Sunday, September 21, 2014

DO THEY BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE?



Tim, I am confused. Recently I saw Msgr. Bibi and told him I've heard that the NCW members do not believe in the Real Presence. He emphatically insisted they do. Other NCW members have insisted that they believe in the Real Presence also. Do they believe in the Real Presence in a different way than the rest of us?
Actually, your question sounds like a set up. Nevertheless, I'll take the challenge.

First I would ask Msgr. Bibi how he knows. Is it because he simply believes they do? Is it because a catechist told him so? Does Msgr. Bibi have a copy of Kiko's 13 volume Catechetical Directory so he can check? 


Of course, as the pastor of the parish wherein the Neo's have had communities for many years, nothing should be taught in the name of the Catholic Church that the pastor is not completely aware of, so he should in fact have a copy of Kiko's catechism. 

So ask him to see it and point out where it teaches, as our own Catechism does, that at the point of consecration, the bread and wine become the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. 

Unfortunately, Msgr. Bibi will most likely not be able to show you. And this is a major part of the problem. Kiko's catechism is reserved only for the catechists to see. Pastors do not qualify, unless of course they are full-fledge Neo's and catechists themselves. 

This is a very grave situation for a pastor. He is ultimately responsible before God for the eternal well-being of the souls in his parish, souls who are entrusted to his care. People attend the catechesis or join the communities because they are presented under the auspices of the parish which by extension incurs the de facto nihil obstat of the pastor. 

In short, people are led to believe they can trust the catechists and all that they teach because they FIRST trust the pastor who has presented and sponsored them. However, we can be sure that most pastors who sponsor the Neocatechumenal Way in their parishes DO NOT have access to Kiko's catechetical directory and thus do not fully know what is being taught. In fact, pastors are made to join communities as ordinary members (like the Archbishop has) and to sit at the feet of the catechists. 

This situation is not just severely disturbing, it is a grave danger for the pastors who both allow and submit to this. On Guam, the problem is magnified because of the Archbishop's complete seduction into the Neocatechumenal Way and his obvious willingness to put an "arduous and painful end" to the assignment of any priest who even questions it. 

Because we do not have access to Kiko's teachings in writing, and because we don't have thirty years to hang around and find out, we are left to surmise what is taught by what the members tell us and show us. 

In the matter of the Real Presence, we can be sure they do not believe the same thing we do because the do not DO the same thing we do. They sit to consume. We stand or kneel. And they do this despite the constant direction from Rome not to, a direction that is included in their statute, specifically in footnote 49. 

There is a theological reason why they sit, and it is Kiko's theological reason. We find it in his January 17, 2006 response to Pope Benedict wherein he refused to conform his manner of receiving communion to the liturgical books as Benedict had required:
...that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and not only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and comes to serve them...
Kiko is a wordsmith and he has a lot of practice in making things sound legit, so one might wonder what is wrong with the lofty sounding language. Here's the short course. The "eschatological banquet" is the "Wedding Feast of the Lamb". It is heaven at the end of time. In heaven at the end of time, Christ will no longer be present under the appearances of bread and wine because he will be present to us REALLY. (Apologies to the theologians out there. This is an extreme abbreviation.)

So for Kiko, Christ is not SUBSTANTIALLY present under the appearances of bread and wine because his "eucharist" is already a participation in the eschatological banquet wherein Christ comes to serve him.

But of course we are neither in heaven nor are we at the end of time. This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks only of the "eschatological character" of the the sacraments (2776), and of how the Kingdom of God which has come in the person of Christ must grow "mysteriously in the hearts of those incorporated into him, until its full eschatological manifestation (865). And paragraph 1090 speaks specifically to the eschatological anticipation inherent in the Mass.

This is why in our Mass we do not presume to sit and be waited on by the Lord. Rather we approach the Lord in fear and trembling (at least we should) to receive him Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. And even though the Church permits us to receive him standing and in the hand, Paul VI, the pope who gave the permission in Memoriale Domini, despaired that reverence for the Eucharist would be lost if we did so. (And how much more so if we sit!)

And then we must also ask the Neo's what they mean by the Real Presence. For us of course, the Real Presence means that Jesus Christ is SUBSTANTIALLY present under the appearances of bread and wine. He is not just "mystically" present or "especially present", nor is he simply "really present". 

Awhile back, our professor friend, Zoltan, presumed to explain what Kiko teaches regarding the Real Presence. And we have no reason to doubt that this is what Kiko actually teaches:
Actually, 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. The same real sense as he is present in the communities and in His Church.
You should be able to see the problem here. For Catholics, real ones, Jesus Christ does NOT "appear mysteriously" in the bread and wine at the moment of consecration. The bread and wine become his ACTUAL Body and Blood. He is not mysteriously present. He is ACTUALLY present. Neither does he appear "in it". This way of speaking of the Eucharist is akin to Luther's belief in "sacramental union" wherein Christ unites with the bread and wine and mysteriously appears "in it". 

Zoltan clarifies this error further in his next sentence where he refers to the "same real sense" (his Real Presence) as the same Presence that is "present in the communities and in His Church." 

So yes, the Neo's do believe in the Real Presence. They believe that he is really present in the Eucharist in the same way as he is really present in the communities and His Church. The problem is that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that. Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharistic species is NOT the same presence as he is found in our communities or even in our proclamation of the Word. 

In fact, this belief in a wholly unique presence in the Eucharistic species is what separates us from most non-Catholic Christians and it is why non-Catholic Christians are not invited to participate in our communion. 

In the end, our real problem when we go to a Mass celebrated by a neo-presbyter is that we really can't be sure what they believe or intend. Their catechism remains hidden, and given the sermons of some of these recently ordained presbyters, we really don't know what they believe about anything other than the Neo saved them. 



31 comments:

  1. Great explanation! Gonna be awhie before Rome fully investigates this one...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rome has already investigated and already knows, and is doing what Rome normally does when it encounters error: works slowly, quietly, diligently and prayerfully to bring the heretics back into the fold, since their souls also matter. Ultimately though, at some point, it will weigh the damage and decide what is best for the whole Church, as it did with Henry VIII and Luther, and does even today with many minor heretics, though it no longer labels them that.

      Delete
  2. Does any other group in the Catholic Church have its own catechism? I am not aware of any but I have never researched the subject. I thought there was one catechism taught by the church, developed over many centuries. This was revised and published several years ago. If there are other catechisms, are they published and available for the public? If any group has essential documents of faith and teaching not available to its members, this should raise many red flags and be questioned. Faith is not to be hidden under a bushel basket but put on a stand for all to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Essentially, Kiko's "catechism" is a catechetical directory, an instruction manual on how to teach doctrine. Any catechism course is essentially a catechetical directory. There is for example the U.S. Catechism for Adults. The guts of it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but it is organized in an instructional manner. Nevertheless, it is not kept secret. To my knowledge only Kiko's is. This is because he believes that a "walker" is to walk in blind obedience. He or she is not to know what awaits at the next step. This is terribly dangerous stuff, and why the NCW resembles gnosticism. Can we really imagine Jesus playing hide and seek with the faith? The very word Catholic, from the Greek KATA HOLOS, meaning "on the whole", implies that the faith, the WHOLE faith, is available to ALL.

      Delete
  3. Those 13 volumes were approved by Rome, so it SHOULD say that they believe in the Real Presence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it should. But not only is the directory not available to the public. We cannot be sure that what is taught in the catechesis is actually from the amended and finally approved version, especially since the NCW disregards its own statute in regards to the distribution of communion as well as other matters. So obviously, Rome's directives really mean nothing to the NCW leadership.

      It should also be noted that Kiko's catechetical directory was NOT approved. It was the final version which was approved. A version which took Rome 11 years to study and amend and supply all the relevant indices to the Catechism. When it was finally approved, Pope Benedict gave it to the NCW with these words:

      "With these ecclesiastical seals, the Lord confirms today and entrusts to you again this precious instrument that is the Way, so that you can, in filial obedience to the Holy See and to the pastors of the Church, contribute, with new impetus and ardor, to the radical and joyful rediscovery of the gift of baptism and to offer your original contribution to the cause of the New Evangelization."

