Chuck White continues to criticize Catholic teaching. Yes, I say Catholic teaching because the NCW is Catholic and upholds Catholic teaching. The Thoughtful Catholic once again criticized Kiko's words out of context. Chuck White calls Kiko Arguello a prophet in a sarcastic way only because he has heard some NCW members say he is a prophet. The jungle proclaimed Jesus as the last prophet, and anyone who calls others prophets are not Catholic. They cite the Muslims and the Mormons as examples. Muslims call Mohammed the last prophet and Joseph Smith was called a prophet by the Mormons. Both these groups are non-Christians. So, let us compare the words of the Popes and Catholic Apologetics to Kiko Arguello.
1. Kiko Arguello is called a prophet.
Pope Francis said, "All of us who are baptized are prophets."
Speech of Pope Francis
According to the speech of Pope Francis, calling Kiko Arguello a prophet is in line with what he said. Pope Francis stated, "All of us who are baptized are prophets." Therefore, the NCW is not going against what the Pope said. In fact, we are aligned to what he stated.
2. Kiko Arguello stated, "We Christians have no altar, because the only holy stone is Christ, the Cornerstone. So we can celebrate the Eucharist on a table; and we can celebrate in a square, in the country and where ever we like. We do not have a place in which you exclusively need to worship."
Pope John Paul II stated, "I have been able to celebrate Holy Mass in chapels built along mountain paths, on lakeshores and seacoasts. I have celebrated it on altars built in stadiums and in city squares...This varied scenario of celebrations of the Eucharist has given me a powerful experience of its universal and, so to speak cosmic character."
Pope John Paul II Encyclical
Chuck White highlighted only part of Kiko's words (See above). Now, look at what Mr. White did NOT highlight. The most important thing he chose not to highlight was the REASON why Christians have no altars. Now, why do you think Mr. White failed to highlight that part?
What is Christianity? Is Christianity about altars? No Even Pope John Paul II celebrated the Eucharist in stadiums and city squares. Pope Francis celebrated the Eucharist on a beach in Brazil. Is Christianity about priests? No. The Japanese Catholics survived without priests for many centuries. They survived on the Sacrament of Baptism alone. Is Christianity about the temple? No. The churches in the Middle East are being destroyed by terrorists, but Christianity still exists even with the destruction of the temples.
So, what is Christianity? Christianity is about Jesus Christ and has always been about Jesus Christ. As Kiko Arguello stated, "We Christians have no altars BECAUSE the only holy stone is Christ, the Cornerstone." All a Christian needs is Jesus Christ. The Christian altar, priest, and temple have always been Jesus Christ Himself. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. He is not a follower of altars, priests, or temples.....but only Jesus Christ.
3. Kiko Arguello: "Thus we find that a whole series of ideas of natural religions entered into the liturgy: to offer things to God to appease him;....
Catholic Apologetics: "Natural religion is simply the religion a man would be obliged to practice, even if he never received a revelation from God. Man could know by reason alone that there is a God and that He must be acknowledged by a worship dictated by reason as to its form, and by obedience to the natural moral law as manifested by conscience. But this natural religion is not sufficient in the present condition of the human race. God has given to mankind a supernatural destiny higher than any merely natural destiny, and this requires the revelation of a knowledge higher than that which could be attained by the merely natural reason."
Catholic Apologetics Online
It would serve Mr. White more if he reads the Popes' encyclicals and Catholic Apologetics so he can understand his own Catholic faith better rather than criticize someone who already knows the Catholic faith.
Yep. Some folks at JW can't distinguish between the Eucharist and the Host. The Eucharist means "Thanksgiving". It's a sacrament and part of the celebration of the Mass. The Host is the body and blood of Christ, which is what we worship.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this post, Diana. It shows the heresy of JW. We need to pray for them cuz they've been mislead.
Dear Anonymous at 10:39 am,
DeleteI saw that in the jungle. Some of them say the Eucharist is God. You are correct. They cannot distinguish between the Eucharist (which is a sacrament celebrated as part of the Mass) and the Host (which is the Body and Blood of Christ to be worshiped and adored). And here we are....we can distinguish between the Holy Bible (which is to be venerated) and the Host (which is to be worshiped) in the tabernacle. :-)
Dear Diana, you can see much more than that in the jungle... They send here their anonymous members in disguising like asking questions. They they run home and post the answer in the jungle twisting it all around. They high five as in a sports competition and declare with great delight how awfully heretic their conversation partners are.
DeleteBut they are greatly mistaken, as you pointed out by relevant church documents. We are not heretics, we follow the teaching of the church and the popes 100% in everything. We are very good in spreading the Gospel and evangelize. That is what they intensely hate to recognize and acknowledge. So they go uglier at every turn.
It is called voyeurism. A compulsion to hide, disguise yourself and watch other people intensely. It is a mental disorder producing the mentality we wee at the jungle. Voyeurism is addictive so those who come here to spy on us will continue this forever soe their own satisfaction. We have to recognize them, ignore and pray for them. That is all we can do for them.
The jungle is actually a training ground for irregular behavior. You see the regulars at the jungle to curse, spit, use bad language and just be extremely arrogant. The same time they consider themselves better than others as Rohr famously declared. But, in fact, their voyeurism is an embarrassment for the educated and culturally competent people even among them.
Why? You may ask, why? Very simple. Because what they do is simply shameful and morally unacceptable.
