An anonymous poster asked if the NCW calls itself "Catholic " or "Christian". His comment can be found here. This was an unusual question because a Catholic is a Christian. I told the anonymous poster that a Catholic is a Christian. He/she appeared upset about my response. Then another anonymous poster (or probably the same one) stated the following:
AnonymousAugust 18, 2014 at 2:12 PM
Rome doesn't even call themselves Catholic Christians. It is Roman Catholic. so what is it?
This is false. The Church has never called herself "Roman Catholic." There is such thing as "Roman Missal" or "Roman rite", but the term "Roman Catholic" is a modern name and was never used by the Church herself. According to EWTN:
The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that -- Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
EWTN on the name Roman Catholic
The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that -- Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
EWTN on the name Roman Catholic
The entire Catholic Church includes the Latin-rite Church and the Eastern-rite Church. EWTN goes on to explain further:
So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.
As for the name "Christian," the first people who were called "Christians" were the people of Antioch (See Acts 11:26) ,and yes, these people were Catholics. So, the first Christians were Catholics.
Today, the term Christian can refer to Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. A Catholic is a Christian, but a Christian is not necessarily a Catholic. What the anonymous poster should have asked was "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant"?
Apparently, those who are against the Way view us as Christians, thinking that the Catholic Church has never used the name "Christian", which is false. The FIRST Christians were Catholics. Another Anonymous poster said it better regarding the ignorance of some people in the jungle:
AnonymousAugust 17, 2014 at 2:44 PM
12:25 pm is a good example of why some catholics on island believe the Jungle noise. For some reason, they separate us as Christian, but they are also Christian. Of course they criticize the Way for supposedly dividing the Church when those who cannot even acknowledge that they are Christian to begin with have already divided themselves from the Church.
The difference is Not all Christians are Catholics. I am not just a Christian, but a Catholic Christian....there is a difference!
ReplyDeleteHow precious. A catechesis by a team of anonymous cowards. Which one are you today? Holly? Jessica? Fr E?
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "my own", what does it mean? You sit in your ivory tower, untouched by reality spouting nonsense. As if we don't know that Catholics are Christian!
The problem is, every time you utter Our Lords name, or quote the scriptures, or mention the popes, or give your "catechesis" you blaspheme. The NCW is a synthesis of heresy dressed up in Catholic language. This has been pointed out so many times its not funny, but your dedication to your "idols" (Kiko, the catechists, the very idea of the "Way") means you remain blind and deaf.
Seriously, when you utter something so ridiculous as the laity "concelebrating" the Mass, you damage your credibility, and yet there is no way on earth you could back track from there, could you? You have committed yourself, invested yourself so far that there is no going back, and I pity you for that. In fact, if you give it serious thought, you might see that the whole NCW edifice is designed to have its members commit and invest so far that there is no return. If you show any sign of independent thought, they'll suggest you become a responsible! Once you agree, thats the end of the critical mind. If you get so far as the second scrutiny, you will hand over some "treasure" and in doing so invest yourself deeper still. If thats not enough, there's an entire "community" telling you that if you leave, you will walk the road to perdition, and that your children will become prostitutes and murderers! If you are unfortunate to be so invested as to go on mission, well that's just one more step into the beyond, and there's even less chance you will look carefully at whats going on.
Just imagine for a moment that you could suspend all judgement, and really look at the NCW in this way. It is Kiko's greatest masterpiece alright, but it isn't what you're told it is.
In the meantime, well-meaning people are being caught and misled into thinking that what they are doing is "Catholic". Has it ever occurred to you why the NCW is so unsuccessful when it comes to practising, well-formed, non-lapsed Catholics?
The thing is,
Dear Anonymous at 8:33 pm,
DeleteI published your comment to show everyone your unchristianlike behavior, and this behavior is not coming from the NCW..
Use your head for once instead of swallowing everything Tim Rohr tells you. You ask which one am I? Holly, Jessica? Father Edivaldo? Think for a change. Tim puts out a $500 bounty reward for my identity and suddenly after that someone saw my avatar in facebook. Actually, several people are now using my avatar. Think about it.......... Would I set up a facebook page, put my avatar in it so the followers of Tim Rohr could EASILY find me especially after he put up a $500 reward for anyone who can identify me???????? Do you think I would be among the first one to sign my real name in the petition for Father Pius especially when I already know that Tim Rohr is dying to know my real identity?????