      Note the condition of 'filial obedience to the Holy See and the pastors of the Church". And pastors don't even have a copy.

      Delete
  4. Wow!! Definitely an eye-opener. Thank you Tim!

    Now we see why non-neo priests are not "obeying" the Archbishop to join the NCW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The archbishop does not understand that demanding that non-NCW clergy (and lay people) join the NCW is as repulsive to them as it would be to force them to become Muslim against their wills.

      Delete
  5. "Kiko is a wordsmith.."
    KIKO IS A CON ARTIST...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite right. I was practicing a little restraint. But even "con artist" is probably too kind.

      Delete
  6. Tim's points are based upon his personal observations and deductions made therefrom. In addition to this, there are many sources from the internet -- based on excerpts from the Kiko catechism, other works of Kiko and his acolytes, and written comments from Carmen -- which go substantially further in suggesting that the Kiko espouse a substantially diminished view of the Eucharist. While these excerpts in their totality are quite condemning, it is difficult to prove their authenticity because Kiko, Carmen et a. never publicly accept or reject these statements as being theirs and their catechism and other teachings are not available to the public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. This is why I said "in the end we can't know" and also why I said we are left to "surmise what is taught" by what we see and hear their members say and do. You are also correct in exposing the fact that Kiko and Carmen never publicly accept or reject these statements as being theirs. If you want to undermine an institution, you do not put your plans to undermine it in writing. And the little that has leaked out is quite damning. Kiko is nothing new. The church has entertained the false prophets before. He is just the latest. And neither is the seduction of bishops new. In fact, it probably fairly standard. Thus Paul VI lamented "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church at the highest levels." And those levels? Bishops.

      Delete
    2. Thank you again Tim for all you do to help us understand what the neos are NOT. Kiko, Pius, and the Arch (and his duped followers) are not about truth. Secrecy perhaps....and even that is too kind!

      Delete
    3. Yes, "we can't know" but the evidence very strongly suggests that the Kikos hold a lesser view of the Eucharsit, which is closely related to their diminished view of the priest, the altar and the "temple" (as the Kikos pejoratively call our churches) and the role of each.

      Delete
  7. Has the Archbishop ever completely read the 13 Volumes of Catechetical Directory? Or is he fed one spoon at a time? As the head teacher in the Archdiocese, one would think he would have; or is he just trusting the Vatican Approval which approval was met "with thunderous" applause? Anyone knowledgable?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am just wondering..are these 13 volumes used by the catechechists also used for the children? Is there a different set for this 13 and younger? I know for a fact that the youths begin their walk in the WAY at the age of 13.

      There is a book published called "YOUCAT" that is geared to the youths. I believe there are volumes of this book that can be purchased on line. I decided to order the books. The word " YOUCATS" is shortcut for You(th) and Cat(echism). There are books on catechism, preparing for confirmation, prayers, etc. I guess the word CAT caught my attention.

      The books are endorsed by Emeritus Pope Benedict. If Cardinal Schonborn (sp) is a follower of the NEOCATS aNd he is the author of one of the books which is published then why can't the 13 volumes be published also. Strange indeed!

      Delete
    2. No, there is not a separate Kiko- “catechism for children. I’m glad you mentioned the YOUCAT. It allows us to demonstrate how a pope’s endorsement can be used and misused, something of course that Kiko has been masterful at doing.

      One might think that because the Pope authored the preface to the YOUCAT that it’s a personal endorsement of the book that you hold in your hands (if you have a copy of the YOUCAT). It is not.

      The pope’s endorsement was for the German edition. The Italian edition was so doctrinally errant that it had to be recalled and shredded and the French edition was so bad that it had to be shredded before it ever went to market. However, both edition had the same preface by Pope Benedict. You can read about these problem’s here: http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/youcat/youcat_faq.html

      The English version, printed by Ignatius Press, is thought to be free of the sort of errors which were found in the Italian and English versions, but awkward and weak wording in the English version produce their own problems. Here is an example:

      Question 421 asks: “Why are all methods of preventing the conception of a child not equally good?”