Jungle folk manifesting signs of unstable behaviour. Voyeurism serious concern with stalking Archbishop Anthony.
DeleteLOL heresy. Too funny. If Chuck is mislead, then so is every Pope since ever since. Quoting Francis and JP2 in little lines that aren't magisterial are only to get you embarrassed. Just letting you know.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:45 am,
DeleteThe Pope is infallible when he speaks of faith and morals. Outside of faith and morals, he is fallible. So, when the Pope says that all the baptized are prophets, that has to do with faith. It has nothing to do with politics or scientific discoveries.
The simple fact is....Chuck White has not been following Catholic teaching. He has no idea what the Catholic Church says on natural religion. He has no idea that Popes have celebrated the Mass in many different places other than in a church building. He has no idea that Pope Francis says that all the baptized are prophets.
Ok, let's break it down. That's not magisterial at all. It has to be in communion with the bishops and consistent with the whole body of Church teaching. Otherwise, every single thing Francis or any Pope ever uttered about anything with faith in any context is magisterial.
DeleteSecond, "prophet" is understood in two ways. First, the prophethood of all baptized Christians, which is of course true. But that also assumes that one can be a false prophet, as Kiko or Chuck himself could obviously be (since both are baptized). So is Chuck then also a prophet? Only in a general way, like the rest of us.
But it's the second that Chuck is talking about: that particular prophethood that Muslims or Mormons mean, which is obviously not the same. Hence, your irritation at his sarcasm, and that's an understandable reaction.
Get mad at his sarcasm, but don't play dumb about the difference. I know you know better.
As for natural religion, you don't have a clue about what Chuck or anyone else knows, especially me. Such presumption, particularly since "natural religiosity" isn't a theological or philosophical term known outside of the NCW.
Likewise, the "out of context" stuff. He quotes the whole paragraph.
Dear anon at 10:45 a.m. you are in bondage of magisterial fetish. We follow Jesus Christ who is a real person and not fetish. His teaching was promulgated in the Gospels which is the Word of God, eminently, the Word of Jesus Christ. Please, read frequently the red letter prints in your Bible edition that comprises the speeches of our Lord word by word.
DeleteThe magisterium is out there to interpret the Bible by applying doctrines and holy tradition because we are all fallible and we need guidance in recognizing the divine teaching of Jesus Christ in His humanly spoken words.
I said earlier that White is a kitchen theologian. Well, I might have been wrong! I am sorry to say, Chuck, but your soup is not even edible! Lol.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:09 am,
DeleteIt appears to me that Kiko is more aligned with what the Pope and Catholic Apologetics say than Chuck White. The false prophet would be the person who is not aligned with Catholic teaching. For example, Kiko Arguello has been saying that Christianity is all about Jesus Christ. That has always been his main point. We Christians have no altar BECAUSE Christ is our holy Cornerstone. Christ is our altar. And what was Mr. White focused on? A stone altar made by human hands. Is that what Christianity is really about? Christianity is really about Jesus Christ and focused on Jesus Christ.
Yep, and that's why Pope Francis was able to have the Eucharist at the beach and Pope John Paul II can have it in a football stadium.
DeleteAnon. 11:09, it's pretty clear what Pope Francis said. He said ALL of us who are baptized are prophets. That would include Chuck. JW always say the opposite. They say that none of us are prophets.
DeleteWe are not called to be thoughtful Catholics; we are called to be practicing Christians. Sell what you have Mr. White; struggle with the Sermon of the Mount and then we can talk. Until then...its all talk no ACTION.
DeletePlease see the above about how "prophet" is understood in two ways. I won't take up more space on that.
ReplyDeleteJW does not ALWAYS say opposite. I distinctly remember this weekend seeing one poster there crediting Diana with good points.
And CCC 1181-1183 points that an altar is more than just what Kiko is saying (to include that the real altar is the cross), and that's the problem---again! It's not that Kiko is wrong that Christ is the altar par excellence--but that saying all other altars (the hand-made kind) are pagan insertions contradicts the Catechism. Or are we saying the Catechism is only defining altar and not asserting it? In other words, Kiko's paragraph leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and that is one of many other reasons why there's this confusion going on.
My point is this, and I'll drop it: we have to use our words carefully when talking about the Lord. This isn't whether we should vote for a fool or a criminal for president.
Dear Anonymous at 12:48 pm,
DeleteWhere did Kiko say that the other altars are pagan? He said Christians don't have an altar because the only holy stone is Christ. Kiko never said the NCW don't have altars. He referred to "Christians."
Where did Kiko say that? Let see the quote on Chuck's post:
Delete"Thus we find that a whole series of ideas of natural religions entered into the liturgy: to offer things to God to appease him; sacrifices, lambs, various offerings. Even Israel for a certain period, had this kind of sacrificial cult, but we also already seen that God gradually made the switch from a sacrificial liturgy and temples to a liturgy of praise, of glorification and that extraordinary spirituality that is the Easter celebration. Now these people entering the Church went back to what the people of Israel had already passed and it begins to see in the Christian liturgy the rites of religious pagans. P. 322 (320)"
See that? "and it begins to see in the Christian liturgy the rites of religious pagans." So anyone non-Neo is (as the catechists say) is quasi-Christian, and that's really just a quasi-pagan, just as a half-lie is a half-truth.
Just to answer your question.
