Wednesday, March 19, 2014


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. 


  1. Pope Paul VI, Mysterium fidei (1965):

    Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called "transignification" and "transfinalization," ...

    This presence is called "real"—by which it is not intended to exclude all 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, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present.

  2. Zoltan is a professor of mathematics. He is highly intelligent and nuance, abstractions and philosophical categories do not escape him. Very little goes "over his head". That's why we can trust that what he says is what he was taught.

  3. I said Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is a mystery. It is true, it is the teaching of the Church. St. John Chrysostom tell us to pray: "O Son of God, bring me into communion today with your mystical supper." (1386)

    I also said Jesus is present in the Eucharist in a real sense. The Catechism adds "which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too". (1374) Luther and the protestants talk about symbolic presence only and not real presence.

    The uniqueness of the presence in the Eucharist is unique among the sacraments. That is what 1374 says.

    This presence of the Lord extends to the communities and to the Church proper through the Mystical Body (1396). We are members of the Mystical Body and experience the same Lord, who is One.

    "If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord." (1396) The table of the Lord is the Eucharistic table.

    So what are you talking about?

    1. Zoltan, why are you posting on junglewatch? They're not interested in knowing about the Way.

    2. Every comment like yours gives us even much more information as to why we question your Way and the grasp it has on the Archbishop. Thank you, anon at 10:50am.

    3. As per 10:50AM, it appears the neo camp is getting worried about Zoltan's leaving the cage.

    4. At 10:50 AM. You are wrong. We are VERY INTERESTED in "knowing about the Way." Why hide? Tell us more. In fact, the truth has proved far more intriguing than the hearsay and scandals.

  4. Please, do not misconstrue what I am saying. If you do not agree with what the Church and the Catechism teaches, then please, point out which part you have your disagreement with. Thanks.

  5. This is what the GIRM says:

    Christ Himself Is Present in the Eucharistic Species

    8. Christ is "truly, really, and substantially contained"18 in Holy Communion. His presence is not momentary nor simply signified, but wholly and permanently real under each of the consecrated species of bread and wine.19

    9. The Council of Trent teaches that "the true body and blood of our Lord, together with his soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine. His body exists under the species of bread and his blood under the species of wine, according to the import of his words."20

    10. The Church also teaches and believes that "immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and his true blood exist along with his soul and divinity under the form of bread and wine. The body is present under the form of bread and the blood under the form of wine, by virtue of the words [of Christ]. The same body, however, is under the form of wine and the blood under the form of bread, and the soul under either form, by virtue of the natural link and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead and will die no more, are mutually united."21

    1. Which version are you using. Using your par numbers. Here is what the current GIRM says:

      8. Today, however, innumerable writings of scholars have shed light on the "norm of the holy Fathers," which the revisers of the Missal of St. Pius V assiduously followed. For following the first publication in 1571 of the Sacramentary called the Gregorian, critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian Sacramentaries were disseminated, often in printed form, as were ancient Hispanic and Gallican liturgical books; these editions brought to light numerous prayers of no slight spiritual value but previously unknown.

      In the same way, traditions of the first centuries, before the rites of East and West were formed, are now better known because of the discovery of so many liturgical documents.

      Furthermore, continuing progress in the study of the holy Fathers has also shed upon the theology of the mystery of the Eucharist the light brought by the doctrine of such illustrious Fathers of Christian antiquity as St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. John Chrysostom.

      9. Hence, the "norm of the holy Fathers" requires not only the preservation of what our immediate forebears have handed on to us, but also an understanding and a more profound pondering of the Church's entire past ages and of all the ways in which her one faith has been expressed in forms of human and social culture so greatly differing among themselves, indeed, as those prevailing in the Semitic, Greek, and Latin regions. Moreover, this broader view allows us to see how the Holy Spirit endows the People of God with a marvelous fidelity in preserving the unalterable deposit of faith, even though there is a very great variety of prayers and rites.

      Accommodation to New Conditions

      10. Hence, the new Missal, while bearing witness to the Roman Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi), also safeguards the deposit of faith handed down by the more recent Councils and marks in its turn a step of great importance in liturgical tradition.

      For, when the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the dogmatic pronouncements of the Council of Trent, they spoke at a far different time in world history, and, for that reason, were able to bring forward proposals and measures regarding pastoral life that could not have even been foreseen four centuries earlier.

  6. Zoltan you need to go to a Jesuit priest and ask for help. Posting your comments on this format will not help you mature. Many have offered to help you meet with you . But you seem just to want to send comments. It is a waste of your time. Please allow people to help you understand the truth of our faith.