      The question presupposes a graduated moral grade for different methods of birth control which is not only FALSE but a grave error when one considers the Church’s outright condemnation of deliberate contraceptive acts as “intrinsically evil”. (CCC 2370)

      You can read more about these problems with the YOUCAT in a column I wrote for the Umatuna, found here: http://www.themassneverends.com/2012/03/recall-of-youcat.html

      Personally, I do not recommend or use the YOUCAT. Use the Catechism or the Compendium, the adult version, and simply discuss those well-worded entries with the young. The Baltimore Catechism also never fails.

      Delete
    3. if it is believed that the same catechism is taugh to these children, then how is it that those raised in the NCW since infancy are not allowed to walk the WAY until they are 13. This is the age in which they begin their journey. How is it possible to use the same catechetical lesson for these youngsters who are preparing for the sacrament of reconciliation/ the eucharist? So much questions of what is being taught to these young ones.

      Delete
    4. BTW these 13 year olds are allowed to go to their convivence at the hotel. I am presuming or rather hoping that there is adult supervision in each room that they occupy.

      Delete
  8. One big clue to Kiko's real beliefs about the Eucharist can be found in his design for tabernacles found throughout his institutions, especially Redemptoris Mater seminaries, worldwide. I wrote about this in my post entitled, Kiko's Tabernacles. Photos included. You'll find one in our own seminary.

    ReplyDelete
  9. yep, the neocat catechetical techniques are very gnostic-like. very un-Christian, because true Christianity proclaims the Good News of Jesus Christ--no secrets, nothing to hide. all this secrecy smells of some psychological technique to instill in followers a sense of belonging. it's like progressing through mutliple rounds of a game show in order to eventually win the grand prize, which is membership.

    but true Christianity doesn't do that! it doesn't need to do that! indeed, the scandal of Christianity, if you will, is that we are saved "simply"--for lack of a a better word--through the grace of God, given to us through baptism and the sacraments. living that faith is the tough part. but there are no secrets to that, either.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just look at Our Lady of Peace Church in Chalan Pago. Its a kiko tarbernacle format

    ReplyDelete
  11. I recommend reading the following article, as well as the comments that follow it? There is an interesting exchange between a certain "Stefano Gennarini" and a rather intelligent young man (Samuel L Howard):
    http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/01/24/neo-catechumenal-way-has-it-all-worked-out/

    ReplyDelete
  12. Much truth to what Tim has explained. When I was walking in the neo, I often found it peculiar that they referred to the mass as a Eucharistic banquet, a celebration over a meal, not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It was a time of chanting, clapping, singing, and dancing. That is why they decorated the banquet table with flowers, plants, and fruits. The atmosphere is one of a party, a celebration, to make everyone feel good after public confessing their sins. Everything is good thereafter. The community was the focal point, and the Eucharistic celebration was a tool to solidify the community's obedience and regiment to the NCW. That is why they have no qualms celebrating the mass anywhere, because the importance of the sacred altar and the sacrifice of the mass was minimized. This is one of the most dangerous pitfalls of the NCW, to allow the triviality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    ReplyDelete

  13. Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist when a validly ordained Catholic priest has the intention to consecrate the bread and wine into the Most Holy Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Most priests I know pray the priest's Declaration of purpose before the Holy Mass. My purpose is to celebrate Mass and to consecrate the body and blood of our lord Jesus Christ according to the rite of the holy Roman Church, to the praise of almighty God and of the whole church triumphant in heaven, for my own welfare and that of the whole church militant on earth,for all who in general and in particular have commended themselves to my prayers,and for the well being of the holy Roman Church.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would say the situation is even worse than people would think. The reason is: secrecy! Yes, the good old Gnostic technique of hidden teaching. This is the reason of all mess in the NeoCat. They keep their real tenets hidden from members. Naivettes, who buy the bottom layer of Gnostic indoctrination without any resistance, like Diana on her blog, would claim with an iron fist (lol!!) that they follow the Real Presence of the Lord! But secretly, without her knowledge, they simply do not... It is assured by the arrangement of the NeoCat mass.

    Diana says they follow the Catholic view, because she thinks do. She thinks so, because she is kept in the dark by top NeoCats. She is kept in the dark, because most NeoCat members are kept in the dark. They are kept in the dark without they having any clue about it. This is the real essence of the NeoCat. They are kept in the dark, because the cult masters don't need their understanding of the NeoCat mass and other Neocat seances. Members only need to know that they must be blindly obedient and buy all the misinterpretations the cult masters present to them. This is the heart and soul of Gnosticism.

    Top NeoCat leaders want to unroll Church history back to the point when Gnostic heresy freely flourished. That is why Kiko Arguello, their top cult master attacks so bitterly the Council of Trent. Trent was led by the Holy Spirit in eradicating all Gnosticism from the Catholic Church. Now, NeoCat wants all this mess back!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Chuck is right saying that any distortion of the Holy Scripture is a sure sign of sectarian activity. That is what we see in the NeoCat! Diana proclaimed boldly the Jesus was a "Jewish God". Yes, this is exactly what she said. This kind of silliness is not like an invention of ab naivette like Diana. It is coming right from the top. Unknown and uneducated parishioners, the transmission belts of top dog indoctrination, the so-called "catechists" spread this kind of nonsense demanding blind obedience from the membership. It is truly frightening as I start to experience the depth of misguided stubbornness at Diana's blog.

    Another nice peace they say is that Isaac was an "idol" to Abraham, that is why God wanted Abraham to kill Isaac. This is absolutely nowhere in the Bible! It is pure phantasy, so characteristic of the NeoCat style! They use Abraham's story to justify blind obedience, whereas the Bible tells something completely different. The Bible calls us through Abraham's test and ordeal to make ethical discernment when we turn to God. This is God's desire that we make our own responsible choice by mature discernment of God's will, not by blind obedience which leads us to death,

    Diana also spilled another tenet of Abraham: she claims Abraham knew that Isaac, after being slaughtered and sacrificed on the stone, would be resurrected by God so that Abraham would not suffer any loss! What an outrageously silly idea! God kept resurrection to His own son, Jesus, as the Bible teaches in the New Testament. There is no resurrection in the books of Moses, as the Sadducees had never believed or accepted the concept of resurrection even at the time of Jesus. Diana is preaching nonsense, making up Scripture and shouting out blatantly misguided ideas. Ouch, the vituperation of the sectarian mind!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Voice the only sectarian in this Archdiocese is you guys who swallow the vile of this blog despite the Pope know better than you. Which Chucky claim can make mistake unlike him.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for visiting and sharing with us the fruit of an RMS education. Ya'll come back now, hear?

      Delete
  16. Okay, Tim, I made it clear for you that I am not talking for the NeoCatechumenal Way, I am walking in the Way, but I am not talking for the Way in any sense! Please, keep this in mind. If you want to learn more from authentic source, please consult Diana, who is well prepared to give you explanation in any part of the NeoCatechumenal practices. She had made it very clear several times how the Presence of Jesus Christ is understood in the Eucharist. It is a Real Presence more than anything.

    http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2014/09/an-exercise-in-futility.html?showComment=1411392781726#c6530204565325414108

    Having this said, I would share my own take on this particular Catholic teaching. As a scientists, I cannot hold anything true that contradicts science. I believe, most of Jesus' miracles do have explanation by science, if science is properly understood as manifestation of God's law in the nature. God would never contradict God, therefore Jesus would never contradict good and Godly science.

    Now, at transubstantiation the texture of bread and wine would not change. This is the real miracle that the Lord still appears real in the consecrated bread and wine. This is the meaning of Real Presence. If you have evidence of textural changes, please present it at once! The fact is that consecrated wine can transfer diseases and consecrated bread can mold if not taken good care of. This is proof that Real Presence would not involve textural changes.

    As Psalm 2:10 says: " My flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption." Or as written in Acts 2:27: "Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." This is the Body of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As usual, you do more for my cause than I can do for myself. Thanks for being a Jungle Watcher.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch