WHY I AM CATHOLIC - PART 6: DO THIS

Last Supper by Pascal Adolphe Dagnan-Bouveret (1852-1929)

In our last installment we made the case for the historical authenticity of the Gospels. In short, when compared with any other ancient document, there is more evidence for the historical reliability of the Gospels than there is for the writings of Socrates, Plato, or even Shakespeare - unquestioned intellecutal pillars of classical western civilization.  So let us look at what those Gospels record.

They record, of course, the birth, life, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. They also record his teachings, miracles, and directives. For our purpose - which is to evince and expound upon the reason to be Catholic - let us examine one of those teachings, his most important: DO THIS.

In fact it is more than a teaching, it is a directive, an order. And it is most important because worship is man’s fundamental duty to God, and Christ’s instruction at the Last Supper is an instruction on how he is to be worshipped, commemorated, acknowledged, remembered, and recognized. There is, for man, nothing more important.

Scripture records: on the night before he died, Jesus took the bread and said THIS IS MY BODY, EAT THIS..., and the wine and said THIS IS MY BLOOD, DRINK THIS... And then he commands: DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

Many Christian church services have great singing, sermons, and fellowship, but only one Church fully worships God as Christ Himself instructed. Only one Church obeys, and has obeyed from the beginning, despite the fallibility and failings of its ministers, the command of Jesus Christ to DO THIS.

To be sure, many Christian communities have communion services, but the presider normally does not hold up the bread and wine and say THIS IS MY BODY...THIS IS MY BLOOD. And while it is true that some Anglican and even some Lutheran churches have liturgies in which at least the words and actions of Christ at the Last Supper are re-presented, neither religion accepts that the bread and wine REALLY are the true body and blood of Jesus Christ.

For our purposes, we need not engage the debate over whether or not the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ upon the words of the minister. We are simply looking at whether or not non-Catholic Christian churches actually do what Christ instructed on the night before he died.  Do they DO THIS?

Only the Catholic Church obeys this command and obeys Christ's command to DO THIS fully. What’s more, the Catholic Church obeys Christ’s instruction as the first Christians obeyed it: weekly and on Sunday. Acts 20:7 says “On the first day of the week they gathered together to break bread...” We know that the "break bread" is not a reference to some first century picnic because “breaking bread”, as demonstrated elsewhere in the New Testament, references the Eucharistic celebration.

So here, right in the heart of the New Testament, we see the first Christians commemorating Christ as he instructed, commemorating him weekly, and commemorating him on the first day of the week. And where is the only place on Earth where we will find that command obeyed, obeyed weekly, and on Sunday? Answer: The Catholic Mass.

Jesus did not say to sing, lecture, dance, drum, shout, shake, or read your bible in memory of me. He said DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. And the Catholic Mass is simply the only place where the DO THIS is done and Christ is worshipped as he taught us to worship.

Y I am Catholic - Part 5: the case for the authenticity of the Gospels

Since everything we officially know about what Jesus said and did is derived from Scripture, particularly the Gospels, proof for the historicity of the Gospels is usually considered necessary in any Christian apologetic endeavor. (“Apologetic” means “reasoned explanation”).

Given our method of simply presenting possibilities and not proofs as we make the case for Christ and for Catholicism, it is not necessary for us to address the historicity of the Gospels in depth, but we should at least understand the debate.

Some of the main issues are: 1)there is no definitive proof that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the actual authors of the Gospels to which their names are affixed; 2) there are several noticeable incongruities between the different Gospel accounts; 3) we do not have in our possession an original copy of the Gospels, but simply copies of copies of copies which have come down to us through the centuries with all the possibilities of copying errors, human intrigue, exaggerations by over-zealous Christian copyists, and everything else that could possibly go wrong in the transmission of information and stories over time.

It is easy to see how atheists and those hostile to Christianity would use these facts to discredit the Gospels which form the basis for the Christian religion. And while there is overwhelming evidence in support of the historical reliability of the Gospels, the easy way to engage the naysayers is simply to hold them to their own standards as regards other works of antiquity whose historicity they appear not to question.

For example, the teachings of Plato and Socrates are considered to be pillars of classical literature. Yet not only do we not have any original manuscripts from Plato or Socrates, the origin of the manuscripts we do have is exponentially more obscure than the Gospels.

For instance, most of Plato’s works found in today’s libraries are actually the result of a reconstruction of various medieval sources, not the reprinting of an ancient manuscript found among the ruins of ancient Greece. And most of what we know of Socrates actually comes from these medieval reconstructions Plato, which makes the authenticity of the teachings of Socrates even more distant.

