Media Garbage

This is just... I don't know... bizarre, I guess. This Reuters story has to be one of the worst written news stories I've ever read.

It starts with the title: "Most Catholics loyal despite abuse scandal"

It continues with such senseless statements as "according to a new poll[...] Only 12 percent, or one out of eight Roman Catholics, is reevaluating ties to the church following reports of child sex abuse [...] The number was similar among members of all faiths in the United States."

I don't even know what that means 12% of non-Catholics are thinking of leaving the Catholic Church too? 12% of non-Catholics are leaving their own Churches because of the scandal Catholics are facing? I don't get it.

The story continues to talk about the scandal a bit, and then out of nowhere hits us with, "The poll of 855 adults, including 178 Roman Catholics, also showed that more Americans than before, 45 percent compared to 41 percent in 2009, believed that killings carried out by the CIA are 'sometimes justified.'"

Huh?

And the story ends with, "More women, 11 percent, than men, 10 percent, wanted to step into the shoes of the 'Godfather' Don Corleone."

So it turns out the story isn't really about the scandal, it's really about a stupid poll. The title should read, "Stupid poll gives worthless results," or "Approximately 10% of Catholics want to stop being Catholic and become the 'Godfather.'"

Another One

Adding to my list of people who believe the media is treating the Catholic Church unfairly in the abuse issue, is Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City. A Jew who believes the Catholic Church is wrong on just about everything liberals tend to think it is wrong about (abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc.), Koch still states, "I believe the continuing attacks by the media on the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI have become manifestations of anti-Catholicism. The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate." See the full blog here.

Posts on the Scandal

Although it is not my preferred area of discussion, the sexual abuse scandal keeps coming up, so I'll address it here by referring you to better writers! It's better you read some of these posts than anything I have to say, so I'll keep it short:

I'll start you where I started today, with Jennifer Fulwiler's Conversion Diary blog. As always, she's a wonderful writer, who provides lots of links to back up her points. For a bit of background, Jennifer was raised an atheist. She first began looking into Protestant Christianity, and eventually decided that the truth was found in its fullest in the Catholic Church. I highly recommend her blog.

In a trail from there I came across an article providing statistics comparing abuse by priests to family members, ministers, psychologists, and teachers. The statistics show that even at their worst, the priests were the safest group (completely demolishing the "caused by celibacy" argument).

Then there's a bit of comedy relief, as the Associated Press, desperate for news, reports on the man who shot John Paul II saying he wants Pope Benedict to "resign over the Catholic Church's handling of clerical sex abuse cases." Now there's someone the Catholic Church can look to for guidance. To his credit he does say he doesn't want the Pope arrested.

And finally, an interesting piece by an atheist humanist, who certainly doesn't favor Catholic teachings, but sounds just as opposed to the media bias and public hysteria against the Catholic Church as I am. This is useful, both as another perspective, and as a confirmation that we aren't imagining the media bias. His primary concerns in the article are the dangers of the anti-free speech stance of "new atheists," and the "culture of victimhood." [note that I have not read, and cannot recommend any other articles on this humanist website]

Anti-Catholic Madness: Now It's Digital!

Not that this is news to any of you, but absurd anti-Catholic attacks are as common online as... comment threads... since they all eventually lead to Catholic-bashing right?

I usually try to avoid comments, just out of the knowledge that these absurdities will suck up the rest of my day, but today I fell off the wagon (which isn't as bad as some of the other wagons I fall off of) and read the comments to this news story: "Pope's brother: I ignored physical abuse reports" In case you don't want to read it, it basically says that while the Pope's brother was a priest in Germany he heard complaints about physical abuse from a neighboring school, but he didn't do anything. He explains that corporal punishment was normal at the time, and he didn't realize how much more intense the situation was at this school. Understandable, given the time period, I think.

Anyway, the comments immediately began with bashing the Church. I won't reproduce them, nor will I recommend reading such misinformed bigotry, but I'll post my responses here, just cause I like to do that for some reason. You'll see that I had to deal with what seems like every typical attack on the Church, so maybe something will be of use:

I became a Catholic right in the midst of this scandal breaking. And guess what, I love my Church. It is the most Christian Church I have found (Seriously, the best Christians, and the most Biblical teachings can be found in the Catholic Church, just most people, even Catholics, don't know it). That is not to say that it is filled with perfect Christian people. It is not. I don't claim to live up to those ideals myself. When we set our standards high enough we will all fail to live up to them, but we continue to try.

To City, great post. It is certainly unfair to judge people who were doing "what was right" by the standards of their time by standards we have today.

Sueky, I don't want pedophiles to burn in Hell. I want their sins to be forgiven, just as I want my sins to be forgiven. That said, I don't want them out in the world hurting children.

Christy, there weren't even a million people in the south of France to begin with in the Middle Ages, so I doubt the Catholic Church was able to kill that many. Besides, people were generally killed by the civil leaders for activities which were thought to endanger social stability (not that I believe this cause was always justified), not just for "believing different things." Read a history book not written as anti-Catholic propaganda, and you might find out that the Catholic Church isn't just a blood thirsty, power hungry brute (though some of its members certainly are).

Michelle, Catholics go to God for forgiveness to. The scriptures tell us that Christ commissioned his apostles to forgive sins. One of the major differences between Catholicism and (most) Protestantism is that Catholics believe we connect to God directly AND through the material world, while Protestants tend to more-or-less believe that we connect to him only directly. Thus, Catholics believe that God desires we ask his forgiveness directly AND through confession to the priest. We don't go to the priest instead of God.

LTL. This is a misconception, that celibacy has anything to do with pedophilia. Yes, it is true that some priests don't keep their vows, but the majority DO keep their vows. And pedophilia is just as (or more) common in the general population as it is in the priesthood. The media doesn't report much on it, but there is a higher rate of sexual abuse by teachers in public schools, and administrators commonly cover it up (wait I though secrecy was just an evil Catholic thing!?!), and nobody requires school teachers to be celibate.

And here's my second comment:

Did I just stumble into a KKK meeting? What's with all the anti-Catholic anti-clerical propaganda? I thought thought that went out of fashion when JFK became President without enslaving America to the Pope.

You guys seriously don't get that this is typical media frenzy? The situation in Catholic churches is NO different from the situation in other religious organizations, or in secular institutions like public schools, daycare centers, etc.

The problem is that the media frenzy has a narrow focus, which conveniently fits with common stereotypes. This frenzy is just like how until recently there were far more cases of unintended acceleration in American cars, but just because of the current media frenzy, suddenly everyone thinks Toyotas are deathtraps.

When people point out that this is not just a Catholic problem we are NOT, I repeat, NOT saying that this in anyway gives a free pass to the priests or bishops involved in the matter. No. You cruelly misrepresent us every step of the way. We are appalled that our priests would do this. But our priests have been falsely accused of such things so often for so long that we had a hard time believing them when it turned out some of the accusations were true. There are no excuses for sin, except that we are all human, and we all know our own temptations, and should have some understanding of the darkness which can befall man.

What we ARE trying to say is that we are being unfairly singled out, and that it is unreasonable to say that the fault lies in our religion if the problem is just as common outside of the religion, and also just as common in other leadership structures. Media stories on this issue have been something like 10:1 Catholic vs. other organizations, when the problem is no more widespread in the Catholic Church. That is bias, plain and simple. California lifted the statute of limitations on lawsuits involving the Catholic Church, but not for other groups. Bias. Other states have heavily investigated every Catholic group, but not other groups. Bias. Media Frenzy induced bias.

Judson, pedophiles are no more common among priests than among men "allowed" to marry, so this would not fix the problem, it's just an old piece of Protestant fundamentalist bigotry which has been absorbed by even the most secular of people. This is what I mean. You can't blame the Catholic Church, saying the problem is due to celibacy, when the problem is just as common among those who are not celibate. That make no sense. Obviously, the only claim you can make is that vows of celibacy do not PREVENT pedophilia.

You cannot blame the church for intense "secrecy" if the same level of secrecy is present in similar situations in every type of organization imaginable: US government, school administration, synagogue, or hippie commune.

As for the joke about drowning/burning witches, that was quite uncommon in Catholic countries, oddly enough because the Inquisition did not allow such silliness (of course they did not avoid that level of cruelty, but applied it in less absurd ways, much like our modern use of waterboarding. Of course I do not approve of any such torture, but you see that times have not entirely changed).

To Jeff, who says, "Authority and responsibility cannot be separated, and the authority these men exercised derived from the Catholic Church." Do you suggest that every time an authority disappoints us we should overthrow the whole structure? Sounds like a lot of unreasonable bloodshed to me.

To Dave, who said, "Yes. They should try all priests to find out which ones are pedophiles." How Totalitarian of you. You'd be happy to know that in many atheist countries thousands of priests were murdered just for being priests (USSR, China, early 1900s Mexico, etc.). There is a reason we have rights in this country like being innocent until proven guilty, and limits on police searches. I guess you want the secret police bursting into your house to check the numbers tattooed on your arm?

Hopefully I'll eventually make the effort to go into more detail on some of the issues brought up here. I'm sure a few of these could go toward an installment of Craziest Complaints.

Oh, and for anyone out there who has ever said anything like, "I love individual Catholics, but I hate the Pope, and hope he goes to Hell." I think of the Pope sort of like you might think of a beloved grandfather, so try switching it around before you speak. "Your favorite grandfather is just a dirty old dress-wearing man who uses his power and money to brainwash people and abuse children." Oh yeah, well yo' mama so fat...

Sacrifice of the Mass (further discussion)

In an earlier post (which you should read before reading this) I mentioned a comment on John Piper's website about the Mass being repugnant. I cited the Didache and Ignatius as supporting the Catholic side. In response I received the following comment, which I feel is worth a longer response than I like to give in the comments section.

Stuart wrote:

Greetings to you all. I just stumbled across this post as I was searching for something else. I am pretty familiar with Piper's theology and perspectives (his and mine are very similar) and so I thought I might chime in here in hopes of bringing some clarity to the discussion.

First, while the quote from the Didache refers to a 'sacrifice' I see no reason to understand that as referring to the reenactment of the sacrifice of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. The sacrifice given on the Lord's day is a sacrifice of praise, not a bodily sacrifice.

Second, it is certain that one can vehemently insist on the Real Presence while avoiding the error of transubstantiation and a reenacted sacrifice. It is certain because countless protestants have done so, including Luther, Calvin, and yours truly. I don't know what Piper has to say about the Real Presence, nor am I familiar with Irenaeus's position (Luther would certainly agree with what you have excerpted here).

Ultimately, though, what the Didache and Irenaeus say must be measured against the Scriptures, which clearly teach (Hebrews 9-10) that Jesus' sacrifice was once for all. I venture to say that this is what Piper finds so repugnant about the Roman Catholic Mass. I fail to see how such a theology could possibly square with the theology of the writer of Hebrews. To teach that Jesus must be sacrificed afresh each Lord's Day is an affront to the sufficiency of His crosswork.


Soli Deo Gloria

--Stuart

First, you should take notice of the fact that Piper finds kneeling and kissing the table repugnant as well. This shows that he believes the idea of the real presence itself is part of the problem.

If Christ is really present in the Eucharist, then it is absurd to be offended by kneeling to Him. This suggests that he finds the Theology of the early reformers you mention to be repugnant as well. Really the theologies of Luther and Calvin are at least as compatible with Catholic theology as they are with most modern Protestant theology.

Now, Regarding the Didache, consider the following: "But every Lord's day... break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."First, I'll note that "Eucharist" translates into "thanksgiving," and in many ancient documents, this is what is meant when "thanksgiving" is used in certain contexts. It could easily mean this in this context, since the writer is talking about gathering together on Sunday, breaking bread, and offering a sacrifice. But since I assume you would interpret thanksgiving at face value, and no other Christian documents that use thanksgiving in this sense predate the Didache, I will not expect this to be considered solid proof.

Let's look at some related scriptures for a moment: In Matthew 5 our Lord says, "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

And in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul tells us, "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

Notice that these two Bible passages have many parallels with the passage in the Didache. I'll create a kind of list:

Didache:

1. Make confession of sins.

2. Make pure sacrifice.

3. Eat bread.

Matthew 5:
1. Seek Reconciliation before offering.

2. Bring sacrificial gift to altar.

1 Corintians 11:

1. Examine yourself.

2. Only partake of the cup if you can do so in a worthy manner.

3. Eat bread and drink wine.

The Didache is the only one that clearly contains all three of the elements I am tying together, but you can see a clearer picture by comparing these other passages. The Didache would have us make confession/reconciliation before making our sacrifice. And this sacrifice seems to be related to bread or "thanksgiving." If we interpret "thanksgiving" in the modern sense, I suppose we would be making a sacrifice of praise or prayer, not of physical gifts. If we interpret it to mean the Eucharist as Catholics understand it, then it ties more directly in with the breaking of bread.

In Matthew 5 we once again see reconciliation, but in this case it is related to the old covenant sacrifices at the temple. But most, if not all, of Christ's words recorded in scripture had some eternal purpose, not a purpose that was restricted to only one place and time. Thus, I would reason that Christ intended reconciliation to also precede some sort of new covenant sacrifice. What new covenant sacrifice is there other than Christ? The only other sacrifice we can offer is the sacrifice of ourselves, but we can sacrifice ourselves all we want without earning anything from God. The only sacrifice that earns salvation is Christ's sacrifice, so the only worthwhile thing we can offer to God is in fact God himself. This of course sounds silly to the non-Christian, but it isn't, for everything we have is from God. I am reminded of when my 2-year-old daughter shares her food with me. I am pleased with her for sharing, even though I provided her with that food in the first place.

Then, in 1 Corinthians 11, we see the repeated theme (admittedly from a different angle) of needing to be worthy (likely in part through confession/reconciliation) before participation in a religious ceremony. This time the word, "sacrifice" is not used, though this time we are told to "recognize the body of the Lord" in the bread and wine. Just before this (also in 1 Cor. 11) Paul writes, "'This [bread] is my body[...] This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Now, I remember hearing of a (notably atypical) Protestant fellow who was upset by this verse because it make is sound like Christ is still dead, and is not risen. It seems quite obvious he is missing the point of this verse. We do not proclaim that Christ is still dead during communion, rather we proclaim that he did at one point die. We proclaim this because his death was the sacrifice which gives us life. Without the crucifixion there is no resurrection.

So, putting this all together: communion is the body and blood of Christ which was given up for us, we proclaim his death when we partake of communion, his death was a sacrifice (his body and blood was given up) to God, we must partake of communion in a worthy manner, we must seek reconciliation before making a sacrifice or breaking bread together on the Lord's day.

With all this in view, if one believes in the real presence, I don't see how they can avoid seeing the Eucharist as a sacrifice. What is the bread and wine? The body and blood of Jesus which was given up for us. So the real presence is the presence of Christ's sacrifice (not to say that it is his sacrifice somehow disembodied from his actual being).

I can see how it would upset Protestants to think that we re-sacrifice Jesus every day, because that idea also upsets Catholics, and we don't believe it. We do not re-sacrifice him. Rather, we recall and make present his sacrifice today. It is not a new sacrifice. It is the one sacrifice of the cross. We must remember that in heaven Christ is not bound as he bound himself on Earth, he is not limited by space or time or the laws of physics. This is how we can make reconciliation before making our sacrifice to God as Christ instructed. On the cross Christ made his sacrifice available to all men throughout the ages, and that sacrifice makes itself present in the Eucharist. We offer this as a sacrifice to God because we know that only the sacrifice which he himself made can save us.

RSV Bible Concordance Review

Title: Catholic Bible Concordance: Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

Author: Compiled by C.W. Lyons with Thomas Deliduka

Publisher: Emmaus Road

Copyright Date: 2008

After initially writing a positive review of this book, I discovered that there was a significant section missing. On page 286 it jumps from "Chief" to "Commandments." That means the book is missing some fairly important words, including "Church" and "Children." A few examples of these word appear in the Appendix on page 2142, but these are just the instances unique to the Second Edition of the RSV-CE.

Since posting this review, I have been contacted by Emmaus Road, and informed that they are fixing the problem. For more information read the Addendum after the "Original Review" below.

Original Review:

This book is a perfect example of a concordance, so if you want a Catholic Bible concordance, buy this book. It is laid out well, and is an attractive reference book.

The only question is, do you want a Catholic concordance? This is, I suppose, two questions: Do you want you concordance to be Catholic? And do you want a concordance?

First, if you are Catholic, and you want a concordance, you should buy an RSV-CE Bible, and then buy this book, because a Protestant concordance will most likely be missing the deuterocanonical books.

Now, do you want a concordance? I will explain exactly what this book contains, and then you can decide for yourself if a concordance would be of use to you.

Put simply, this is an exhaustive index for the Bible. It lists every noun, adjective, verb and adverb in the Bible. For each word it gives you every chapter and verse where the word is used, and it gives you the immediate context.

I'll give you a sample entry:

WINNOWS (2)

Prov 20:8 the throne of judgement W all evil with his

20:26 A wise king W the wicked, and drives the

Pros: The book is beautifully laid out, comprehensive, and is an all-around high quality production. It makes the Bible quite a bit easier to search and to reference. If you want a Catholic Bible Concordance, this is pretty much your only current option, but it's good enough that you don't need another. If you can use a dictionary, you can use this book.

Cons: This book requires that you have some knowledge of the scriptures before you'll even know where to look (though playing around with this book and your Bible might be a good way to familiarize yourself with the scriptures). It can be difficult to think of all the words that might address the topic you're looking up. If you aren't familiar with the RSV-CE translation, you might run into some issues with knowing what exact words will be used in the verse you're looking for. This book is also a bit redundant for anyone who knows a website that lets you search through Bibles. I do want to point out, however, that these aren't flaws with the book itself, just issues which might make concordances in general less useful for some people.

Conclusion: I recommend this book for all who are interested. It only does one thing, but that's all it's supposed to do, and it does it well.

New Addendum: I have just been informed that the problem I discovered is in the process of being remedied. For those who bought a book with the error, Emmaus Road will be providing an insert with the missing section. It sounds like the unsold books will be having the error fixed by some other method. So, it's up to you, if you don't mind having an insert, don't worry about which copy you buy, but if you want a book that comes in one piece, you might want to check the book you're buying before the purchase. You can find out more at www.cufblog.org.

On Life

A quick quote, from a letter Cardinal Ratzinger sent American Bishops in 2004:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
"

Well, there you have it. We have been clearly told what our priorities should be in building a culture of life. We cannot pretend that all issues have equal weight, though we must of course seek to respect human life in all circumstances.

Read more here.

As Stewards of God's Gifts

I wrote the following as a comment on another comment on an article about the opposition between Socialism and Christianity. This is something I have pondered off and on, though my knowledge of economics is pretty limited, so I don't tend to take too strong a position on these matters.

This is one area where I think it may be right to behave one way in the political realm and another in the personal realm (though the law should support, rather than discourage the personal behavior).

Generally, I think it is best to vote like a capitalist, work like a capitalist, and live like a communist (by sharing what he has, not by thinking like an anti-Christian Marxist).

What I mean is that a free market is simply the most effective economic system, though it should be restrained by some degree of law, to avoid dangerous work conditions, for example.

But also, as Christians we must recognize that our wealth is given to us by God, not simply for our own good, but for the glory of God. Our wealth should thus be freely given to support the Church and to support the "widow and the orphan."

Of course, since it is to us that God has given the stewardship of these goods, it should be up to us how we use them, and it is not wrong to consider them our private property. We do have rights over what we have been given. But as stewards, we cannot imagine these gifts as being solely for our own pleasure.

God gives us graces so that we might pass them on. Then God will reward us with more abundant graces, though not necessarily of the same kind as those we passed on.

Now, this is one of those times when my advice is hard for me to follow, but with God, anything is possible. I must repeatedly remind myself:

"What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world..."

The "Question of Coercion"

I recently came across this challenge to the faith in an Amazon book review:

My belief in God, if not out of love or a want to establish a relationship with God, would be based on nothing more than coercion:

I want a pleasing and pain-free after life; I want to be as happy in the after-life as I am with life, but I don't have or have a desire for a relationship with God; therefore, I may be cast to hell (which, according to this book, I've created). If I want to be happy in the after-life, I need to establish a relationship with God. I don't want a relationship with God either because I don't believe one can exist or I don't believe a relationship with God is beneficial for either participant; however, I want to avoid discomfort and joylessness. I'll establish a relationship with God so I do not experience pain or joylessness.

Unless I missed it, Tim doesn't address this, and I think it's quite possibly the most difficult obstacle for any organized religion; I would like the author to address coercion without resorting to "you've misunderstood the point of God's love."

I would say that the first problem with this "question of coercion" is that it ignores what Christians believe heaven and hell are. Heaven is a place where we are happy because we are in a relationship with God; therefore, if we truly want to be in heaven, we want a relationship with God. Basically, what the one who asks this question wants is to have a part of something without having the whole. He wants to live in a man's house without asking that man if he can come in, and without acknowledging the man once he is inside. He wants love without a lover, a smile without a face. He is separating the inseparable.

The alternative, hell, is terrible because we are separated from God. That is why we go to hell. We didn't want God, so he let us be alone. But, since God is the source of all good, we are left with no good, and thus no joy. This is a deranged choice, but we men make deranged choices all the time.

We cannot separate cause and effect. I cannot ask for sunlight, but without the sun. I think we all ask for such absurdities sometimes, and that is more-or-less the definition of sin. We want to live on a diet of candy, but without gaining weight, rotting our teeth, and having stomachaches. We want to walk through fire without being burned, but burning is inherent with fire.

Truly Present? Physically Present?

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist confusing. Surely that is what drove Martin Luther to discard transubstantiation (the bread becomes the body) and replace it with consubstantiation (the body becomes present "with" the bread). This is also probably much of what led most other Protestants to drop the doctrine of the Real Presence altogether.

Now I find myself learning that I'm slightly more confused about the idea than I thought I was.

Apparently, "Catholic Church teaching does not teach that Christ is present in the Eucharist 'physically'; rather it teaches that Christ is present within the appearance of bread and wine, 'truly, really, and substantially.'"

This got me thinking. I wonder if the Church has not yet decided whether it would be correct to say Christ was "physically" present, or if it has decided that it is incorrect to say he is "physically" present. Further, I suppose I do not know exactly how Catholic philosophy defines "physical."

Still, I'll take the step of pondering what little I do know, in the hope we learn something, and also hoping that we will read more about this before letting ourselves be misled by my thoughts on the matter.

Christ is present under the appearance of bread and wine. We know this "appearance" extends beyond just the visual, and into all other senses and scientific measures. Now, is "apparently," in this case, the same as "physically?"It is possible (from the little I know) that they mean the same thing, but have different connotations. If the Church was to say, for example, "Christ is not physically present," would the problem be that we would misunderstand this to mean he wasn't "really" present? Or would the problem be that it isn't true, because he is, in a sense "physically" present? Or perhaps, is there a third option? Is it both incorrect to say he is not "physically" present, but it is also incorrect to say he is "physically" present?

Now, since I cannot yet answer these questions, I will try an illustration of what it might look like if "physically" and "apparently" are synonymous in this situation.

In the Old Testament, angels often took the form of men, and interacted with humans (which they may still do today). In some cases the angels physically interacted with the world and even ate food. So, like the Eucharist, these angels did not just appear as men visually, but appeared as men to all the senses. Still, what were they? They were not "really" men, though they could be called "men" just as statues of men might be called "men." They were "really, truly, and substantially" angels. But physically, are they men, or are they angels? It seems that "physically" they were men, though "really" they were angels. Of course, this leads us back to the same problem.

But either way we define the physical (as just the apparent, scientifically testable aspect of a thing, or as something more), I think the angel illustration does help me to better understand the Eucharist, and how it can fully appear to be one thing while being "really, truly, and substantially" another.

Edit: Okay, I should have read a few more issues. See the following [from This Rock]:

In Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI says, "To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. . . . [After the consecration] nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in his physical ‘reality,’ corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place"

Not that this completely answers my question, since if we defined physical as I did above, it would be "in the manner in which bodies are in a place." So it still seems to depend on the definition of physical.

Also, being that the Eucharist "constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind," I suppose the comparison with angels might be helpful, but not entirely equivalent.

According to Fr. J. Michael Venditti: "Yes, he is really, physically present, as really present as you are to those around you, though present in a different way--present sacramentally rather than in the normal physical way."

So he is "physically present," but not in the, "normal physical way." Yep, this is going to stay confusing. I can only figure that this means that he is physically present in a unique way, which has no correspondence outside the Eucharist. Thus, any word, such as "physical," that we use will mean something somewhat different than usual when applied to the Eucharist.

I guess this is similar to using words that describe God. If we call God "beautiful," he transcends the normal sense of the word, and at the same time, our normal understanding -- a visual beauty-- doesn't really apply. God is immaterial, and thus not visible to the eyes, yet he is the source of all beauty and infinitely beautiful.