Wednesday, March 19, 2014

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Zoltan says:
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. 
Dear Zoltan, 

As you are quite aware, and as everyone can see, I post your comments verbatim and I link back to the original comment - when I use your comments in a post as I am now -  so that readers can verify that I am only posting what you yourself wrote on this blog. 

So I can hardly be seen as misconstruing what you are saying. I allow you to have your full say and then I follow it with my disagreement which is always thoroughly documented. Even if I am wrong, I am fully within my rights to be wrong, and you are welcome to disagree with me in turn. However, you are not welcome to accuse me of misconstruing what you say and not offering a documented disagreement. That's just grasping on your part.  

I really have a hard time just writing you off as ignorant so I am trying to give you some benefit of the doubt here. But you are making it increasingly difficult for me, especially with this comment. If I have done anything on this blog, I have from the very beginning, thoroughly and consistently pointed out where I disagree and documented that disagreement not with my interpretation or with some jump to a new definition but with the plain and clear teaching of the Church backed up not only by documents but by the actual practice of the Catholic Church.

One case in point is the manner in which 99.9% of the Church understands the instruction in the GIRM (161) to consume the host "as soon as" it is received (in one's hand). As you can see at any Mass (I encourage you to come to one), the communicant, if receiving in the hand, while still standing in front of the minister of Holy Communion, takes the host that was placed in his or her hand, and places it IMMEDIATELY in his or her mouth. 

This is how 99.9% of the Church "interprets" the words "as soon as" in the GIRM par. 161. However, the 0.1%, the neocats, "interpret" "as soon as" to mean "as soon as the whole community has received and after the priest has signaled the community to consume." Yet, you have told us that the burden of proof is on the 99.9% of the Church to prove that our "interpretation" of GIRM 161 is the right interpretation, even though we DO NOT INTERPRET at all, we simply obey because the operative word in General Instruction to the Roman Missal is INSTRUCTION. 

Seriously Zoltan, you are not only causing us to question the Neocatechumenal Way - in which many other fine minds appear to have turned to mush - but the management capabilities of your department head at the University of Guam relative to his/her allowing the word "professor" to be attached to your name. 

But, hey, as long as we're at it, let's deal with your other recent comment. Again, I allow you to have your full say first:
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? 
Since your comment is long, I am going to copy it here with my comments inserted. Do not complain about my comments or "having the last word" because you have challenged me with the words: "So what are you talking about?" So I'm going to tell you.
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) 
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, theologians "give the name mystery to revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural reason." We admit that just exactly how mere bread and wine is transformed into the ACTUAL Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is something that surpasses "the powers of natural reason." Thus the reference to the "mystical supper". 

We don't know how it happens. But we do know THAT it happens. And thus, what is before us, upon the words of consecration, is not the "mystical" presence of Christ - that would be the presence of Christ already present in the priests and people - but the ACTUAL, SUBSTANTIVE presence of Christ, which is uniquely different than his mystical presence. 

You see, Zoltan, the key problem you presented us is that you said that Christ is present in the Eucharistic species in the same manner that he is present in the community and the Church (interesting that you divide up community and Church). He is not.
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.
A couple things here, Zoltan. Perhaps we are dealing with the limitations of the English language. We do not deny that Christ is "really" present in the community. The Church affirms that he is "really" present in the community but "mystically", NOT substantively.

This word "substance" is probably at the root of things. For years we said in the Creed: "one in being with the Father". This was a horrible translation that never should have been approved. But (hint) popes makes mistakes that other popes fix. And finally, at the order of John Paul II (Liturgican Authenticum) it was fixed to say what it had always said "consubstantialem Patri": consubstantial with the Father (of the same SUBSTANCE of the Father.)

Let's go a bit further. Assuming you are in a state of grace, Christ is with you, "really", right now. But he is not with you in the Flesh. He is ONLY with us in the Flesh in the Eucharistic species. I'm not sure I can explain it any further.

Now, let's go on to Luther. If you have a source for Luther saying that Christ's presence in the eucharistic species is only "symbolic", please provide it. Otherwise, I would recommend you read Article 10 of the Augsburg Confession wherein he defines the "Sacramental Union". In fact, I erred earlier in referring to it as "consubstantiation", which is a more common term used by others but not by Luther. Here is what Luther teaches: 
Jesus Christ is "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of the consecrated bread and wine, so that communicants orally eat and drink the holy body and blood of Christ Himself as well as the bread and wine.
That doesn't sound "symbolic" to me. That sounds exactly like what you said earlier when you posted:
"Kiko has an excellent explanation as of what happens when the bread turns into the Body. In fact, the texture of the bread remains bread and the make-up of the wine remains wine. But the Body of Jesus will appear mysteriously in it in a real sense." (emphases mine)
As you can see, Zoltan, what Kiko teaches is exactly what Luther teaches: that Jesus Christ "appears in it". The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach that Jesus Christ appears "in it". The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine BECOME HIM! Become Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. 

At the words of consecration in a Catholic Mass (again, I invite you to attend one), Jesus Christ becomes uniquely present under the form of bread and wine, in a way that is wholly different and separate from his mystical presence in the community or in the proclamation of the Word. 

I refuse to believe that a man of your learning is just getting this wrong. I completely believe that you are telling the truth when you say that this is Kiko's explanation. Again, we know that. We just wonder WHAT YOU ARE DOING subjecting yourself to Kiko's explanation when you have the Church? But then that IS the problem, isn't it?
The uniqueness of the presence in the Eucharist is unique among the sacraments. That is what 1374 says. 
Yes. That is what we are saying: "Unique" means "different than", "separate from", "not the same as". Yet you say that the Eucharistic presence is the same presence that is present in the community. So I'm beginning to wonder if you are not trying to use on me the same form of mind control common to enigmatic personalities like Kiko, wherein listeners are beat into submission by a long string of mind-numbing incoherent dichotomous absurdities. I can describe your hypotheses no other way!
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? 
So now you are going to the explanation of how the Eucharistic presence (more precisely the presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the consecrated bread and wine) "extends" to the "Mystical Body". The key word, Zoltan" is "extends". The Mystical Body is NOT the ACTUAL, SUBSTANTIAL Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Thus He is NOT present in the community in the same way as he is in the Sacred Species as you and Kiko claim. 

And THAT is what I'm talking about

PLEASE find a priest who is not in the Neo and ask him the same questions you have asked me. Try Fr. Paul. 



17 comments:

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

    This is incorrect. 1374 says that the "mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique" (in comparison to the other "modes" as mentioned in 1373).

    1374 then goes on to add that this presence, as well as being unique in mode, elevates the Eucharistic sacrament above the other sacraments.

    Zoltans error here is to conflate the "mode of presence" with its effect to elevate the sacrament. He seeks (unsuccessfully) to diminish the "uniqueness" of the presence by restricting it to a comparison of the sacraments only, not those modes of presence previously mentioned in 1373.

    Forgive me, but all these arguments advanced by Zoltan et al appear to be like those given by little children, trying to "get away with it". Spurious, semantic and mischievous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No forgiveness needed. You are right on. The real trouble is that the Archbishop is providing for, protecting, and inviting, this attack on the Catholic Faith, and demanding that we fund it.

      Delete
  2. I am posting here in behalf of Zoltan. I am not allowing his comment to be published in the usual way as he included a link to his own blog. Unless you want to pay me, there is no free advertising on this blog. Here is what he said:

    I think I talked very clearly. I will pray that those who are genuinely interested, may have a grasp in understanding.

    The Neocatechumenal Way is a flagship of the Catholic Church. I found that people here at JungleWatch are not truly interested in learning about the Way. So I am not going to post here at least until the Vigil night. May the Resurrection of our Lord bring you a renewal of your hearts and minds so you might become open and receptive to the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So sorry to see you go, Zoltan. There is no need to come back. You are right. You "talked very clearly." It does sound like you got spanked though. Enjoy life on your flagship, i.e. "the Good Ship Lollipop." We are just fine here in the bark of Peter.

      Delete
    2. He is mistaken in thinking we were not interested in learning about the Way. Zoltan provided much information to validate many of the concerns of neo practices voiced on this blog. I certainly learned a lot, especially in the revelations of the comments submitted by himself and Diana.

      With every one of his protests, I think Zoltan exhibited less interest in remaining with the teaching of the magisterium and portrayed a position more enamored to the authority of his neo catechists. That many of the neo followers hold Kiko's authority in a larger regard than that of our Church, and that our Archbishop allows it to perpetuate is the most concerning.

      Delete
    3. I find the silence of the Archbishop and his refusal to respond to Tim's letter to be not only a most grievous matter and concern, but especially a most serious negligence and disregard of his spiritual responsibility to the Catholic congregation to clarify questions and certain incongruencies which have arisen and have been asked about our Faith, causing deep division and disharmony within our Catholic Church on Guam!

      Delete
    4. He is never going to respond to me, however, he might respond to you. He needs to receive many letters, not just mine. This is everyone's concern.

      Delete
    5. Janet B - MangilaoMarch 20, 2014 at 6:57 PM

      Three moons ago I challenged the Archbishop in this blog to explain to the Catholic faithful that we may learn. Many others have as well. I used to respect him as our spiritual leader, but he is no longer that. I used to address him as Archbishop, but he is no longer that to our people. I try not to be too disrespectful, but I will remain firm. I call him Tony because that is who he was baptized as. If he wants his title back he is going to have to fulfill the responsibilities that go along with it.
      Until then he is just Tony.
      RESPONDING AND BEING OPEN TO HEARING OUR HURTS AND STRUGGLES WOULD GO A LONG WAY IN FULFILLING HIS DUTIES.
      In the great words of that special extra-terrestrial:
      TONY PHONE HOME!

      Delete
    6. Janet agree with you. No longer respect the archbishop he has no values, no character.

      Delete
  3. If I remember correctly was not in late December that zoltan informed readers of junglewatch that he was leaving this page and not returning. Then he returned early march. May the administrator inform me if my memory serves me correctly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Anonymous (March 19, 2014 at 11:43 PM), prior to his series of posts in March, Zoltan broke his New Years Resolution once in early February after Tim posted about the message of Pope Francis to the NeoCats.

      It was at that point that Zoltan posted "If you truly want to read what Pope Francis said …" and provided a link to the blog by "Diana," with whom he appears to have a symbiotic relationship. After that he stayed away … until his March Mumbo-Jumbo Marathon.

      I hope he will be able to maintain his self-imposed Lenten fast/abstinence from the Jungle until Vigil night … BUT if he's hoping that the hearts and minds of Non-NeoCats will become open and receptive to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, maybe he should stay away until PENTECOST!

      Delete
  4. The archbishop was asking the help of kiko and Carmen to assist him with pushing through the congregation faster the case with fr. Paul. The archbishop has informed several people he needs to win the case to keep his authority over the priests of Guam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kindly request the person above to graciously send a letter to archbishop Martin Krebs informing him of exactly how you are aware of this information. Sincerely.

      Delete
  5. Tony, pius, and the other two in all honesty have caused such great division on Guam, it's very difficult to feel sorry for any of them. They have caused a lot of pain to us to be honest. But I will pray for father pius .

    ReplyDelete
  6. I learned two more words concerning the way, aside from SILENCE, LISTEN, OBEY, and DONT QUESTION there is We are TOLD and we are INSTRUCTED.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bruce Williams & FamilyMarch 24, 2014 at 9:49 PM

    We must pray for the Archbishop's soul and the souls that he leads away from the ONE TRUE CHURCH. By the authority of his office, he is entrusted with the eternal salvation of the souls in the diocese. Please repeat the prayer of consecration to Our Blessed Mother, Who begs us to pray for Her priest, who, when they fall, will take many souls with them. (Fr. Gobbi- To the Priest, Our Lady's Beloved Sons)

    Act of Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
    (For Religious & Laity)

    Virgin of Fatima, Mother of Mercy, Queen of Heaven and Earth, Refuge of Sinners, we who belong to the Marian Movement of Priests consecrate ourselves in a very special way to your Immaculate Heart.

    By this act of consecration we intend to live, with you and through you, all the obligations assumed by our baptismal consecration. We further pledge to bring about in ourselves that interior conversion so urgently demanded by the Gospel, a conversion that will free us of every attachment to ourselves and to easy compromises with the world so that, like you, we may be available only to do always the Will of the Father.

    And as we resolve to entrust to you, O Mother most sweet and merciful, our life and vocation as Christians, that you may dispose of it according to your designs of salvation in this hour of decision that weighs upon the world, we pledge to live it according to your desires, especially as it pertains to a renewed spirit of prayer and penance, the fervent participation in the celebration of the Eucharist and in the works of the apostolate, the daily recitation of the holy rosary, and an austere manner of life in keeping with the Gospel, that shall be to all a good example of the observance of the Law of God and the practice of the Christian virtues, especially that of purity.

    We further promise you to be united with the Holy Father, with the hierarchy and with our priests, in order thus to set up a barrier to the growing confrontation directed against the Magisterium, that threatens the very foundation of the Church.
    Under your protection, we want moreover to be apostles of this sorely needed unity of prayer and love for the Pope, on whom we invoke your special protection. And lastly, insofar as is possible, we promise to lead those souls with whom we come in contact to a renewed devotion to you.

    Mindful that atheism has caused shipwreck in the faith to a great number of the faithful, that desecration has entered into the holy temple of God, and that evil and sin are spreading more and more throughout the world, we make so bold as to lift our eyes trustingly to you, O Mother of Jesus and our merciful and powerful Mother, and we invoke again today and await from you the salvation of all your children, O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
    (with ecclesiastical approval)


    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch