Wednesday, August 24, 2016

THE EUCHARISTIC SCHISM OF THE NCW

(Posted by Glaucon Jr)


Over the last week, two articles have been posted talking about the underlying problem of the NCW:--its ecclesiology, its theology of the Church--and three other articles are to follow. But in all our discussion about why there’s no room to dialogue with the NCW and the inevitable moral collapse of its adherents, one thing must stated again and again until it finally sinks in on everyone:

The Eucharist is the source of our Faith (whether by “Eucharist” you mean the Real Presence or the rite that makes it so, it really makes no difference). All our unity, all reconciliation, everything that Hon says he wants for the Church on Guam, all that makes us the Body of Christ—all of this flows from the Eucharist. The Eucharist isn’t derived from the Church; it’s the other way around.

And THAT’S what makes the NCW outside the Faith. Regardless of bad theology or mis-readings of Scripture or some quasi-approval by Rome (that’s not really approval) or whatever else you can think of, regardless of all of that,  in the end—and most visibly and scandalously—the NCW has in its practices broken liturgical communion with the universal Church. Perhaps they are better evangelizers; that’s a topic for later, but even if that is true:  since when did evangelization ever necessitate breaking communion with the Church? Since when does better outreach, better works of mercy ever stop flowing from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? The answer is never. And that’s precisely what’s been done by the NCW. 

And that’s why the fight goes on.


And make no mistake: this is a fight born of love, and a fight seeking reconciliation—reconciliation of Eucharistic schismatics with the universal and timeless Body of Christ. That’s real love of neighbor. And that’s a love worth fighting for.

23 comments:

  1. Thank you Glaucon Jr for your important articol!
    All the "fruits" of the NCW are simply the product of this new eretic liturgy that Kiko, Carmen (and who is behind them) have constructed many years ago.
    The resposabilitys of this schismatic act are serious and produce to every souls that have assorbed that doctrine damages that only God can measure.
    Everything starts from this new eucharist. And the "fruits" are present and visible. Also in Guam, unfortunally.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BINGO! Christ unites the flock through His Body & Blood consecrated and consumed at the altar in remembrance of His Sacrifice on Calvary!
    Precisely the reason why a priest consecrated to Christ through his vows is committing sacrilege when he celebrates a NCW rite! The NCW rite denies the "Real Presence" of Our Lord by:
    1-Turning the Sacrificial Altar into a banquet table,
    2- using unleavened bread
    3-the irreverent distribution to "protestants" sitting in the pews.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Glaucon,

    Before reading above "The Eucharist is the source of our Faith," I hadn't thought about the source of our faith for awhile. Arguably, if faith is a gift, then God Himself is the source of our faith. And this gifting may come through many channels, including the Eucharist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our Understanding is The Eucharist is not only one of many channels, It is the only Channel, as it is God himself, who chooses to manifest himself to us in this most intimate form.

      Delete
  4. Thank you, Glaucon for your expose of the Neo heresy regarding the Eucharist. I and others co-wrote a personal letter to our Apostolic Administrator, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai, regarding this and other NCW heresies, admonishing him to rid us of these heresies. Let me share with JW readers what we wrote to AB Hon 2 weeks ago:

    "C. NATURE OF THE MASS.
    Next to the Divinity of Christ and the Hypostatic Union, the most egregious heresy of the NCW is its teaching that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is NOT A SACRIFICE at all. Rather, it is believed to be a jovial and fraternal celebration of the institution of the Holy Eucharist of the Last Supper. Any element of the sacrificial nature of the Mass is removed. While we believe that the institution of the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper is true reason for rejoicing and celebration, we are also taught by the Church as a dogma of Faith that at Mass Christ again sacrificially offers Himself as a propitious Victim to His Father in reparation for the sins of all men, not in a bloody fashion but in an un-bloody miracle of Transubstantiation, where the accidents of bread and wine remain, and are upheld by the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ.

    Because of its grievous nature, allow us to quote an excerpt from St. John Paul II’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia. “In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning,* it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet…. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation.”

    Many parishioners boycott their own churches (if their pastor is a Neo-presbyter), and attend Mass elsewhere – because they doubt the validity of a Mass celebrated by a Neo who does not believe that the Mass is a sacrifice. These non-Neo Catholics doubt they are attending a true Mass, since the intention of the Neo celebrant is not to offer sacrifice!

    How dare the NCW tell us that the Mass is not a sacrifice! SACRILEGIOUS! No wonder why the NCW “mass” is celebrated with dancing and clapping, instead of kneeling silently in adoration with the Saints, Angels, Cherubims and Seraphims! Watch this video, and decide for yourself if you believe you are attending Mass!

    And for any Neo priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass and recites the “Orate Fratres: Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the Father Almighty…” is a HYPROCITE! He is just reciting that prayer so that the congregation can feel that they are participating in a sacrifice, but in defiance of the teaching of Kiko’s NCW that the Mass is not a sacrifice.

    We reject this NCW heresy, Archbishop Hon. We pray that you do too!"

    There are other other heresies and aberrations we pointed out to AB Hon, which we might want to post in JW in the future. (jrsa: 8/24/16)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr. San Agustin,

      If Pope John Paul II is referring to the NCW in your citation above, he refers to abuse, reductive understanding, ambiguity and depreciation, but does not use the word "heresy." You do use the word "heresy." How do you account for the difference?

      Delete
    2. From the initial catechesis, Kiko tells his ardent followers regarding the Mass (initial Catechesis p327):

      "This liturgy, this Passover, is the memorial of the passing from death to resurrection; the making present of the victory over death. This liturgy is the sacrament of the passage of Jesus Christ from death to resurrection."

      Funny, I thought the Mass was a sacrifice for our Redemption?

      Delete
    3. To my reading, JP2 is referring to matters of discipline, but JRSA is talking about the heresy of denying the sacrificial nature of our Redemption. So you're both right, I think.

      Besides, abuse of Church discipline quite often morphs into heresy very quickly, although truly they aren't the same.

      Delete
    4. To my reading, JP2 is referring to matters of discipline, but JRSA is talking about the heresy of denying the sacrificial nature of our Redemption. So you're both right, I think.

      Besides, abuse of Church discipline quite often morphs into heresy very quickly, although truly they aren't the same.

      Delete
    5. Thank you Mr. San Agustin for pointing out the heresy and aberrations of the NCW, especially in Kiko's teaching that that the Mass is not a sacrifice. Yes, we have been taught that Christ offers himself to the Father in reparation of sins of all. The sacrificial nature of our redemption cannot be denied! What "believeth and sayeth" the clergy?

      Delete
  5. true, there really is an inseparable link between the Real Presence and the Rite, the Liturgy that makes it so. and as tim and others have been trying to get people to remember for so many years now: "lex orandi, lex credendi."

    during the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, before the people come up to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, the deacon announces loudly to the congregation:

    "Approach with the fear of God, faith, and love."

    make no mistake, you're approaching the Lord Himself!

    this reverence, this "fear of God," is missing, so obviously in the neocat "liturgy," but also often in our ordinary-form Masses. let's work and pray for this conversion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1.To Rey D, it is very observant of you to remind us of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the pre-reception of Communion admonition: “Approach with the fear of God, faith and love”. The modality of receiving the Holy Eucharist is indeed very different between the way Neos do it, and the way non-Neos do it. The difference truly reflects the “lex orandi, lex credendi” dictum. If one believes the Mass is a mere celebration, it’s quite natural to sing, clap, dance and romp. If one, on the other hand, believes he is witnessing “a true sacrifice” just as in Calvary, one would hardly dare to get off his kneeling and adoring mode. So, yes: “the way we believe, is the way we pray” and receive Communion. Thank you for your comment.

    2.To Anonymous @3:46pm, thank you for quoting Kiko’s own words (Initial Catechesis, p327), that the Neo Liturgy – the Eucharistic Celebration (equivalent to the Neo “Mass”), is but a “memorial” – “the passage of Jesus Christ from death to resurrection”. While we non-Neos believe as well that Jesus did pass from death to death to resurrection, the Catechism of the Catholic Church also teaches us that “the sacrifice of the Christ at [Calvary] and the sacrifice of the Eucharist [at Mass] are ONE SINGLE SACRIFICE [i.e. they are the same].” It is also a DOGMA of Faith – to be believed by all Catholics. It is heresy to NOT believe.
    I know you mean to be sarcastic when you wrote “Funny; I thought the Mass was a Sacrifice for our Redemption”. It’s more than just “funny” – its PREPOSTEROUS! Thank you, Anon.

    3.To Mr. Timothy Guile. I wish I could intellectually, philosophically, and theologically debate this with you – either thru this forum (JW) or even on a one-on-one. I would not have made the effort to quote St. John Paul II’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia had it not described my comments to a tee! True he did not use the word “heresy” – a saving omission of the word for you; count your blessings. But, really, if you understand fully the definition of heresy, you would logically conclude that he was referring to “ecclesial movements” (mentioned throughout his writing) like the NCW. Here’s the definition as found in Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law: “Heresy is absolute denial or absolute doubt, after the reception of baptism, of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic Faith”. All 3 elements are present in the NCW – ergo! That’s where I drew the nexus!

    By the way, did you read the entire paragraph I quoted? Some of your concerns are answered there! Don’t be eclectic in your comments! Better still, read the entire Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Good reading! (Here’s the website; copy-paste it to your browser:
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

    Here’s a further quotation from St. John Paul II’s same writing:
    “The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made towards full visible unity. Similarly, it is unthinkable to substitute for Sunday Mass ecumenical celebrations of the word or services of common prayer with Christians from the aforementioned Ecclesial Communities, or even participation in their own liturgical services. Such celebrations and services, however praiseworthy in certain situations, prepare for the goal of full communion, including Eucharistic communion, but they cannot replace it.”
    If the shoe fits, wear it! Peace, my friend. – Joe R.S.A (8/24/16)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great comments, Joe.

      The following link will take you to an episode of The Journey Home from EWTN. At the 9 minute mark there is a remarkable discussion of the sacrificial nature of the eucharist. It is well worth watching.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YX4d41c7Xk

      Delete
    2. Dear Mr. San Agustin,

      Thank you for providing a definition of "heresy." Either St. John Paul did not understand the definition, or did not know how to apply it to the NCW; or he knew the definition, knew how to apply it but choose not to pin the label "heresy" to the NCW because it did not satisfy the definition. However, If you have correctly called out the NCW as a heresy, then you must claim either St. John Paul lacked understanding of the definition, or did not know how to apply the definition to the NCW. Or you must claim that he, like you, discovered the NCW to be heretical, but due to lack of fortitude or over-regard for diplomacy, and that he choose to speak words which belied his own judgment. So if you have correctly characterized the NCW, you are left with one of two conclusions: Either John Paul was not knowledgeable (i.e. was ignorant), or John Paul's words did not match his heart (i.e., was fearful to express himself). Which of these conclusions do you prefer?

      Delete
  7. How on earth do the remaining seminarians in RMS continue knowing Pius is a liar and a thief at best? Hon needs to determine if these guys are held against their will. Of course Hon will be in Rome for the course for new bishops which +Ryan will be attending. Hon will be well prepared to teach bishops what the worst case scenario of a diocese can be! A real experienced pro. Thanks to us. Hurry home Hon!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not difficult to figure out. These seminarians were ripped from their homes and sent to Guam via "lottery." This renders the seminarians totally dependent and reliant on their ncw "keepers." They are told what to do, how to do it, when to do it and where (and who to do?).

      Think about it. It is why they are susceptible to engaging in criminal activity as directed by their ncw keepers (while their handlers keep clean hands). It could be seen like as a mild case of Stockholm syndrome.

      Delete
  8. Dear Mr. Guile:

    I take it you are interested in debating the issue – otherwise you would not have responded to my offer. Like in any formal debate, one takes the “pro” side of an issue, and the other takes the “con” side – or so we were taught and coached in college.

    But before we do, let’s get this clear about St John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and the proper understanding of what he may be trying to teach us in his encyclical. (By the way, did you get to read the Encyclical Letter in its entirety? You should, so we can both be on the same page; otherwise I would have an unfair advantage. Besides, the encyclical ;etter makes for very good spiritual reading for every Catholic.)

    Aren’t you at least glad that the Pope did not berate the NCW by name, but rather kind of lumped it among the numerous ECCLESIAL COMMUNITIES he refers throughout the encyclical – targeting those ecclesial communities which refuse to believe the dogma of the true nature of the Mass, as defined as an article of Faith by the Council of Trent, to be believed by all the Faithful? To NOT BELIEVE this dogma is heresy by definition. I gave you that Canon Law definition – remember the 3 essential elements: they all apply to NCW. (I know Trent doesn’t sit well with Kiko, but be that as it may. We can make that into another debate topic in the future – if you wish!)

    OK – now let’s get back to the debate. The issue (the question) is: Was St John Paul II knowledgeable (and truthful) in his encyclical that to deny that THE MASS IS THE SAME AS THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS AT CALVARY IS DOGMA AND MUST BE BELIEVED BY CATHOLICS, or not? I say “yes”; you say “no”.

    The use of your syllogism as an argument that either the Pope didn’t know what he was talking about (“didn’t know the definition of heresy”), or “he didn’t know how to apply the definition to NCW because of his lack of understanding, and was being “politically correct” in not wanting to single out the NCW specifically as teaching heresy – is what is called in philosophy an ARGUMENTUM AD ABSURDUM (an argument in absurdity). Your “either-or” options are not exclusionary statements. The falsity of one does not make the other true, and vice-versa. The proper analogy would be either “it’s red” or “it is not red”, not “either it’s red, or it’s blue”.

    So – to your non-exclusionary options -- either the Pope was not knowledgeable (i.e. ignorant), or his words did not match his heart (i.e. fearful to express himself) – which of these conclusions do I prefer, my answer is NEITHER. You may now refute this with your counter – just make it philosophically correct, not politically correct.

    Since you chose not to engage theologically on the definition of heresy nor on the dogma itself which is as old as the Council of Trent (325 AD), I’ll respect your option to not make it a debate subject – though I was actually hoping you would because this is the SUBSTANCE of the discussion.

    In closing, I again urge you to read Ecclesia de Eucharistia by St John Paul II. And while you’re at it, dabble with Canon Law and with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not on the Neocatechumenal Directory which I understand you cannot get a copy of anyway. For the heck of it, try asking your catechist for a copy; it should be a public document for Neos – no? Good luck!

    Sincerely,
    Joe R. San Agustin (8/25/16)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Timothy, you suffer from the "paralysis of analysis". Get over yourself!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Mr. San Agustin,

    I am happy that you find St. John Paul II neither ignorant nor cowardly.

    But where does that leave you? If JP knew what he was doing (i.e., he was not ignorant) and failed to declare the NCW heretical when he had opportunity to do so (i.e. he was not a coward), then he, in that instance, gave the NCW a pass.

    That leaves you at variance with Rome, a sainted pope and the very vigilant Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which is charged with identifying and condemning heresies.

    P.S. It seems you think I am a member of the NCW. I am not a member of the NCW, nor do I intend to be. Glaucon knows what I am…a gadfly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. Gadfly. That's ONE word for it.

      I still say that JP2 had no idea how far out there Kiko's theology is. As for Benedict, he handles things like a theologian. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the CDF still hasn't cleared the Catechetical Directory, only removed portions and inserted CCC references.

      All this is a conversation for another day.

      Delete
  11. Dear Mr. Guile - Thanks for the clarification. My mistake (I admit error when I realise I am wrong) in assuming you were defending the position that the Mass is not a Sacrifice. I gather you and Glaucon are pretty much on the same side of the line (acquaintances at least), and I mistook your initial comments as a Neo denigrating the very heart of our
    Catholicbelief. I see, now, that you were not. And I think Claucon's latest (8/25) analysis that I was talking "oranges" while you were talking "apples" didn't connect us properly initially. So, I apologise for assuming you were an "adversary", when in fact you were an "ally". You surely played a gadfly on me -- and I fell for it. (Come to think of it, I think I had seen your positive writings on JW recently.) Thank you for stepping in, Glaucon.

    Peace! - JRSA (8/26/16)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear Mr. San Agustin,

    Apology accepted, Brother. People who make public apologies are very high on my "those to be admired" list.

    ReplyDelete
  13. All's well that ends well! We're all on the same page (you, me, Claucon, etal) that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same as Christ's great Sacrifice at Calvary.

    Thanks, Timothy. Thanks, Glaucon. - (jrsa: 8/28/16)

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch