Question of the Day for Friday, May 2, 2008

Re-Presenting Backward?

Q. The Church teaches that the Eucharist is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary that took place 2,000 years ago. As I understand it, the event is “brought forward in time” to the altar at Mass today.
Can you help me understand how the first Eucharist — the Last Supper — was a re-presentation of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross when it hadn’t yet taken place? Was the sacrifice brought backward in time?

M. R., via email

A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Fr. Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D.:

In his encyclical letter Ecclesia de eucharistia, Pope John Paul II made it clear that the Last Supper was indeed the first Eucharist. Though our Lord’s sacrifice on the cross had not yet taken place, that first Eucharist was not a bringing of His sacrifice backward in time. Rather, it was an anticipation of that sacrifice.

This is what the Holy Father has written: “The institution of the Eucharist sacramentally anticipated the events which were about to take place, beginning with the agony in Gethsemane” [emphasis added]. “The blood, which shortly before He had given to the Church as the drink of salvation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, began to be shed [in the Garden of Gethsemane]; its outpouring would then be completed on Golgotha to become the means of our redemption” (section 3, emphasis in the original).

The Holy Father makes much the same point in section 12: At the Last Supper He not only designated bread and wine as His Body and Blood; He made it plain that this Body and Blood were being offered “for you.”

In other words, “Jesus did not simply state that what He was giving them to eat and drink was His Body and His Blood; He also expressed its sacrificial meaning and made sacramentally present His sacrifice, which would soon be offered on the cross for the salvation of all” (emphasis in the original).

Question of the Day for Thursday, May 1, 2008

Did Jesus and Lazarus Have the Same Kind of Resurrection?

Q. Was Jesus’ resurrection essentially the same as the raising of Lazarus from the dead?

 F. X. R., via email

A. Not at all. As the Catechism states:

“Christ’s resurrection was not a return to earthly life, as was the case with the raisings from the dead that he had performed before Easter: Jairus’ daughter, the young man of Naim, Lazarus. These actions were miraculous events, but the persons miraculously raised returned by Jesus’ power to ordinary earthly life. At some particular moment they would die again. Christ’s Resurrection is essentially different. In his risen body he passes from the state of death to another life beyond time and space. At Jesus’ Resurrection his body is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit: he shares the divine life in his glorious state” (no. 646).

Unlike Lazarus, Jesus will never die again (see Rom 6:9).

Indications of this transformation are clear in the Gospel accounts. Christ’s resurrected body now has new capabilities: He can appear and reappear suddenly; He can pass through locked doors; He can conceal His identity even from those who know Him well (see Lk 24:13-37; Jn 20:11-19). Then, at the appointed time of His last appearance, He is able to ascend into heaven in this transformed body (see Lk 24:50-51), bringing about “the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory” (Catechism, no. 659).

How thrilling, then, to realize that, one day, Christ “will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body” (Phil 3:21)! In Our Lord’s resurrection, we behold the destiny of all those who will take up their cross and follow Him — through death to new life to everlasting glory.

Question of the Day for Wednesday April 30, 2008

Only a “Spiritual” Resurrection?

Q. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and certain other religious groups teach that Jesus was only “spiritually” resurrected. Is that true?

 W. L., via email

A. The Gospel accounts show otherwise. The tomb was empty, and the disciples encountered Jesus alive in His physical body — the same body they themselves had laid there:

“While they were still speaking about this, he stood in their midst and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost. Then he said to them, ‘Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.’ And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, ‘Have you anything here to eat?’ They gave him a piece of baked fish; he took it and ate it in front of them” (Lk 24:36-43).

Clearly, then, Our Lord’s entire human nature was resurrected — not just His spirit, but also His physical body. The Catechism concludes:

“By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this way . . . to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of His passion [cf. Lk 24:30, 39-40, 41-43; Jn 20:20, 27; 21:9, 13-15]” (Catechism, no. 645).

Question of the Day for Tuesday, April 29, 2008

The Resurrection: Hoax, Hallucination, Superstition or Reality?

Q. Skeptics claim that the resurrection of Christ was just a hoax, hallucination or superstition. How should Catholics respond?

 B. M., via email

A. If we affirm the essential historical reliability of the Gospel accounts (and there are many good reasons to do so, even aside from the requirements of Christian faith), we must conclude that none of these suggested alternatives are plausible. “The mystery of Christ’s resurrection is a real event, with manifestations that were historically verified, as the New Testament bears witness” (Catechism, no. 639).

Three kinds of historical evidence confirm the reality of the event: the reality of the empty tomb; the post-Resurrection appearances of Christ to more than 500 witnesses; and the consequent faith and life of the apostles, who were convinced by those appearances that He was indeed alive.

“The first element we encounter in the framework of the Easter events is the empty tomb. In itself it is not a direct proof of Resurrection; the absence of Christ’s body from the tomb could be explained otherwise [cf. Jn 20:13; Mt 28:11-15]. Nonetheless the empty tomb was still an essential sign for all” (no. 640).

If the crucified body of Christ had remained in the tomb, there could have been no credible claims of a resurrected Lord; the enemies of the Gospel could simply have produced a dead body to quash the rumor. But they could not.

Second, we cannot discount the testimony of so many eyewitnesses as some kind of mass hallucination produced by shared faith expectations. Rather, “He presented himself alive to them by many proofs” (Acts 1:3). Consider:

•  The encounters with the risen Christ occurred in a variety of times and places.
• The reported details of the encounters differ significantly, and the people who had the encounters were of various backgrounds, with differing dispositions toward belief (see Mt 28:9-10; Lk 24:13-49; Jn 20:11-30; 21:1-23; Acts 1:1-9; 1 Cor 15:3-8).
• Some of them actually touched His body and watched Him consume food they had given Him (Lk 24:36-43).
• Meanwhile, since their faith in Jesus had been shattered rather than confirmed by the crucifixion, many were startled or doubting when He appeared to them.

Taken together, these circumstances prevent us from reasonably concluding that we are dealing here with mass hallucination caused by ecstatic faith.

Third, the possibility of a hoax or conspiracy to cover up the truth is ruled out by the subsequent behavior of the apostles and other witnesses. They dedicated the rest of their lives to proclaiming that Christ had been raised from the dead, and they willingly endured imprisonment, torture and even death for the sake of that declaration (see Mt 28:11-15; Acts 12:1-5).

Is it reasonable to think that these men and women would be willing to live and die in this way for what they knew to be a lie?
“Given all these testimonies, Christ’s Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact” (Catechism, no. 643).

Finally, as the scriptural account shows, first-century people were no more likely than we are to be superstitious or gullible about claims of returning from the grave. The apostles themselves reacted with skepticism, not to mention others (see Lk 24:9-11; Jn 20:24-25; Acts 17:32).

“Therefore the hypothesis that the Resurrection was produced by the apostles’ faith (or credulity) will not hold up. On the contrary their faith in the Resurrection was born, under the action of divine grace, from their direct experience of the reality of the risen Jesus” (Catechism, no. 644).

Question of the Day for Monday, April 28, 2008

Since our celebration of Easter a few weeks ago, a number of queries have come in about the nature of Christ’s resurrection. Though that historical event is a cornerstone of the Christian faith, skeptics have denied it, heretics have obscured it and even believers have debated its nature. Over the next few days we’ll answer a few of the most common questions, with references to Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In the meantime, let me recommend an excellent documentary: Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? A Critical Examination of the Facts About the Resurrection of Jesus, featuring Father Mitch Pacwa, S.J., Dr. Timonty Gray, Johnnette Bencovic, and others. For more about this 60-minute DVD, distributed by Ignatius Press, click here.

Does the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Really Matter?

Q. I’ve heard some people say that it doesn’t matter whether Jesus actually rose bodily from the tomb. It’s His message that counts, they insist. I know that’s wrong, but what’s the best way to reply to that claim?

 M. M., via email

A. St. Paul put it most bluntly: “If Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ” (1 Cor 15:14–15).

The resurrection of Jesus isn’t separate from His message; it’s an essential aspect of that message, of one piece with the rest of the Gospel. Deny it, and we might as well deny all the rest as an unreliable fabrication. Christ’s rising from the dead is integral to the testimony of the Church about who Jesus is, what He said, and what He did, a seal of authenticity on everything else.

The Catechism puts it this way:

“The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ’s works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised. Christ’s Resurrection is the fulfillment of the promises both of the Old Testament and of Jesus himself during his earthly life. . . . The truth of Jesus’ divinity is confirmed by his Resurrection” (nos. 651–53).

At the same time, Christ’s resurrection is the source of our present life with God, which came about after the death of our old life trapped in sin. “The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ, liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life . . . and a new participation in grace” (Catechism, no. 654).

Finally, Christ’s resurrection is essential to Christian faith because, as St. Paul went on to say, without it “those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor 15:18). Our own hope of resurrection is based on the reality of His. “Christ, ‘the first-born from the dead’ (Col 1:18), is the principle of our own resurrection, even now by the justification of our souls (cf. Rom 6:4), and one day by the new life He will impart to our bodies (cf. Rm 8:11)” (Catechism, no. 658).