Yet the works of Plato and Socrates in their modern form are accepted by scholars and academics as credible with very little debate, as are the works of many other writers of antiquity for which we have no original manuscripts and whose writings are similarly reconstructed. In fact, if we are to make original manuscripts a standard for credibility of authorship we would have to throw out the entire works of Shakespeare since not one Shakespearean work comes down to us in his own hand.

In short, we can safely assert that there is more evidence for the historical reliability of the Gospels than there is for any other document of similar or greater age.

But even if there wasn’t such evidence, it wouldn’t matter. The historical credibility of Christianity does not rise and fall with the latest investigation into the authorship of the Gospels. Christ did not leave us a book, he left us a Church and a teaching authority for that Church which comes down to us through the centuries and is embodied in that Church and its hierarchy of Pope and bishops we see today.

In fact, for first three centuries of Christianity, when the fledgling Church was under its period of greatest duress, there was no Bible as we know it. While there were letters and writings of various kinds floating about the different Christian communities during this period, there was no defined list of New Testament books until 401 A.D.

During Christianity’s earliest centuries, Christians lived and died by the teachings that were handed down to them from Christ through the Apostles and through their successors, in short, through His Church - the Church that still stands and instructs today. They did as Paul said: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught , whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thes 2:15)

What they were taught by word and epistle (letter), and what they were willing to die for is our next subject.

Go here for Part 6.

Y I AM CATHOLIC - PART 4: The evidence for Christ

Before we proceed...a quick review. First, our objective here is to provide a path to Catholicism which begins with nothing. In other words, belief in God is not assumed and the authority of traditional Christian sources - such as Scripture and the writings of the early Church Fathers - are not immediately relied upon.

Such an approach is made increasingly necessary today as a careless atheism and a general apathy towards religious truth progressively dominates our culture. And whereas in the past we might have engaged fallen away family members over the "Sunday obligation", we are more likely today to find ourselves in debates over the very existence of God.

Traditional apologetics begins with “proofs” - proofs of God through evidence from nature, motion, cause and effect, and other matters requiring reason. 

However, we begin our inquiry with something that requires no reason: death. Death is the one constant, the one common denominator for us all. Death is a great place to begin because it is the one thing upon which we cannot disagree: we will die.

In Part 1 of this series we begin with death and explored the 50/50 possibility of the afterlife. In Part 2, we determined that the Christian proposition of the afterlife demands serious examination due to the fact that it presents us with the most horrific of post-death possibilities: eternal damnation. In Part 3 we examined the undeniable evidence for the existence of the early Christian church through the accounts of their Roman oppressors.

Here, in Part 4, the Roman accounts will once again assist us as we examine the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

As already mentioned, there is little extra-biblical documentation for the historical existence of Jesus. And of what there is, much has largely been discredited as the fabrication of later Christian copyists. So, for the skeptic, the atheist, how best to prove Jesus?

The best record is not found in ink, but blood, martyrs’ blood, and lots of it. For nearly three centuries thousands voluntarily accepted the most unimaginable tortures rather than change their story, which was: 

1. Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, 
2. He was born of the Virgin Mary, 
3. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified died and was buried, and 
4. On the third day he rose from the dead and has ascended into Heaven

There are three things to consider in the matter of the Christian persecution at the hands of Rome: 

1. its brutality,  
2. its length, and 
3. its uniqueness

Brutality: The Romans had made a science of torture. They had perfected it to the point of art and placed it at the service of entertainment and spectacle. Few societies have ever devised crueler ways to kill a man - crucifixion being the ultimate installment in humanity’s excursion into inhumanity.

Length: The Roman persecution stretched through six full generations. Consider that the Christians were subjected to Roman brutalities for a period longer than the United States has been a nation. Using Nero (64 AD) as a starting point and the Edict of Milan (313 AD) as the end, Christians suffered unimaginable cruelties for 249 years. 

Uniqueness: Martyrdom is not unique to the early Christians, but their willingness to be killed in the most cruel ways is. Compare this to the "martyrdom" of Islam, where one dies (often quickly) while killing others. Compare also the “martyrdom” of the Jonestown, Guyana cult where 800 people committed suicide. Imagine, instead of swallowing cyanide, those people lining up to be boiled in oil, gnawed by wild beasts, grilled on fire hot racks, or left to die over days nailed to a cross... probably not a lot of volunteers in that scenario.

No, the martyrdom of the early Christians is unique not just because of their willingness to suffer the most unimaginable torments, but because many of them could have avoided it altogether by making some nominal gesture to a Roman deity

There is simply nothing like the persecution of the early Christians in history, and it forces us to examine what and who they died for.

Go here for Part 5.

Y I am Catholic - Part 3: the Roman accounts

Christians of course base their belief in the historical existence of Christ on the authority of the Bible and the teachings handed down to them through Christian institutions. But using Christian sources to prove Christian sources is a circular exercise and at some point, for the skeptic, there must be extra-Christian evidence. 

The most credible extra-Christian accounts of historical Christianity and its founding can be found in the writings of their Roman detractors - precisely because they were detractors, and had no interest in promoting or preserving what they considered a pesky cult. There are many such accounts. We will examine two here.

The Roman historian, Tacitus, records in his Annals: “Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...”

Tacitus, here, gives us an account of the central act of Christianity: "Christus suffered the extreme penalty...at the hands of...Pontius Pilate”. The “extreme penalty”, of course, crucifixion. And even the resurrection is referenced. Tacitus calls it “a most mischievous superstition” that was “thus checked for the moment”, but again “broke out” and has made its way from Judea to Rome.

Another important early reference comes from a Roman governor in Asia Minor named Pliny the Younger. Writing to the Emperor Trajan, Pliny inquires as to how to deal with a great multitude in his province that stood “accused of Christianity”, and in so doing, tells us much about who the Christians are:

“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

There is much here. First we see that Christians gathered on a "fixed day", which corroborates Acts 20:7 (“On the first day of the week we gathered...”) The fact that they sang a hymn to Christ tells us that Christians worshiped Christ as God and did not just revere him. And the binding of themselves by a solemn oath, swearing not to engage in a list of misdeeds, tells us that belief in Christ necessitated a change in moral behavior.

There is also an account here of the Eucharist - which is especially interesting for its reference to “food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” This is noted because Christians were ignorantly thought to practice cannibalism. Pliny makes the case to the Emperor that this is not so. And of course to the observer, what is consumed at the Christian Eucharist, does appear to be “food of an ordinary...kind”.

The whole entry is a bit amusing because, as noted, Pliny’s letter is a perplexed inquiry to Trajan as to what to do with these people who are living exemplary moral lives, but stand “accused”. If they had been criminals there would have been no need to contact the Emperor for advice. And because of the Roman tolerance for worship of gods of every stripe, the particular worship of the Christians was not a criminal act. So Pliny appears to be in a knot. (Their crime of course is that they refused to also worship the Roman gods.)

One other observation. We know from Acts 20:7 that Christians understood Sunday (“the first day of the week”) to be the appropriate day for worship. But here we also see a reference to the time of day: “before it was light”. It is curious that in our Vatican II inspired desire to “return to the sources” and to resurrect all things ancient (it was called “ressourcement” at the Council), the ancient practice of meeting and worshipping “before it was light” has not been as enthusiastically embraced as were other reforms.

(Go here for Part 4.)

Why I am Catholic - Part 2: the possibility of eternal damnation

All of us experience pain. But at the root of our ability to endure pain is the belief that it is not permanent, or at least that its intensity will be dulled with time, or in extreme cases - that death will bring release. 

However, eternal damnation has no such hope. Its proponents posit that it is a living death, where one is always dying but never dies. While we might sneer at such a prospect, our sneering does not diminish the odds that it might be real. We really don’t know for sure, do we?

A popular argument against such a horrific eternity is “What sort of a God would make such a place and condemn people to it?” The question is understandable. Both inexplicable pain and the concept of eternal damnation have driven many to atheism or to embrace cyclical religious forms where at least the tortures are not forever. However, whether we choose atheism, Buddhism, or a version of a loving God that does not punish, the possibility of eternal torment, at least for the intelligent inquirer, is diminished not a wit. So let us examine it...just in case.

We start with the religions that teach it. While most religious systems hold to some version of a state of post-death torment, most do not hold to its being eternal, i.e. the suffering ends either with the annihilation of the soul or a release from hell after a period of purgation. 

Surprisingly there are only two religions of any consequence that universally teach the existence of a place of of post-death torment to which the damned are sent forever: Christianity and Islam.  

Of the two we will choose to examine Christianity for the following reasons: 

1. Christianity predates Islam and there is some reason to believe that Islamic teaching relative to eternal damnation is derived in part from Christian teaching, 
2. The Christian witness of being killed for the truth versus killing for it demands proportionately more credence, 
3. The claims of the founders.

Point 1 is self-explanatory. Islam arose in nearly 600 years after Christianity, and in a land largely infected by a Christian heresy (Nestorianism).

As for the second point, it doesn't take much human reason to see that choosing to die for the faith, often rather cruelly, versus killing for it, is a much more difficult choice and thus is an act of faith requiring more notice.

And, while it is true that Christians may have killed in God’s name, Christianity itself teaches no such thing. Islam does. While individual Muslims may choose a spiritual interpretation of such Muhammedan directives as “slay the infidel wherever you find them” (Surah 9:5), there is no getting around the literal reality of how Muhammed himself understood it. (He slew the infidels wherever he found them.)

Let us then examine the claims of the founders. Whereas Muhammed - and the founders of every other major religion - either claimed to have heard from God or found a way to him, only one founder of a major religion every claimed to BE God: Jesus Christ. And he went to his death without changing his story.

But what about that story? Can we really know there was a Jesus Christ? Couldn’t this be a monstrous ruse? After all, what we call the New Testament was written by Christians for Christians, so of course they could have made it up. 

Plus there are no original copies of the New Testament books. All we have is copies of copies of copies and translations of translations. Couldn’t the whole thing have been concocted and perpetuated in order to enslave centuries of human beings to serve a sinister clerical empire?

In response to those who doubt the biblical account, Christian apologists often attempt to make the case for Christ from extra-biblical sources. But the historical record for the Christian Jesus is sparse, and the authenticity of what does exist - such as the account found in the writings of the first century Jewish historian, Josephus - are usually discredited as the later interpolations of zealous Christian copyists.

Christian apologists also attempt to make the historical case for Christ by first making a case for the historicity of the Gospels. The case is easy to make. Their is more evidence for the historicity of the Gospels than there is for works of similar or greater age.

Example: While few question the authorship of Plato’s Republic, Virgil’s Aeneid, or the works of Homer, there is far more evidence for the authentic authorship of the Gospels than there is for these unquestioned pillars of classical literature.

However, if such evidence would suffice then we would not have unbelievers, and yet we do. So, for our purposes, the historical evidence for Christ will need to be made from non-Christian historical sources already accepted as authentic.

Go here for Part 3.

Why I am Catholic - Part 1: we begin at the end

A few months ago I was asked to give a talk entitled “Why I am a Catholic”. While preparing the talk I thought of my many relatives and friends who have left the Church. While some have left for emotional reasons (they’re mad at somebody), and others for what I will just call “conjugal irregularities”, I believe most have left or dropped out for wont of a reasoned explanation to stay.

I have often ask such folks if there is a particular reason why they left and have they ever considered returning.

While some were simply indifferent, most just had unanswered questions. What’s amazing is how simple those questions are and - when those questions are engaged in a charitable way - how willing many are to return to the Church.

What is also amazing is how so much pain could be avoided by simply knowing how to engage such questions and where to look for the answers. Parents whose children no longer practice the Faith are particularly pained - particularly when grandchildren are involved. Parents who have grudgingly accepted the religious waywardness of their own children often find it more difficult to accept their grandchildren being raised in a different faith or no faith at all.

It is probably hearing other parents share their distress that first caused me to develop a short “Reason to be Catholic” for my own children. But rather than wait to be confronted with their doubts and questions, I opted for a pre-emptive catechetical strike to not only help them fend off challenges to the Faith, but to assist them in engaging those challenges so that they might be able to keep others from leaving the faith or even bring new souls to it.

In working to restate this “catechesis” for publication, I have augmented it for “big people” as a sort of mini “Case for Catholicism”, but it can be scaled up or down to address the desired audience in case you would like to use it or portions of it. Let's begin.

My “Case for Catholicism” begins with a certainty, the only real certainty: death. I will die. You will die. For all of us there is one, single, absolute, glaring, uncompromising certainty: we will die. On this, theist and atheist, must agree. So we begin at the end: death.

Upon death there are two possibilities: there is either an afterlife or there isn’t. It’s simply a 50/50 proposition. Atheists may argue against life after death but the argument does not change the odds.

Given the 50% chance that one may live on after death in some form, one may choose to consider the possible nature of that form, or choose not to. Given the many possible proposals of the nature of the afterlife, it would behoove us to consider those possibilities, especially since some of the possibilities are not that pleasant.

Our prospects in the afterlife are many: We could live on as a cow. We could inhabit a tree. We could haunt a house. We could wander the universe. We could rule our own planet (Mormon). We might dwell in Paradise with 72 virgins (Islam). We could become a star, an angel, Elvis... There are as many proposals as there are belief systems, and then some!

However, there is one prospect that we must take more seriously than any other: the possibility of eternal damnation. The possibility of a living, conscious, state of eternal torment of body and soul is so frighteningly horrific that even the slightest sliver of a chance of it possibly being real demands consideration of the greatest gravity.

But, let us stop here and review: 

1. Death is certain. 
2. There is a 50/50 possibility of the afterlife. 
3. If there is something after this, we should consider the possibilities, 
4. There are several possibilities to consider. 
5. The possibility of eternal torment is too frightening to ignore.

Go here for Part 2.