Monday, March 13, 2017

Bill Schutt COMPLETELY WRONG about Catholic Church

Bill Schutt is a professor of Biology Professor at Long Island University. He wrote a book about cannibalism where he says it's perfectly natural. But he doesn't seem to have the first clue what he's talking about when it comes to the Catholic Church.

He was being interviewed tonight, March 13, 2017 on The Current by Anna Maria Tremonti of CBC News. The anti-Catholic bigotry was overt.

He makes one gaffe after another and is completely wrong. I would seriously question anything this man says. If we are to judge the validity of his claims based on how bad he represents historical Catholicism, then his works are worth the paper they're written on.

Let's go claim by claim from the radio interview:

Schutt: Well, mainly because for nearly 400 years, starting in the 13th century, once Pope Innocent the Third proclaimed that the host was the actual body of Jesus Christ that was being consumed.

??? So he pinpointed Pope Innocent III as the originator of the idea of Transubstantiation??

Ok, let's look at references:
St. Iraenus of Lyon said the following a few decades after Jesus Christ:
"[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."

For dozens more references which date to the first and second century, visit this link.

Jesus himself said the bread and wine are true flesh and true blood. This is a constant teaching of the Church from the very beginning. At best what Bill Schutt is doing here is an amateur move where they see an official pronouncement (done because the doctrine is being denied by heretics) from the pope as the beginning of that belief. This is complete nonsense. The belief existed, and was dogma. It had to be officially defined in a particular way in response to heresies. You'd have to be a first year student to make that mistake.

Even Wikipedia points out that belief in the Real Presence, i.e. that Jesus Christ is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist, dates back to the earliest days of Christianity.

The interviewer, Anna Maria Tremonti, who is equally uninformed then pipes up and says "I mean it is true in the Catholic doctrine. It's the body and blood of Christ. The wine is supposed to be the blood. Yeah."

To which Bill Schutt replies: "Absolutely."

No Bill and Anna, ABSOLUTELY WRONG. The bread AND the wine BOTH become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. The wine doesn't only become the blood and the bread only become the body. Anyone with the most cursory understanding of Catholicism would know this. It's the most basic information.

Bill also mentions that many of his so-called good Catholic friends don't "really" believe in the Real Presence, but rather they do a sort of "wink wink nudge nudge" about it and really believe that it's just a symbol. Sorry BILL, those aren't good Catholics, they are bad, informed, uncatechised friends. They ought to know better. If you do not believe in the Real Presence, you should not partake in communion. Real Catholics believe in the Eucharist and that it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

I find it pathetic that CBC would interview people on a subject which they know nothing about. In fact, Catholicism is the only area where this is deemed acceptable. You wouldn't have someone who knows nothing about baseball doing the color commentary for baseball games. Yet, no one bats an eye when someone whose understanding of Catholicism is less than that of a 5 year old presumes to speak for all Catholics. It's truly pathetic. I can GUARANTEE you, CBC would never have anyone misrepresenting or mocking Islam. They would only hire Islamic experts and apologists.

Our tax dollars are once again being completely wasted on these programs which are spouting countless lies to attack the faith of millions. CBC should be ashamed of themselves.

3 comments:

  1. Bill teaches at Long Island University.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did they even have a host a few decades after Christ? Is this the only thing you focused on? I'm sure he had other interesting facts to talk about. Sorry you were offended. I didn't think he was attacking the Catholic church. You on the other hand were very obnoxious in your derogatory comments about Mr. Schutt. Thanks for listening to The Current.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Catholic Crusader,

    Five hundred years ago in 1517, Martin Luther made public his 95 complaints against the Roman Catholic church (hereafter, RCC). Today, we shall do likewise, with another 95 reasons. However, in this critique, we will exclusively fixate on the nucleus of all Catholic doctrine called, Transubstantiation. This teaching is built on the premise that when the priest utters “This is my body” over bread and wine that the “combustible” syllables of these four words ignite with such power and energy that, unbeknownst to our cognizant senses, the substance of bread and wine miraculously change (“by the force of the words” says the Council of Trent; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1375). They are then abruptly replaced with something else entirely; namely, the very body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ in some mysterious form which leaves only the outward appearance of bread and wine (i.e., the color, shape, size, taste, weight and texture -- or "accidental" properties, remain unchanged in objective reality). It is claimed that the supernatural power that creates this miracle on a daily basis, 24 hours a day in Masses worldwide, “is the same power of Almighty God that created the whole universe out of nothing at the beginning of time” (Mysterium Fidei, 47). The question is: does the sacred rhetoric of Jesus lead us to conclude He intended it be recited like a magician recites his incantations? (Reason 6, 74). That at the recitation of these four words, the world is obligated to be transfixed on Transubstantiation???

    We should think that a rollercoaster of 95 reasons against this doctrine should at least pique your curiosity, let alone make you wonder if, like the calmness of a ferris wheel, you can so calmly refute them. The issue is far from inconsequential, since it’s claimed our very eternal destinies are at stake. So while sensitive to the fact that many are captivated by this doctrine, we are persuaded that the theological framework of the Bible conveys a persistent and vigorous opposition to this theory. God's word tells us to, "study to show yourself approved" (2 Tim 2:15) and we have indeed done just that.

    The almost “romantic fidelity” to Transubstantiation springs forth from the opinion that consuming the “organic and substantial” body of Christ in the Eucharist is necessary for salvation (CCC 1129 & 1355; Trent, "Concerning Communion", ch. 1 and “Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch. 3; Canon 1; Mysterium Fidei, intro). Our burden here is to safeguard the gospel (Jude 1:3). If a religious system professing to be Christian is going to demand that something be done as a prerequisite for eternal life, it is vital to scrutinize this claim under the searchlight of Scripture and with “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). Proverbs 25:2 says, "the honor of a king is to search out a matter". We shall do likewise.

    Determined to test all things by Holy Writ (1 Thess 5:21; Acts 17:11, 2 Cor 10:5), the following 95 reasons have been compiled to an extravagant length to provoke you to consider the cognitive complexities of this doctrine which we conclude are biblically unbearable. We are so convinced the Bible builds a concrete case against this superstition, that we will not allow the things we have in common to suppress the more urgent need to confront the differences that divide us, such as Transubstantiation. We are told this issue directly impacts our eternal destiny, so it must not be ignored. The Lord Jesus came to divide and conquer by the truth of His word. He said, "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division" (Luke 12:51-53).


    For the full essay of 95 reasons, kindly e-mail me at
    Eucharistangel@aol.com

    ReplyDelete