Dear Anonymous at 2:53 pm,
DeleteThese sacrifices and various offerings still exist although not in the form of animal sacrifices. People still bargain with God when they ask God to do something for them. They do a rosary or prayer to get through surgery asking God for help. After the surgery and everything goes well, no need to continue the prayers. Others go to Church not because they want to......but because,they are obligated to. Have you not notice that some people leave the Church before the final blessing or while the exit song is still being sung? They were not there to give thanks and glory to God. They were there to fulfill the Sunday obligation to attend Mass. That is what is meant by natural religion.
Of course some bargain, and that is what man does in his weakness: attempt to bargain. Is that not what Kiko says about the fear of death in the initial catechesis? And in that statement, he is quite right.
DeleteBut that is not natural religion; that is natural fear. Some men would bargain with the devil (and do) to save themselves or those they love. Such is love, even--as Zoltan says--radical love, although perverted from the Kenosis of our Saviour.
And yes, it disgusts me that so many leave Mass early, and leave late. It disgusts Rohr as well. but that's confusing what natural religion is.
Natural religion is the innate desire of man to render to God what is God's, regardless of how that is understood. That's why even pagans understood that atheism is as unnatural as anything there ever could be. But that's not natural religiosity, whatever that means.
I'm assuming here that Kiko means the distinction between prayer and magic, whereby with prayer we trust with faith in God and His loving will, and magic, whereby we try to force God to do our will with some incantation or whatever.
But that is not natural religion. That is magic. And by accusing fellow Catholics--be they quasi-catechized or not--of in essence attempting to practice magic because they pray the Rosary for a loved one is not only an insult to the Catholic faith, but a blasphemy to their confidence in God, the Church who promulgated such prayers, and the Pope who encourages such prayers.
Thank you, anon 3:43.
DeleteI'm guilty of not only wanting to bargain with God, but also doing it because my aunt was going through open heart surgery. But after doing it I felt horrible because here I was a sinful human being begging God to do something for me and knowing full well during that mass that he would listen to me but do as he pleased...knowing full well that all I could do was "intercede" for the life of my aunt and explain why she was precious not only to Him but also to the people around her.
So believe what you will about such prayers, but don't you dare mock the effort that these people make to reach out to God.
Um, Lets see Pope John Paul II's comments again:
ReplyDelete"I have been able to celebrate Holy Mass in chapels built along mountain paths, on lakeshores and seacoasts. I have celebrated it on altars built in stadiums and in city squares..."
Notice the use of the word "altar"?
Now lets hear kiko again:
"We Christians have no altar"..but rather "celebrate the Eucharist on a table".
One of these people is wrong. Can you guess which one?
Now, I know we've been over this before, but the central act and sacrament of Catholic Christianity is the Mass, which is a true sacrifice of Jesus Christ - body and blood separated and symbolically immolated - offered to redeem the sins of mankind. The Mass perpetuates the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Hence, we DO have an altar, because a sacrifice is made on an altar, not a table. The NCW call this idea pagan and natural religiosity, but Catholics know that this is central to their faith.
Dear Anonymous at 1:27 pm,
DeleteYou did the same thing that Chuck White did. You omitted the important part as to why Kiko said that Christians do not have altars. Our altar is Christ. So, the kind of altar Kiko was referring to was not the altar you think.
Pope John Paul II also was also referring to Christ as the altar because he said that the different places he was able to celebrate the Eucharist made him realize of the universal and "cosmic character" it has.
"Yep, and that's why Pope Francis was able to have the Eucharist at the beach and Pope John Paul II can have it in a football stadium. ..."
ReplyDeletei think everyone knows that on occasions the Popes will celebrate the Eucharist outside of a Church at special events. However, Kiko and et al, make this celebration outside of the Church, the norm, the status quo.
It is not the norm to celebrate every Easter in a gym. nor every saturday night Eucharist in parish hall, when the great big halls of the parish church are open, half-full, full-otherwise if the NCW would alight upon within.
Dear Anonymous at 1:34 pm,
DeleteChuck White was not criticizing the place where the NCW celebrates the Eucharist. He was criticizing Kiko's TEACHING about the altar, so please stick to the topic of discussion. This is a question you need to contemplate. What is Christianity really about?
Have you guys noticed that Janet B. from Mangilao is using the exact same language, style and arguments as Rohr? She must be one of Rohr's alter egos. Rohr is struggling to keep his stature among the anti-NCW radicals. He got a big blow from Fr. Paul who deserted from the jungle camp. I don't think Rohr will be able to recover his command, not even from a "Janet" tasked by blowing his winds against the more educated competitors from inside the jungle.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:33 am,
DeleteIn my opinion, I do not think Tim Rohr would pose himself as a female.
Yeah, that would be very weird... just like everything over there at the jungle.
DeleteYes Anon @ 11:33 AM. Fr. Paul "deserted from the jungle camp" because he was happy that his name had been "restored." He wasn't interested in what Tim Rohr and JW tried to do since 2013 which was to help him get "restored" back to Santa Barbara. So he "deserted from the jungle camp."
DeleteAnd after he deserted from the jungle camp Archbishop Hon made it clear that he never said that Fr. Paul was "restored."
So now Fr. Paul will have to wait and see how long it will take for him to be "restored" back to Santa Barbara.
Re:DianaAugust 16, 2016 at 10:57 AM referring to anonymous at 10:39am where Diana says:
ReplyDelete"I saw that in the jungle. Some of them say the Eucharist is God. You are correct. They cannot distinguish between the Eucharist (which is a sacrament celebrated as part of the Mass) and the Host (which is the Body and Blood of Christ to be worshiped and adored). And here we are....we can distinguish between the Holy Bible (which is to be venerated) and the Host (which is to be worshiped) in the tabernacle. :-)"
Sorry Diana - but the catechesis you were taught, you believe, and are sharing with all the viewers of this blog in this regard is very wrong.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church #1380 says:
".......The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet Him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease.
1381 "That IN THIS SACRAMENT ARE THE TRUE BODY OF CHRIST AND HIS TRUE BLOOD is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses'......."
Diana, the Eucharist is not only sacrament as you say but it IS also the Real Presence of Our Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The Eucharist IS God.
#1364...."As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the ALTAR, the work of our redemption is carried out."
#1395 "Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, THE EUCHARIST IS ALSO A SACRIFICE. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is My body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My Blood." "In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very Body which He gave up for us on the cross, the very Blood which He "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Eucharist:
-Sacrament,
-Jesus Present in a TRUE, REAL and SUBSTANTIAL MANNER, Body,Blood, Soul and Divinity,
-and Sacrifice. Read Catechism pages 285 - 304
Dear Diana 10:57 re denial that the Eucharist is God. Perhaps this can help.
ReplyDelete1355 of the Catechism says:
"Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist ("eucharisted," according to an ancient expression), "we call this food EUCHARIST, and no one may take part in it unless he believes that what we teach is true,has received baptism for true forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught."
The Host (food) is Eucharist. The Eucharist IS GOD.
Dear Anonymous at 2:45 pm,
DeleteThis is what CCC 1355 says (capitalization is mine):
1355 IN THE COMMUNION, preceded by the Lord's prayer and the breaking of the bread, the faithful receive "the bread of heaven" and "the cup of salvation," the body and blood of Christ who offered himself "for the life of the world":
Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist ("eucharisted," according to an ancient expression), "we call this food Eucharist, and no one may take part in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught."
You are in communion when you consume the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eucharist is a sacrament and part of the Mass. The Host is God. Catholics have never said that the Eucharist is God. They say that God is truly present IN the Eucharist as the priest consecrate the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. Catholics also say they become one with God after consuming the Host. We never say that we consume the Eucharist. Catholics say we kneel before the Host. We never say we kneel before the Eucharist. Catholics have always recognize the Host, which we consume to be God. CCC 1355 says that the word "eucharisted" in reference to the food eaten during the Eucharist was an ancient expression. But even the Early Christians recognize that the food (Host) that is eaten is God rather than the celebration of the sacrament itself.
What are you talking about?
DeleteHost doesn't mean "food"! Host, comes from hostia, which means "sacrifice or victim".
Tell me how you can have a sacrifice without an altar? Kiko's teaching is juvenile and simplistic. Christ is the priest, victim and yes Christ on the cross is the sacrificial victim on the altar.
This is why Christians MUST have an altar in the Mass - because the Mass is the continuation of the that moment of true and perfect sacrifice.
Of course the Blessed Sacrament is God - in the same sense that Jesus Christ is God, because the hostia is Christ.
Also, why did you gloss over and misread the Catechism? It states "Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist "we call this food Eucharist " etc
If the food is called Eucharist and we consume the food, then we consume the Eucharist, don't we?
Or are you so fixed on the meaning of the Eucharist as being only the celebration itself, rather than the true presence of Christ? That's what it seems like. Then you suggest that we should not "kneel before the Eucharist" but we should kneel before the "Host".
But if "Eucharist" is meaning "celebration" then how could you possibly kneel before it? I think your sentence is only sensible if one understands the word "Eucharist" to mean exactly the same thing as "Host", in which case, we do in fact kneel before the Eucharist.
Your theology and explanations are all over the place.
agree...we are all baptized to be prophets....either for Jesus Christ of the devil. Take your pick
Delete"The word “Eucharist” is a transliteration of the Greek word eucharistia, which is itself a translation of the Hebrew word berekah. All three words have the meaning of thanksgiving, or praise for the wonderful works of God.
DeleteMost Hebrew prayers begin with the words “Baruch atah adonai, Eloheinu…” which is usually translated as “Blessed are you, Lord God…” (The word baruch is from the same stem as berakah.) Jews have traditionally viewed all the goods of the earth as gifts of God for which they are called to frequently give thanks and praise. For the religious Jew, even to this day, every day is filled with opportunities to give thanks and praise to God. “The Greek word eucharistein recalls the Jewish blessings that proclaim – especially during a meal – God’s works: of creation, redemption and sanctification.” (Catholic Catechism, #1328)
History
The Eucharist should be understood as the sharing of a common meal."
From: http://votf.org/9378
The group that explained Eucharist above seems to have the same goals as CCOG, LFM, and the jungle.
...
Even they agree with Diana.
Dear Anonymous at 4:30 pm,
DeleteI defined the Host as the Body of Christ, which we consumed during the Eucharist. Christ instituted the Eucharist as well as the rest of the other sacraments. The word "instituted" means to set up, established, or started. The Eucharist is not God because Christ established this sacrament, and God is not instituted, set up, established, or started by anyone. God is as He is and always was. No one instituted Him. The Eucharist was instituted by Christ, and God is in this sacrament when bread and wine is turned truly into His Body and Blood. In other words, what Christ told us to do in remembrance is the Eucharist, which is a sacrament. The bread He held up and consecrated is His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
In fact, you can trace the Eucharist that Christ started back to the first century when He had the last supper with the Apostles. He took bread, broke it and said this is my Body.......do this in remembrance of me. This was when the Eucharist was instituted by Christ.......in the first century. God, on the other hand, had always existed. No one instituted or established Him.
Diana makes a valid point here. The CCC says that Christ instituted the Eucharist and even calls it a sacrament. God is not instituted. He is the Creator. He's not a creation. And the CCC never said that the Eucharist is God.
DeleteWell said and well explained Diana.
ReplyDeleteWhen we go to Eucharistic Adoration, we go to adore Jesus/Son of God in the Monstrance. Eucharistic Adoration is adoration of Jesus under the appearance of a Host/Bread/Food. The Eucharist is God.
ReplyDeleteYour theology reflects the NCW's initial teaching (which was wrong) - they did not believe in transubstantiation. That is one reason why Eucharistic Adoration was never promoted in the NCW for 40-50 years.
Dear Anonymous at 11:29 pm.
DeleteEucharistic adoration is a PRACTICE. A religious practice is NOT God. The Host we worship in the monstrance is God. Wow! The junglefolks also cannot distinguish between a religious practice and the Host. Wow!
Diana, since Rohr and his junglefolks have trouble understanding Catholicism maybe they can understand wikipedia.
DeleteTo Tim and junglefolks, here are a few definitions from wikipedia:
Eucharist: The Eucharist /ˈjuːkərɪst/ (also called Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, and other names) is a Christian rite that is considered a sacrament in most churches. According to the New Testament, it was instituted by Jesus Christ during his Last Supper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
Eucharistic Adoration: Eucharistic adoration is a practice in the Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic and some Lutheran traditions, in which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed and adored by the faithful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_adoration
What we worship is the consecrated Host. If the junglefolks have don't know what it is, let me describe it to them. It is round and white. We call it the "Body of Christ." That is truly God in the flesh.
A quote by Father John Hardon in his article "The Holy Eucharist is the Whole Christ:"
ReplyDelete"The most fundamental question to ask about the Blessed Sacrament is "WHO is the Holy Eucharist?" and the correct answer is: "The Holy Eucharist IS Jesus Christ." (The Eucharist is God. The Eucharist is not just a institution or sacrament.)
Dear Anonymous at 6:05 am,
DeleteAnd where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church did Father John Hardon got this teaching? This is why the Catechism says to correct our priests if they are in error because a priest can make errors. As I said, there is nothing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that says the Eucharist is God. But it does say that it is one of the seven Sacraments.
WE ADORE GOD PRESENT AMONG US --- Pope John Paul II
DeleteExcerpts: with reference to Eucharistic Adoration
"It gives me great joy to kneel with you before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, in an act of humble and fervent adoration, in praise of the merciful GOD in thanksgiving to the giver of all good gifts and in prayer to the One who "lives forever to make intercession" for us (cf. Heb 7:25).
We have just heard the words, "remain in me as I remain in you" (Jn 15:4), in the Gospel reading on the allegory of the vine and the branches. How well this passage can be understood from the mystery of the living and life-giving presence OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST.
Christ is the vine, planted in the chosen vineyard, which is the People of God, the Church. Through the mystery of the EUCHARISTIC BREAD the Lord can say to each of us: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (Jn 6:56). His life flows to us as the life-giving sap of the vine flows to its branches to make them live and bear fruit. Without true union with Christ—in whom we believe and who nourishes us—there can be neither supernatural life in us, nor fruit."
Diana - The above excerpt shows the Eucharist is more than only the sacrament or institution. It is the "living and life-giving presence of Christ" and "life-giving sap of the vine." The Eucharist is His Body and Blood. (God)
and the Pope states further:
"Here in Seville we must not fail to remember the man who was a priest of this Archdiocese, the Archpriest of Huelva, later Bishop of Malaga and subsequently of Palencia: Don Manuel González, the Bishop of the abandoned tabernacles. He strove to remind everyone of Jesus' presence in the tabernacle, to which we sometimes respond so poorly. By his word and example, he never ceased to repeat that in the tabernacle of each church we possess a shining beacon, through contact with which our lives may be illuminated and transformed.
3. Yes, dear brothers and sisters, it is important for us to live and teach others how to live the total mystery of the Eucharist: the sacrament of Sacrifice, of the Banquet and of the abiding PRESENCE of Jesus Christ the Saviour. You know well that the various forms of Eucharistic devotion are both an extension of the sacrifice and of Communion and a preparation for them. Is it necessary to stress once again the deep theological and spiritual motivations which underlie devotion to the Blessed Sacrament outside the celebration of Mass? It is true that the reservation of the Sacrament was begun in order to take Communion to the sick and those absent from the celebration. However, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "TO DEEPEN FAITH IN THE REAL PRESENCE IN THE EUCHARIST, THE CHURCH IS AWARE OF THE MEANING OF SILENT ADORATION OF THE LORD PRESENT UNDER THE EUCHARISTIC SPECIES."
and
6. "But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth" (Jn 4: 23), Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well in Sychar. ADORATION OF THE EUCHARIST 'IS THE CONTEMPLATION AND RECOGNITION OF THE TRUE PRESENCE OF CHRIST UNDER THE SACRED SPECIES ..... " (Diana - If the Eucharist was just the institution, how does one adore an institution?)
And, interestingly, Pope Saint John Paul II said at the end of this letter:
"May the Virgin Mary, who in Seville and in this cathedral is honoured by the name of Nuestra Señora de los Reyes, impel us and guide us to the encounter with her Son in the Eucharistic mystery. May she, who was the TRUE Ark of the New Covenant, the living TABERNACLE OF GOD MADE MAN, teach us to act with pure intention, humility and fervent devotion to Jesus Christ her Son, present in the tabernacle. May she, the "Star of Evangelization", support us in our pilgrimage of faith to bring the light of Christ to all people, to all the nations. "
. "Word" made FLESH now in the Tabernacle.
DeleteTo AnonymousAugust 18, 2016 at 6:01 AM
You state "Diana, since Rohr and his junglefolks have trouble understanding Catholicism maybe they can understand wikipedia.
To Tim and junglefolks, here are a few definitions from wikipedia:
Eucharist: The Eucharist /ˈjuːkərɪst/ (also called Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, and other names) is a Christian rite that is considered a sacrament in most churches. According to the New Testament, it was instituted by Jesus Christ during his Last Supper."
To Anonymous: Yes. Eucharist is defined as Holy Communion, Lord's Supper and other names. So, how is it that when we receive HOLY COMMUNION (which is GOD/Jesus) you do not allow us to say we receive the Eucharist??? The Eucharist is not just a sacrament or institution, it is also God.
Dear Anonymous at 8:14 am,
DeleteThe argument is not whether Christ is "IN" the Eucharist or not. We both agree that He is "IN" the Eucharist under the appearance of bread and wine. The disagreement is whether the Eucharist itself (which is a sacrament and a Christian rite) is God or not.
God comes to meet us through and in the Eucharist, which was instituted by Christ at the last supper in the first century. All the sacraments were instituted by Christ, and in all the Sacraments God is "IN" them. In the Eucharist, however, God comes in His actual Body that we can see, touch, and even eat Him.
"How well this passage can be understood from the mystery of the living and life-giving presence OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST."
DeleteThat is what we are talking about, His presence in the Eucharist. The Pope said IN, because it is in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is not God, but Jesus Christ is appearing mysteriously in the Eucharist under the species of bread and wine.
Dear Anonymous at 8:21 am,
DeleteHoly Communion is one of the seven sacraments. The white round consecrated Body of Christ is rightly named the Host. You can even call it consecrated host. It is the Body of Christ and that is what we worship. That is what you are consuming.
You receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion or Eucharist by going through the rite, which begins with the Eucharistic prayer and ends with the distribution of the Body and Blood of Christ. What you consumed is God. The rite is not God because it was instituted by Christ.
ReplyDeleteRe : AnonymousAugust 18, 2016 at 6:01 AM who states:
"Diana, since Rohr and his junglefolks have trouble understanding Catholicism maybe they can understand wikipedia.
To Tim and junglefolks, here are a few definitions from wikipedia:
Eucharist: The Eucharist /ˈjuːkərɪst/ (ALSO CALLED HOLY COMMUNION, THE LORD'S SUPPER, and other names) is a Christian rite that is considered a sacrament in most churches. According to the New Testament, it was instituted by Jesus Christ during his Last Supper."
Dear Anonymous NCW members and Diana,
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is the proper title to those who assist the priest in distribution of Holy Communion.
According to the Wikipedia definition of Eucharist provided, the Eucharist is also called Holy Communion. Therefore, you, Diana, and I can all say that the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion distribute the Eucharist.
Distribution of the Eucharist, Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper are all distribution of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, the True Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ - GOD. The Eucharist is more than an institution or sacrament; the Eucharist is also GOD Himself.
Dear Anonymous at 8:54 am,
DeleteThe Catechism of the Catholic Church has always been clear that the Eucharist is one of the 7 sacraments instituted by Christ. God is not instituted. And we have always worshiped the consecrated Host, who we see as God in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. What the priest holds up IN the Eucharist is God. I agree with Anonymous 8:57 am.
After reading this thread, I'm so embarrassed of the non-Neos claiming the Eucharist is God. I'm not walking in the Way, but the Neos are right. The Eucharist is not God. Anonymous at Aug. 18th at 8:14 am, you cited the pope's excerpt and it say "of Christ IN the Eucharist." The pope said Christ is IN the Eucharist. The Eucharistic BREAD is the body of Christ and the host after it's been consecrated, which the Neos recognize as God.
ReplyDeleteBread -> Eucharist -> Consecration of the Host during the Eucharistic celebration whereby the bread is no longer bread but the flesh and blood of Christ
DeleteGod IS the host and not the Eucharist.
Not walking in the way, but what is so hard to understand?
To Diana,Anonymous 12:21 pm and Anonymous 1:35 pm
DeleteYou are understanding the phrase "Christ in the Eucharist" out of context of the article.
Excerpts from the article by Pope Saint John Paul II are with reference to EUCHARISTIC ADORATION ONLY where all you have is the already Concecrated Host in the Monstrance which you and Diana both agree as being Christ/God. This article is not about the process of getting to that point.
Please re-read the article with that in mind and you'll find that Christ in the Eucharist means Christ under the appearance of the Host.
We are adoring this Host which is Christ/God. We are adoring the Holy Eucharist - Sacrament Most Holy - GOD. Hope this helps.
Dear Anonymous at 2:23 pm,
DeleteEucharistic adoration is a practice. The consecrated host in the monstrance is God. Christ IS the Host. It is His actual Body.
Yes, and we call that consecrated Host "the Eucharist" - or at least Pope John Paul II does when he speaks of Christ being in the "Eucharist". Here he is not referring to the event of the Mass, but rather to the Blessed Sacrament itself.
DeleteNot that hard. in this sense it is right to say - the Eucharist is Christ, just as it is correct to say - the consecrated Host is Christ
Dear Anonymous at 4:01 pm,
DeleteI see....so now you are backtracking and saying that the Host is also called the "Eucharist." This discussion did not start out that way. The discussion started with the word "Eucharist" as to the event celebrated at Mass, which we also call a sacrament.
The Pope started his speech saying "of Christ IN the Eucharist." He also called the Host "Eucharistic bread". And that is exactly what he meant because just before that he mentioned that it was broken into many pieces for us. The Body of Christ, which he called "Eucharistic BREAD" is the only thing in the Eucharist broken into many pieces for us.
No, I'm not backtracking. This is what the Catholic faith teaches. The NCW teaches something else though, which is why you make an identification of "the Mass" with "the Eucharist".
DeleteRather, the "Eucharist" is the sacrament of the Mass, and the term is also used for the consecrated elements of the Mass, which is why Catholics would say, "I received the Eucharist".
Anon at 8.14am above quoted JPII thusly:
"ADORATION OF THE EUCHARIST 'IS THE CONTEMPLATION AND RECOGNITION OF THE TRUE PRESENCE OF CHRIST UNDER THE SACRED SPECIES"
and then said "If the Eucharist was just the institution, how does one adore an institution?"
And this is quite right. In other words, the "Eucharist", in the JPII context, is a reference to the consecrated host, not the Mass.
By the way, the Mass is not a sacrament. The Eucharist is a sacrament, and it is effected during the Mass. It is known as the Sacrifice of the Mass, as well as the Sacrament of the Mass.
The NCW teaching on the Mass and the Eucharist is a real worry. It reminds me so much of Luther's attitude:
“This abominable Canon..makes the Mass a sacrifice; offertories are added. The mass is not a sacrifice or the action of one who sacrifices. We see it as a sacrament or a testament. Let us call it a blessing, the eucharist, the table of the Lord or the memorial of the Lord.”
Dear Anonymous at 5:21 pm,
DeleteYes, you are backtracking. In all my comments, I was very clear that the Host is what we worship because we recognize the Host to be the actual Body of Christ. You can even re-read the thread under this OP.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteSorry... just posted and realized the following sentence accidently was left with the quote of the Catechism - it was meant to be a separate line.
"Scripture is not the unique REAL PRESENCE; therefore, should not be placed in the Tabernacle."
Dear Anomymous at 12:04 am,
DeleteGo back and read the thread again. There is no rule saying that the Bible should be placed or should not be placed in the tabernacle. This discussion was already covered under this thread. Pease read the OP and the thread before posting comments that have already been repeated.
Diana at 8:11 am - I'm re-posting what I thought I sent you almost 12 hours ago. I have corrected what I was trying to correct in my 12:04 posting.****
ReplyDeleteSent Aug 19 2016 RE EUCHARIST IS NOT GOD
This discussion originally started with your article on "Sacred Scripture" which discusses NCW's argument for storing the Word in the Tabernacle with His Real Presence.
An anonymous said at 2:49 PM
"Diana,
One little note. You said "The Israelites understood clearly that God is not a bowl of manna, a rod, or stone tablets."
That's just it. It was just manna, but the Eucharist really IS God in the most literal way possible. That's why this is such an issue."
Then another anon says:
"Dear anon at 2:49 p.m. The Eucharist is not God! Where did you pick up that silliness? The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is a Holy Sacrament where the Body and Blood of Christ is appearing mysteriously, in a real manner under the species of the Eucharistic host and wine.
The Eucharist is the sacrament, and the Holy Host is the Body and Blood of Christ. Whenever we submit to the Holy Sacrament, we consume the Body and Blood of our Lord as a remembrance. Because we are all like doubting Thomas, we need the touch of Christ in order to believe...
The Eucharist is first of all holy! It is not God, but God appears in the Eucharist so that we can taste and eat. The Eucharist is like the tangible interface between God the Son and His people. Halleluja!"
The statement "the Eucharist is not God" is problematic.
Diana, it is unfortunate that you were able to clarify that the word "Eucharist" which is often used to mean the Sacrifice of the Mass (which we all know)BUT also is used to mean the Real Presence under the appearance of a Consecrated Host, but did not.
Hence the confusion. The Eucharist is God.
The Catechism 1358 says:
"We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:
-Thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
-the Sacrificial Memorial of Christ and His Body;
-the PRESENCE OF CHRIST by the power of His Word and of His Spirit.
The Catechism 1379 says:
The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that It could be brought to the sick and those absent, outside of Mass. As faith in the Real Presence of CHRIST IN 'HIS' EUCHARIST deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that IT EMPHASIZES AND MANIFESTS THE TRUTH OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT."
