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. 



Recommendations by JungleWatch