Instead of spewing out all this hate, show me where in this post that I am wrong??? Grow up and discuss things like an adult instead of a spoiled little child in a tantrum. This post is titled "My own Catechesis on the name Roman Catholic." I challenge you to discuss this topic like a civilized adult. If you cannot do that, then by all means, return to the jungle.
I have no affiliation with Tim Rohr, other than that I agree with him. I have formed my own opinion of the NCW many years prior to becoming aware of Tim and his blog. In any case, what is this "unchristian behaviour" you mention? Is it "unchristian" to tell the truth? To call out lies when you see them? To defend the Church?
DeleteI really don't care who you are, but I merely point out that a "catechesis" by an anonymous Christian is really not worth spit.
But, ok, I will respond directly to your post.
Just a few days ago you posted a comment by one of your supporters claiming that Tim "is not consider Catholic nor Christian" (sic). You personally have made the same sorts of judgements - "The fact that Tim hates the Archbishop is an indication that he is not a Christian or Catholic."
And this - "Apparently, those who are against the Way view us as Christians, thinking that the Catholic Church has never used the name "Christian", which is false"- is just plain stupid.
Of course we all know that Catholics are Christians.
The problem, as you rightly point out, is that many consider that the NCW is not Catholic, because in its practises and behaviour it defies the teaching and guidance of the Church, but rather seeks to reinvent and replace them.
Now how about you respond to my assertion that the entire NCW structure lends itself to eliciting a disproportionate investment by its members ("standing up" for example) so that ultimately the loyalty of the average member is given to the NCW and not the broader Church. If the NCW was really about bringing the lost sheep back to the fold, then once this occurs, there would be no need to continue with the exclusive practises of the Way, but one would naturally expect a full re-integration into the age-old "ways" of the Church. You and I both know this doesn't happen though. The Church is negated, its ancient practises mocked and the language distorted. If you want proof, look at the post below this one!
Dear Anonymous at 11:20 a.m.,
DeleteThe unchristian behavior is the NAME-CALLING. Did you not see how he/she started his/her comment? The comment started as (Capitalization is my emphasis):
How precious. A catechesis by a team of anonymous COWARDS.
A person can point out if a catechesis or even a person is Catholic or not. That is not the problem because they are speaking about whether the Catechesis or the person is a Catholic or not.. But when you start calling someone names such as "cowards" "liars," "stupid", dumb" etc., that is name calling.
Saying that someone is not a Christian or a Catholic is NOT name-calling. One is pointing out the fact that Tim Rohr is not a Christian simply because he is a persecutor. Christians are never called to persecute other people even if they are non-Catholics. It is unchristian to persecute anyone regardless of whether they are Catholics or non-Catholics. Tim Rohr persecutes the Archbishop by calling him names such as "liar." He also does the same thing with the NCW.
Before I joined the Way, I attended Mass every Sunday but was never involved in any activities of my parish. I did not contribute to anything in my parish. In fact, my Sunday Mass contribution was a pathetic $2:00 to $5:00, which is not even enough to pay the electricity bill. After I joined the Way, I got more involved in my parish. I do not just attend Sunday Mass and sit in the pews anymore. I also give much more than I did before. There are members in the Way who are in the parish choir, alter servers, Lectors, Eucharistic ministers, parish council members, and office workers for the Church. There are also members who I see maintaining and cleaning the Church grounds as well as the chancery. You just do not know who they are because we never advertise that we are in the Way.
Well, calling you anonymous cowards is nothing but a statement of fact. Prove me wrong. If you are prepared to sit in judgement on others, name them as "not Christian" because of your own personal judgements, question their motives, publish photos etc, say outrageous and provocative things - and stay hidden while you do it, well that's almost the definition of a coward. If you don't "lack the courage" to identify yourself, then do it "Diana". Personally, I couldn't care less if you do, but if the shoe fits, wear it.
DeleteSo, being a persecutor disqualifies your baptism? For the sake of the argument, let's agree that to persecute is to sin, ok? So, a sinner can't be a Christian?
And, for the sake of the argument, if someone lies, is calling them a "liar" persecution? You still need to prove, for example, that the Archbishop has not lied. Good luck with that one.
As for your personal testimony about what a bad Catholic you were, but now you're a great Catholic because Kiko is an angel - well, it actually means nothing, because "Diana" doesn't exist.
Finally, no-one is saying that members of the NCW are useless, freeloaders, or nasty, evil people. On the contrary, you will find that most of us who object to the NCW do so for the love of the ordinary, simple believer. Because to indulge the NCW is to inflict error and harm on these people.
On the other hand, there are those, such as yourself, who are irretrievably invested in the NCW as an ideology, not for the sake of truth, but because to admit fault in the NCW is to invite the whole existential house of cards to tumble down.
Elsewhere in the Catholic world, the faithful continually look for opportunities to reform their understandings and practises so as to better live out the entire faith; to more faithfully follow the teachings and traditions of the Church. They realise that error can creep in subtly and that we must always guard against complacency. The NCW, on the hand, is held to be error-free - in fact, members all around the world act in blind obedience to the words of Kiko - absolutely certain that neither he, nor his catechists could ever possibly be mistaken. Every testimony given by members of the NCW is based upon the notion that the NCW is the perfect rendition of the faith.
By the way, why do you "never advertise that we are in the Way"? Are you ashamed?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:50 p.m.,
DeleteWe are not ashamed. We simply do not advertise because we do not call attention to ourselves.
Dear Anonymous at 12:46 p.m.,
DeleteI can say that Buddha is not a Christian, and that is a statement of fact. In the same way, I can also say that Tim Rohr is not a Christian, and that is also a statement of fact. Calling someone a coward, on the other hand, is name-calling and that is just plain common sense.
"We are not ashamed"
DeleteI don't believe you. Prove it.
Well Buddha wasn't baptised, nor did he identify himself as Christian, nor did he observe the Christian life. But presumably Tim Rohr is baptised, identifies himself as Christian, and observes the Christian life.
DeleteYour statement is an assertion (an absurd one at that) not a statement of fact. On the other hand, I can definitely say that "Diana" is not a Christian, because "Diana" does not exist.
Furthermore, Anonymous 12:46 p.m.,
DeleteThe Statutes and Catechetical Directory that was passed by the Vatican helps and guide us so that we do not make any errors. It was Pope Francis who dismissed the investigations into the Way because all those allegations against the Way were unfounded.
Dear Anonymous at 2:47 pm.
DeleteBeing Christian is much more than being baptized. We have to live out our baptism. Adolf Hitler was also a baptized Catholic, but I would not call him a Christian.
Dear Anonymous at 2:18 p.m.,
DeleteThe fact that we do not advertise ourselves is the proof itself. We do not brag like Tim Rohr who loves to advertise everything he does.
At 12:46 p.m., I have gone back and forth about posting on these blogs anonymously or by name and have always ended up doing so anonymously (as I am now). I cannot speak for anyone else, but you are right. I am a coward. Like the apostle wrote, I want to do good...I want to do the right thing, but I end up doing the wrong thing. I am a sinner. This is why the Way is a great help for me. I can put down my mask of good manners, politeness, political correctness and know that Jesus Christ does not condemn me because of my real self, which is full of darkness and hate.
DeleteUnfortunately, I still post anonymously. Why? I am afraid that you may be my best friend, my cousin, my colleague, my mentor, my business associate, etc., etc. I am a coward. I am afraid that I will lose your affection and esteem if you are indeed any one of these to me. I know with certainty that if you were any of these to me, that you would not be able to accept me and love me without judgment. Jesus Christ is the only one who has accepted me and loved me the way I am—filled with fear and cowardly. It is the Way that has slowly helped me take down my mask. As you see, I did not include my immediate family in the list because I can now speak with them without fear. You see Anonymous at 12:46 p.m., it is not because of the Way that I am a coward. It is the Way that has helped me have courage to reveal myself so far. Maybe one day soon, I will have enough courage to post my name.
Dear anonymous at 4:00, I am very pleased for you. What you have found in the way is obviously helping with your self-esteem and psychological needs. However, even with these good things, the NCW is still ridden with errors and problems. Your personal gain from the NCW does not negate the ever present need to guard against error - and the NCW is rife with it. If you are honest, you will acknowledge the problems in the Way (liturgical, theological and structural) and try to address them, while at the same time keeping in mind the good aspects.
DeleteMany of your brothers and sisters in the NCW are not able to do this though. It is a "community at all costs" attitude, including an (unspoken?) belief that nothing can possibly be wrong with the NCW.
And, you are quite welcome to post anonymously - I care not a whit!. Provided you don't start a blog and begin to impugn and cast aspersions on the motives and spiritual states of others, as "Diana" is wont to do. And I did not call you a coward. You have a quite different approach to "Diana", which is to your credit.
It is a great thing to be brutally self-honest, as you have described - albeit with some pain and risk involved. But prudence is a virtue too, so take your time. I wish you every success in that.
Might I also suggest that you step back from the incestuous conversations and fanaticism of the Way, and look with fresh eyes at what else is involved, other that your own personal growth. If there is error, acknowledge it. Call it out. Again this takes both courage and prudence. But don't lose your own critical thinking by giving in to ideology of the Way, as many have. The biggest culprit in all of this the jargon and twisting of language. Be very careful of your internal dialogue - that you don't convince yourself that you are in fact "full of darkness and hate" or "I am full of anger and jealousy" etc. No. You may struggle with these things, as we all do, but you are certainly not "full" of them, nor is this your "natural" state. Jesus Christ doesn't put up with you! He knows you and loves what he knows. He hates sin because it takes you away from him! Please be very careful in your language.
The truth is that every saint that has ever lived, the apostles, the martyrs and the Fathers of the Church did not have the "Neocatechumenal Way". It is not the Catholic Church, although it may have a role in the Church. Once you have developed beyond spiritual infancy, take the step beyond the "Way" into the Church of the Ages. God willing.
Incestuous conversations. Fanatacism. Where is your charity in words Anonymous? To suggest that I step back from these things is to accuse me of engaging in them in the first place. I have never engaged in either. This is probably a conversation best had in person. I wonder if other anonymous posters would be agreeable to it. Would you? I'm genuinely interested to know whether your criticism is against the NCW statutes, how the communities carry them out (or don't, if that's your point), or how brothers in the Way readily acknowledge their shortcomings. I am a part of the Church. I walk in a community. God willing, I will remain in God. You may be right about my spiritual infancy, but all the knowledge of theology and church history in the world cannot change a hard heart. You need the holy spirit for that and thankfully it's not given only to the learned.
DeleteAnon at 11:59pm. If the NCW practised according to the approved statutes there could be no real objection. You do not. See for example the comments about the liturgy; the separate worship for 30 years plus, the separate Easter Vigil; the menora on the altar; Kiko music only; Kiko's images only; the "secret doctrine"; and so on. These are part and parcel of the "Way" and yes, I accuse you of being engaged in them. If you are not, please point out how you address these things or avoid them.
DeleteAnd yes fanaticism. Kiko worship. Giving up your own rational mind to the catechists. A friend once mentioned to a catechist that she was trying to discern the will of God about a personal matter. The response - "Its not for you to know the will of God. If you want to know God's will, ask us".
And the jargon. "I walk in a community". Obviously that implies that the "ordinary" parish Catholic does not. "My real self which is full of darkness and hate". What about "standing up"? "The Word from Rome" etc. All of these things are not accidental. They are designed to manipulate you, and they do. This is not Catholic, or at least should not be.
And as for "hardness of heart", have you met "Diana"?
At 11:50 a.m., by "you" I take it you mean a collective "you" since nothing in my post, which is my experience, evidences your accusation of fanaticism. You don't like the jargon the NCW uses just as much as other people may not like yours, but just because someone speaks differently praising God doesn't mean they have separated themselves from the Church. I have walked for a short time now but my worship is only for God in the Holy Trinity. The vehicle I CHOOSE freely to use, which is the NCW, is not better or worse than those Catholics who choose the Latin mass or other supplemental means within the Church. I am sure you are better equipped and more knowledgeable to discuss these topics than I am, which is why I do not engage in those conversation threads nor do I want to start a new one with you about the same. However, I do know what has brought me back to the Church. It was the good news of God's love for me and you, news that I heard through the open invitation given during Sunday mass and by the brothers in other communities.
DeleteYou do not know me personally, my past, my present...so I am in a better position to speak of the nature of my heart (unless we have crossed paths before, then you would know that the description is pretty on point...this is my feeble attempt to make light of a very tense issue).
I find it unfair that you have condemned the whole NCW by your observations of a handful of people. There are always going to be a handful of people in every aspect of life that will give you a bad impression. I was stating facts pertaining to my life. I am a part of the Church. I walk in a community. I did not say: I am a part of the Church because I walk in a community, or that I am part of the Church, but I walk in a community. Those two very true statements about me, in my original post, are not meant to qualify the other. Simply, they are the truth. I have lived a long enough life, if middle age is considered long, to know that you cannot please everyone. If you do not have any desire to consider the possiblitiy that the NCW is not a "secret doctrine" for "separate worship", then nothing here will be of any use to you, other than having someone actually engage in a conversation with you, but I'm sure that's not what you're doing here because you have friends and family for that.
Anon at 1:04. Ok, so you've been "walking" (that's jargon, by the way) for a short time. But I can't imagine that you are ignorant of the controversies around the particular and peculiar practises of the Way. You said you heard an open invitation during the Sunday Mass (somehow you were at Mass but were away from the Church?). And from there you attended the NCW (which "brought you back to the Church?). Do you see a difference between the "Sunday Mass" and the NCW "Eucharist"? Do you understand what differences are permitted and what are not? If not, why not? No other group of Catholics in the world now or ever have placed the Menora on the altar. Does that concern you? No other group of Catholics sit down for the reception of communion, or wait to consume simultaneously with the priest. Do these things trouble you at all? It seems to me that they should, because they suggest that the NCW is quite different to the rest of the Catholic world. Does it concern you that your priest and bishop, both of whom have received the sacrament of Holy Orders, should consider themselves "not really Christian" (as kiko puts it) until having completed the steps of the NCW? Surely the priest (and bishop) are the shepherds and not the sheep.
DeleteYou used the word “choose”. But what did you actually choose? At this stage your commitment is made to something you know very little about. Easy to get in, not so easy to get out. And in fact the whole structure of the NCW is designed to “keep you in”. If the NCW is actually Catholic, the leaders and “brothers” wouldn’’t be at all concerned if someone chose not to “walk” any longer, would they? But that is not the case. Why did Pope Francis say to the NCW in February “The freedom of each person must not be forced, and even the eventual choice of someone who decides to seek, outside of the Way, other forms of Christian life that help him to grow in the response to the call of the Lord must be respected.”?
In any case, I make no judgement of you personally, and I can be certain that we have never met. However, already you are using the language particular to the NCW. You may not yet be aware of the distortions made to Catholic language by the Way. For example, when the Church says "sacrifice" it means something rather different to what is meant when the leaders of the NCW use this term. Look up Diana's treatment of the word "concelebrate" if you doubt me. There are countless examples, and each goes to altering the sense of faith of the member.
Anon at 1:04 cont.
DeleteIf, for example, you are told repeatedly that you are “full of anger” or “full of darkness and hate”, as you put it, and you become convinced that this is true, you are probably eventually going to learn not to trust your own judgement. What will you do? I know, you can let others make the decisions for you – the catechists perhaps? IN fact, this will become a test of your commitment. If you are “wilful” you may not progress. If you are seen to be giving over your will to the catechists etc, you will go far. For some, this may be quite acceptable, because they confuse this with true humility and self-sacrifice. But I’d suggest that you might agree it is open to serious abuse.
So is the practice of public “scrutiny”. I know of young people who have sat through a scrutiny listening to all sorts of “brothers” recall all sorts of sins (mainly sexual), and then when their turn comes, they have nothing much to say (because they’re 14 perhaps). I know of cases where following this these youngsters have actually gone out to commit grave sins, so that they too can be seen to have had their “lives saved”. If you attempt suicide, that’s just about the greatest thing, because then you can say that the Way saved my life! And everyone else will love bomb you, and you will have a great (familiar) testimony if you do.
I know of situations where young people have had their “cross” defined as “not getting on with their mother”, for example. Twenty years later, they still don’t get on with their mother because that is their “cross”. And who are they to claim that they have conquered their cross? That would just be arrogant and proud to say that. You must bear your “cross”. So…it is just about impossible that they will ever “get on with their mother”.
Have you read the catechetical directory? If not, why not? Is it because you believe them when they tell you that its the experience that matters, not the "law" or something similar. Perhaps the Church should not have a written catechism then? Could it be because its not publicly available? Every other document pertaining to the Church's teaching is available though. Why would the NCW be exclusive in this regard?
Do you believe that Kiko's music is so vastly superior to any other musician that has ever lived or is currently living? Why should the NCW retain only his music? And "Icons", and everything else. And so on. There is so much more.
The NCW strategy appears to be to induce the “existential moment” and then support this moment through time by the community. It is efficient at this too. It does this with teachings that are not freely available, signs that are not Catholic, and language and concepts that are deliberately distorted. This approach is not advertised and members are not aware that this is what is being done. It is very often a violation of freedom. Christian existentialism is fine so long as it concords with the truth and does not impede freedom.
Dear Anonymous at 3:38 pm,
DeleteMost of us are aware of the criticisms and misconceptions that were going around about the Way. Even the Pope is aware of it. And what does Pope Francis do? He ceased all investigations of the Way. We do not keep our celebrations and catechesis a secret. Italy has the largest NCW; therefore Rome is not ignorant of our celebrations.
