Wednesday, March 19, 2014

MORE OF KIKO'S THEOLOGY OF THE EUCHARIST

Again, we are learning much from Zoltan about what is taught in the Neocatechumenal Way. 

Zoltan March 18, 2014 at 3:51 PM  As I said repeatedly, I do not represent anyone beyond myself. Please, do respect what I am saying. Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is a mystery. The most beautiful mystery of our faith. This is the teaching of the Church. This presence is the same, the presence of the Lord Jesus, in the communities and in the Church itself. How could this be a different presence if the Lord is One? (Shema, Israel...) 
First, we must address Zoltan's concern that we are misrepresenting his comments as representing "anyone beyond" himself. We find this hard to do because not only does he speak generally for the Neocatechumenal Way, he also presumes to speak for the whole Church, saying: "This is the teaching of the Church." He doesn't say "This is my understanding of the teaching of the Church." He doesn't say "This is my opinion of what I believe the Church teaches." No. He says firmly: "THIS is the teaching of the Church." Period. No if, ands, or buts!

So Zoltan, there isn't much else we can do with that. However, it wouldn't matter if you tried to express this more as a personal opinion. We already know that your understanding of the Eucharist is what Kiko teaches. You are just confirming it. 

We know this because of how the neo communities treat the consecrated host, which is why the manner in which it is distributed and received in your communities has ALWAYS been the issue. It has ALWAYS been the issue because Lex orandi, lex credendi: the law of prayer is the law of belief. Or in short, the way you handle the host tells us what you believe, or more precisely what Kiko teaches. And what he teaches is the Lutheran belief in consubstantiation: that the Lord is present "mysteriously"in the bread and wine the same as he is present in the community. This is why your "eucharist" more resembles a protestant communion service than the Catholic Mass. And the idea that Jesus is no more uniquely present in the Sacred Species than he is in the community because "the Lord is one" is one of Kiko's most protestant teachings. And we come to that in your next comment:
Zoltan March 18, 2014 at 11:07 PM About the mystical presence of the Lord in the Eucharist: 
1386 In the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom the faithful pray in the same spirit: "O Son of God, bring me into communion today with your mystical supper."
About the unity of the Mystical Body: 
1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church. (...) "If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord."
(The Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Again, Zoltan, this is not your fault. You are simply showing that you are a good student of the Neocatechumenal Way which uses Kiko's catechism via your catechist and not the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And your attempt to quote the Catechism here to document the Neo belief that Christ is equally present in both the Eucharistic Species and in the community is evidence of 1) you are unfamiliar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and 2) when it is used, it is used badly, if not heretically.

For here, Zoltan, you reference the section of the Catechism which speaks of the "Mystical Body of Christ", whereas we were speaking of the REAL Body of Christ, which is spoken of several paragraphs perviously. Zoltan, the REAL presence is NOT the same as the MYSTICAL presence. Here is the relevant section of the Catechism (emphases mine):
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.""This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."
I know you are going to say that the fact that the rest of the Church (outside the Neocatechumenal Way) believes that there is a difference between the REAL presence of Christ in the consecrated species and his MYSTICAL presence in the community is just a matter or "our interpretation". I know this because you have previously confirmed that Church documents are only "guides", and subject to interpretation. In fact, we are even told that Msgr. David C. Quitugua has confirmed this view. But, well, you'll have to forgive us our inability to "interpret". We do not have such an enlightened leader as Kiko. We are stuck with the likes of mere midgets like John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis, and we are struggling along the best we can. 

We simply do not know how to "reinterpret" phrases like "Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique", or "the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." We just find it tough to make them mean anything other than what they say, especially since this has been the constant teaching of the Church since Christ said "This is my Body, this is my Blood.

You see, Zoltan, the Catholic Church that the rest of us belong to teaches that while Christ is MYSTICALLY PRESENT in the members of the Church, he is REALLY present in the Eucharistic species, the consecrated bread and wine. Christ may dwell in us, but our body and blood do not become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ himself. That's why his indwelling in the Church is called MYSTICAL and his presence in the consecrated bread and wine is called REAL. 

But in order to facilitate Kiko's vision of the Church, a Church that will one day have no need of priests (which is why he has already changed the language - presbyters"), you have to be taught that Jesus is NOT uniquely present in the Eucharistic species. You must be taught this because the unique presence would require a unique act (consecration), and that unique act would require a unique person authorized to conduct that act (priest). 

Thus Kiko is doing exactly what Luther did. To get rid of priests, bishops, and even the pope, Luther first had to deconstruct the Eucharist. He did this first by inventing the idea that you propagate here: consubstantiation - the idea that Jesus is NOT REALLY present in the Eucharistic species. And then you know what Luther did next Zoltan? He got rid of altars and replaced them with tables. Altars require priests. Tables don't. But more on that later. 

Thank you again for all these insights. The errors being taught are not your fault. But they are the bishop's.

P.S. Kind of wondering if all this isn't driven by the fact that Kiko resents the priesthood. Maybe he got kicked out of a seminary or something. Or maybe it's Carmen. Maybe it's the whole woman priest thing. Hmmm. 


Recommendations by JungleWatch