he will give), and He bade us to take that which was bread and that which was wine and consume them in a manner that was a fitting remembrance of Him. To counteract the despair and doubt of His disciples, He appeared again and was revealed to them in a repetition of His actions at the Last Supper -- the eyes of the disciples perceived Christ, literally and truly present in their midst, in the moment the bread was broken. And St. Paul completes the teaching, warning that practicing the remembrance Christ commissioned in a manner that was disrespectful either of the bread and wine or of other members of the community would bring -- in the act of consumption -- condemnation.

And yet, in the end, it comes down to faith. We can have all the words in front of us and still not perceive the full truth of the matter, and faith must step in where understanding fails. When we come to Mass and step up to receive Christ, we receive what appears to be bread, and we drink what appears to be wine. Shape, taste, feeling, and scent all suggest bread, and the mind desires to label that which looks like a duck as a duck.

But the disciples on the road to Emmaus made that mistake too. They had seen Christ die, or had heard of His brutal death. They had seen Christ buried, or had heard that he had been placed in the tomb. And they had heard that His body had gone, and they thought Him stolen. They had concluded, at the end of all these events, that the Lord their God had been a great prophet, but ultimately just a man who had been murdered and who was gone now, forever.

And who could blame them for thinking so? They had seen Christ die, as surely as they had seen others die in the past.

And yet, they were wrong.

And so are we, if all we see is bread and wine.

In the end, it is a question of faith. Now, I can understand if people cannot, in their faith, accept that Catholics don't receive mere bread and wine from the altar. It is, as the Jews noted too, a hard teaching to accept. And I respect that not all Christians can believe this hard teaching.

But some Christians go beyond that, and into formal denunciation of the teaching itself. Jack Chick's famous "Death Cookie" tract stands out here as one of the best examples, although he and others have produced volumes of writings in an attempt to illustrate where Catholics have gone wrong. For these Christians, it would be easy to feel contempt, given how obviously and plainly their words and beliefs so obviously contradict the plain meaning both of St. Paul's teachings and Christ's own statements.

But for such Christians, I instead feel pity. For their issue is not that one of faith; it is one of fear. Let us be plain: Catholics encounter, in the Eucharistic meal, Christ...directly. He's right there in front of us, right there with us, literally and truly present among us. We stand, but for a moment, in the ante-chamber of Heaven itself, and for a brief while are in the holiest place in all the Universe: we are at Christ's very feet.

And some Christians seem to hate and fear that Catholics experience Christ that closely, that intimately. "It can't be," they say. "It's a lie," they insist. "It's false teaching," they exclaim. But their words are empty, and their thinking muddled by their own fear of such a close and personal encounter with Christ. They often talk of accepting Christ as one's personal Lord and Saviour, and in that they do well. But Catholicism takes a person one step, or perhaps several steps, further than that. We do not just accept Christ...we see Him, greet Him, and are touched by Him.

Now, as something in addition to what I wrote previously (i.e. in parts 1 and 2), let's look at the historical development of the Eucharist, because a few claims are made about it.

As early as 106 AD, Ignatius of Antioch was recorded as being critical of those who abstain from the Eucharistic feast because they will not admit the presence of Christ in it, as per the previously discussed teachings from Scripture. This was not a persecutorial criticism, though; it was a theological debate that was ongoing at the time, a part of the early doctrinal formation of the Church. Many other early Christian theologians also defended the position that Christ was literally present in the Eucharist, and for the better part of 1500 years this was the dominant theological interpretation.

In other words, the vast majority of Christian history has been Eucharistic in nature, and the vast majority of historical Christians have been Eucharistic in their faith practice. This was also the predominant form of the debate for much of the rest of Church history; in fact, after a good hour of searching, I can't find any reliable records stating or confirming that people were ever executed for refusing to acknowledge Christ in the Eucharist, except on Jack Chick's lurid website...which should tell us something right there. Chick's desire for evangelism cannot be faulted, but his knowledge of history is sorely lacking.

Just to briefly enumerate the many errors Chick makes/lies Chick tells:

* Chick credits the inquisitions with killing 68 million people. This is a more egregious lie than even most atheists are willing to tell. In reality, fewer than 4,000 people were sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition (the "worst" of the various inquisitions), and that was over a span of some 300 years. The U.S. states with a death penalty have a higher "kill rate" than that. 68 million deaths attributable to Middle Ages Catholicism is also inaccurate for one other reason: there is no way, given the population of Europe during that time, that 68 million people could have been executed. Europe would not exist today had that many been killed.

* Chick apparently thinks that the Church labeled Jews as heretics. This is false (a heretic, in Christianity, is a baptized Christian who rejects a core dogma or doctrine).

* Chick also lies -- yes, lies -- about the Council of Trent. In his view, Trent gave Catholics the right to slaughter Jews and non-Catholics. He also asserts that the stipulations of the Council are still in full force. Both claims are false; Trent did not confer the death penalty on any individual, and its most common penalty (anathema) has been withdrawn. In fact, if you examine the entire length of the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find few references to a death penalty...and indeed, the only such references that exist are discussions of the morality of the state exercising the death penalty as a punishment option.

* Chick's numerous lies about pagan mythology and its supposed links to Catholicism are also well documented.

If Chick can't get these historical facts right, can he be trusted on other historical facts?

Now, the Reader is still welcome to trust Jack Chick as an authority on various issues, but...well...a reasonable person would pause before doing so. As noted previously, the mere fact that Chick quotes the Bible and delivers a consistent message is not sufficient reason to trust what he says as accurate, especially if one is going after Catholics. That is because Catholics -- in their core doctrines -- also deliver a consistent message, and quote from Scripture. By the metric with which the anti-Catholic poster uses to defend his trust in Chick's writings, he should also trust Catholic writings, since they both deliver a consistent message based on Scripture.

But obviously, he doesn't do that. So in the end, it's not really about Scripture at all, is it? It's about personality, and about a choice. In the end, the supposedly "Christian" poster has decided to let hatred of Catholics -- even of his own family -- into his heart, and this clouds his judgement in many lamentable and unfortunate ways.

Keep him in your prayers, folks. He needs 'em.