The distortions are not coming from us, but from people who oppose us. We do not say anything about the Latin Traditional Mass nor the regular Mass. It has always been those who oppose us who criticize us. So, we have a Jewish menorah on the table? So what! That did not bother St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI when they celebrated the Eucharist in the Way.
By the way, do you know how many times I had to tell people about con celebration. According to the Sunday's Visitors Catholic Encyclopedia, the term "con celebration" in Early Christianity had a DIFFERENT meaning than today. In Early Christianity, all Christians con celebrated. So, were the Early Christians wrong? Were they also wrong in using a table during their Eucharistic celebration because that is exactly what they did.
Yes, many words have changed meaning over the years. Did you know that "bless" actually used to mean the sprinkling of blood? Does the NCW sprinkle blood over the people when they are blessed to go on mission for example? Why not? That was the earlier meaning of the word?
DeleteIf you change the meaning of the word to something other than what was intended by the person using it, can you really claim that you have understood their meaning? When the Church speaks of "concelebration" today (in the GIRM for example) it is using the word in its current meaning, not in an outdated ancient sense. This is exactly the sort of distortion that the NCW perpetrates throughout. Congratulations. You have proved my point.
And, by the way, saying "So, we have a Jewish menorah on the table? So what!" does not answer the question, namely - what is suggested by the use of the Menora by the NCW, when no other Catholic, past or present, has celebrated the Mass with this?
Dear Anonymous at 12:10 p.m.,
DeleteI do not know where you got the idea that blessing means to sprinkle blood. In the Old Testament, when Isaac blessed his son Jacob, he did not pour blood on him. This blessing from the father is extremely valuable.
Isaac’s blessing on Jacob (which was meant for Esau) gave him the earth’s bounty and authority over his brother (Genesis 27:28-29). It also promised that those who blessed Jacob would be blessed, and those who cursed him would receive a curse—words that echo God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3.
Did you know that the first Christians were actually Jewish. Did you know that there were pictures of the Jewish menorah in the Catacombs found in Rome. See the weblink below on the catacombs of the Early Christians.
http://www.the-art-minute.com/jewish-art-in-the-catacombs/
The link your posted refers to the period of the Late Antiquity, from about 250AD. By that time "Jewish Christianity" as such had died out, following the Judeo-Roman wars from about 65AD - 140AD. The Jews themselves had developed a new form of Rabbinic religion in that same period, and were persecuted by the Romans first, and the Christian Rome from the time of Constantine. That is why the art to which you refer was present in those places.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:28 p.m.,
DeleteOops! I copied the wrong weblink. The correct weblink was also about Jewish symbols. The Jewish Menorah is used in the Eastern Orthodox churches.
http://www.jewcy.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/why_there_menorah_altar
The weblink below is about the use of the Jewish menorah on the altar. The question was asked: Why do Orthodox churches have a menorah on the Altar table? The answer: In the Slavic tradition, there is a menorah (7 branch candlestand) on the altar, which is symbol of the tree of life and of the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit. In the Greek tradition, there are usually two 3 branch candlestands.
http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/835/
Diana,
ReplyDeleteI don't remember where and who, but he/she posted concern that the NeocatechumanalWay does not follow GIRM ( General Instruction of the Roman Missal). This is a nice excerpt with regards to receiving Holly Communion.
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/holy-communion-from-the-tabernacle.cfm
Should Holy Communion be distributed from the tabernacle?
Concern is often raised about the continuing practice of communicating the assembly at Mass from the sacrament reserved in the tabernacle. Sacrosanctum Concilium. . . , the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, states: "That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended" (art. 55).
This is supported in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which states that:
It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the Priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the cases where this is foreseen, they partake of the chalice (cf. no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion may stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated. (no. 85)
The reason for which the Church reserves the Eucharist outside Mass is, primarily, the administration of Viaticum to the dying and, secondarily, Communion of the sick, Communion outside Mass, and adoration of Christ present in the sacrament (see Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass, no. 5). Only under rare circumstances of necessity should the assembly at Mass communicate from the reserved sacrament in the tabernacle.
Thankyou for referencing the GIRM. Can you explain what is meant by these words:
Delete"the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice"
I draw your attention to the bit that says "after the priest's communion".
Is this what you see happening in the community?
Dear Anonymous at 12:53 p.m.,
DeleteYes, we receive the Lord's Body from the same sacrifice. The priest holds up the Body of Christ and says, " This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper." Then we say, " Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." Then the priest say, "May the Body of Christ......" Then the assembly says "Amen." The priest proceeds to consume the Body of Christ after the Assembly says "Amen" and everyone follows suit.
Once again, I draw your attention to the bit that says "after the priest's communion".
DeleteIn fact, the truth is that the neocatechumens stand and remain in their places (allowed). The minister of Holy Communion places the consecrated bread in the hands of each communicant. (Does he say "The body of Christ"?) All communicants then sit (not allowed), continue to hold the consecrated bread in their hands until everyone has received (not allowed). A period of reflection ensues. Then the priest sits down (not allowed), and recites the "behold the lamb of god" etc (this should have happened before the distribution - not allowed). The Body is then consumed all together (not allowed) upon the signal from the minister.
As my old Dad might say, "you lie like a pig in slush".
Dear Anonymous at 3:00 p.m.,
DeleteYes, the priest says "The Body of Christ". And then the communicant sits downs. We were allowed to sit down. This came from the Pope. Everything that we do is allowed. And no.... I do not lie like a pig in slush. If you do not believe me, all you have to do is fly to Rome and ask the Pope himself.
Just wanted to maximize more on the GIRM and what is meant by "sacrifice".
DeleteDiana is correct in sharing that we share in the same sacrifice of the Mass.
However, the GIRM is more so referring to the "Already Sacrificed(Consecrated)" Hosts that are reserved in the tabernacle.
The GIRM makes note that the faithful should receive from the same "Sacrifice" as the priest. Meaning that we should eat from the hosts that have been consecrated at that exact mass. This is why it is recommended that priests do not "over-estimate" the bread that is offered. Sacristans are asked to assist with this process by determining how many are expected to be in attendance at the celebration. The only hosts that should be reserved in the tabernacle should be for emergencies and the Host for Adoration.
Agreed Antione. I must say that the last time I was aware that I received communion (at Mass) from the "pre-consecrated" hosts would have been in the late-80's. I think that most parishes are pretty good these days.
DeleteAnd yes, "from the same sacrifice as the priest" does not mean "simultaneously with the priest".
The question of your phrase "what is meant by "sacrifice" of the Mass, is an interesting one. Can I suggest starting with the question of "Was the Last Supper the first Mass?" Or more precisely, if the sacrifice of the Mass is identical with Calvary (see eg https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchb1.htm) and that "all the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary" (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-institution-of-the-mass) how are we to understand what was done at the Last Supper which preceded Calvary.
I think the NCW identification of the Last Supper with the Mass (the emphasis on the "supper") rather than with due emphasis on Calvary is the foundation of great error in the instruction and activity of the Way.
When something new, like the NCW, appears in the Church, there are always suspicions and doubts most certainly. There are those who label and divide the church into 'neo' and 'non-neo', Catholic and Christian, etc. Those who take advantage of this situation and, out of hatred, exploit it to further divide the church are committing a serious sin against the Body of Christ. The HATE-bloggers who call for the demise of the Archbishop, some are even hoping that he has a heart attack, are committing a seriously diabolical sin against the Church. We all need to pray for the Church. St. Joseph, be our protector and guide!
ReplyDelete5:53, there's a difference between being a Christian and a Catholic Christian? You ununderstand that you just said you are Christian right? Then you separated yourself by qualifying your acknowledgment by saying you are a Catholic Christian? In your own words, you are christian!
ReplyDeleteThere is difference between being a "Christian" and a "Catholic Christian." Anon 5:53 is pointing out that not all Christians are Catholic. Lutherans are Christians. Episcopalians are Christians. Methodists are Christians. Baptists are Christian. Pentecostals are Christians. Those who attend Life in the Son, New Covenant, and other nondenominational groups are Christians. Catholics are Christians but not everybody knows that. Someone once witnessed to her faith and said "I used to be a Catholic but now I'm a Christian." With all the different denominations Anon 5:53 was stating the truth: Not not all Christians are Catholic but all Catholics are Christians.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:48 a.m.,
DeleteYou are correct when you say that not all Christians are Catholics, but all Catholics are Christians. There are three types of Christians - Catholics, Protestant, and Orthodox.
Since when did the word "Christian" become a dirty word?
ReplyDeleteSince certain Protestants begin using it "as opposed to" Catholic. "I am Christian, you are Catholic." This is a false contradiction, which suits anti-Catholic people very well. Thank God, there are Catholic Christians today (including those of the NCW) who are reconquering the word Christian for the children of Holy Mother Church.
DeleteThose who have a problem with this are of two kinds: 1. uninformed or not sufficiently informed persons who don't understand and so question why NCW members use Christian (thinking that this is a Protestant thing). 2. Informed people who understand this very well, but it suits their purposes to stir some mud and throw some more of it on the NCW, thinking that perhaps some of it will stick...
Diana, I suspect you didn't read the Wiki entry on "Roman Catholic" before writing this "catechesis"?
ReplyDeleteFor your benefit:
"Popes have on several occasions in different contexts during the 20th and 21st centuries used the term "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the whole church in communion with the Holy See. Example encyclicals include Divini Illius Magistri of Pope Pius XI in 1929 and, Humani generis of Pope Pius XII in 1950.[76]
Pope Paul VI used the term "Roman Catholic Church" in the joint declarations he signed with Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople in 1965 and 1967.[77] He also used that term in the declarations he signed with Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacoub III of the Syrian Orthodox Church on 27 October 1971 and with Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan on 29 April 1977.
Pope John Paul II referred to himself as "the Head of the Roman Catholic Church" (29 September 1979). He called the Church "Roman Catholic" when speaking to the Jewish community in Mainz on 17 November 1980, in a message to those celebrating the 450th anniversary of the Confessio Augustana on 25 June 1980, when speaking to the people of Mechelen, Belgium on 18 May 1985, when talking to representatives of Christian confessions in Copenhagen, Denmark on 7 June 1989, when addressing a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on 29 June 1989, at a meeting of the Ukrainian Synod in Rome on 24 March 1980, at a prayer meeting in the Orthodox cathedral of Bialystok, Poland on 5 June 1991, when speaking to the Polish Ecumenical Council in Holy Trinity Church, Warsaw 9 June 1991, at an ecumenical meeting in the Aula Magna of the Colégio Catarinense, in Florianópolis, Brazil on 18 October 1991, and at the Angelus in São Salvador da Bahia, Brazil on 20 October 1991.
Pope Benedict XVI called the Church "the Roman Catholic Church" at a meeting in Warsaw on 25 May 2006 and in joint declarations that he signed with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on 23 November 2006 and with Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople on 30 November 2006."
Dear Anonymous at 12:17 p.m.,
DeleteI do not rely on wiki because it is not Catholic and anyone can edit the information. The source I used was EWTN, which is Catholic. If you look up the speeches and letters written by the popes in the Vatican website, they use the term "Catholic Church." In fact, even the Churches on Guam do not use the name "Roman Catholic Church." For example, Santa Barbara in Dededo is "Santa Barbara Catholic Church."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061130_dichiarazione-comune_en.html
ReplyDelete"Roman Catholic Church" . Also "Church of Rome"
Dear Anonymous at 1:47 p.m.,
DeleteThe Church of Rome refers only to the Latin-rite Church. The "universal" Church, however, is NOT the Roman Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church. According to ETWN, which I posted above:
So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.
818 returns of "Roman Catholic" on the Vatican site - from Google search
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:vatican.va+%22roman+catholic%22
Dear Anonymous at 1:49 p.m.,
DeleteThe name Roman Catholic does not consist of the entire universal Church. When we speak of the Roman Church, we are only speaking about the Latin-rite Church. But the entire universal (Catholic) Church includes both the Latin-rite and Eastern-rite Church.
But hang on, you told us that the Vatican doesn't use the term "Roman Catholic" in its official pronouncements? In fact to quote you, you say "but the term "Roman Catholic" is a modern name and was never used by the Church herself"
ReplyDeleteThe Vatican uses it though. Perhaps the Vatican is outside the Church?
Dear Anonymous at 3:40 p.m.,
DeleteI quoted EWTN. This is what I said:
According to EWTN:
The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that -- Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
I provided the weblink of EWTN in my post. This is what EWTN stated in its website:
Delete"The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included."
I will go by what EWTN says, since it is a Catholic website. The Church does not use the term "Roman Catholic Church" when referring to herself, because the "Roman Catholic Church is not the "universal" Church. The Catholic Church is the universal Church whereas the Church in Rome is only referring to the Latin-rite Church.
If you have a hard time admitting that you are catholic, its probably because you are not a Catholic by heart. You love the way more than you love the Catholic Church, simple as that.
ReplyDeleteSimple resolution for this division in the Catholic church is for the NCW to cut its ties and be on their own since it appears there's no turning back for them.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:19 a.m.,
DeleteWe cannot do that. We cannot leave the Catholic Church because we are Catholic. We belong to the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. St. Paul says that the Body of Christ consist of various members who are different but one under Jesus Christ.
anonymous, ....I am guessing that you are neither Catholic or Christian. Only the Devil would tell someone to leave the church.
ReplyDelete