***Scripture is not the "unique" REAL PRESENCE; therefore, should not be placed in the Tabernacle.
#1374 says: "the mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist ABOVE all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist "the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, there, the Whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be "real' too, but because It is PRESENCE IN THE FULLEST SENSE; THAT IS TO SAY, IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL PRESENCE BY WHICH CHRIST, GOD AND MAN, MAKES HIMSELF WHOLLY AND ENTIRELY PRESENT.
--------------------
This is the reason that the Scriptures should not be in the Tabernacle.
---------------
Dear Anonymous at 12:21 pm,
DeleteI already explained that the word of God was in the Ark of the Covenant in both the Old and New Testament. And I also said that there is no rule saying that the word of God should not be in the Tabernacle. That is only a rule you made yourself. We are not obligated to follow your man-made rule.
No, but if you wosh to be Catholic, you are obliged to follow the teaching of the Church. So, the question is, does the Church recommend or instruct that the Scripture should be placed in the tabernacle (or on it, or under it), and does the Church actually ever do that? The answer is NO, and therefore you are advocating something novel, outside of tradition and foreign to Catholics.
DeleteOne final point. As we can see, you have defined the "Eucharist" as an event not a thing, and identified it with the Mass. This is what the NCW has taught you. So, how then do you explain the catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1379 which says:
"The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist".
Can there be a reservation of an event? Or it is rather the reservation of a thing?
Dear Anonymous at 8:48 pm,
DeleteFirst of all, let us get a few things straight. Placing the Holy Bible in the tabernacle does not make anyone a Catholic. I am a Catholic because of my baptism. That is what made me Catholic.
Secondly, there is no rule in the Church saying that the Holy Bible should not be placed in the tabernacle. You made that rule up yourself. And we are not obligated to follow your man-made rule.
Finally, you can call the consecrated Host whatever you want. Most Catholics identify the word "Eucharist" with the Mass. So, when a person says, "I am going to attend the Eucharist or the Eucharist will begin momentarily, it is understood to mean the Mass in which we will receive the Body and Blood of Christ. However, you can go ahead and tell people that you are going to eat the Eucharist in church. Many of them will have no clue as to what you are saying because it is not just the NCW who identifies the Eucharist with the Mass. I have never heard any Catholic say that they will eat the Eucharist in church.
Diana August 20, 2016 at 11:32 PM
ReplyDeleteI have never heard any Catholic say that they will eat the Eucharist in church.
Showing greater respect, we often say we will receive the Eucharist at Mass, referring to reception (and immediate consumption) of the consecrated Body of Christ.
Dear CNMI Lawyer,
DeleteActually, we say we receive either the Body of Christ or Holy Communion at Mass because it is understood that the Eucharist is part of the Mass.
During First Holy Communion and the first few years of the child's life, we specifically say the "Body of Christ" because we want to drill into our children's heads that they are eating Christ's body and not bread. We also want to get them to say "Body of Christ" so they understand clearly that it is flesh they are eating and not bread. As they get older, we usually tell them to receive Holy Communion in Mass. By that time, they understood the meaning and importance of the Eucharist.
You receive the Eucharist as a holy sacrament of the Church. The same way you may receive absolution in the sacrament of penance. You may also receive confirmation or anointing if you are sick. You receive a sacrament from the church. That is why we have the church, to serve sacraments to those who want to receive it. Capisce?
Deletehttp://www.americancatholic.org/features/special/default.aspx?id=29
Holy Communion is not God! It is a sacrament of the Catholic Church. The Eucharist is the same as Holy Communion.
Deletehttp://www.americancatholic.org/features/special/default.aspx?id=36
Dear CNMI lawyer,
DeleteI agree. By the time our kids are older, we no longer need to tell them to receive the "Body of Christ". Because they are older, they understand the importance and meaning of the Eucharist. When they are older, we can tell them to receive Holy Communion because they now understand that to be in communion with God, they must first confessed to the priest of any mortal sins they have before receiving the Body of Christ.
Oops! My bad! I meant Anonymous at 8:39 am, not CNMI Lawyer. Sorry, my last comment was meant for Anonymous at 8:39 am.
DeleteDiana, Re yours 3:33 PM
ReplyDeleteThe Word of God , yes, was in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. But, in the New Testament, the Word of God - MADE "FLESH" - was housed in Our Blessed Mother - the "New Ark."
Diana,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your blog and the opportunity to voice our different understanding of what we believe as Truth. Even though one side is going to eat "humble pie," the other side will have to struggle with the "I-was-right pride" - a deadly sin. Both sides will have a hard time; however, let's view it as new opportunity that will make us more pleasing to HIM.
Diana, you've shown how Chuck twisted everything around. But Chuck gets his teachings from Tim. Is Tim correct about faith coming mainly from the Eucharist? The Eucharist is always the main focal point of the TLM Catholics.
ReplyDeleteTimAugust 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM
It is Guile who is the protestant/neocat here, intimating that the Eucharist is just one of many channels of a faith. This is exactly neocat teaching. We receive Faith through our parents, but our parents are not God. We receive Faith through the Gospel, but the Gospel is not God. We receive Faith through our pastors, but our pastors are not God. And we receive Faith through the Eucharist and the Eucharist IS God. It is how Jesus desires to feed us: with himself, with his own flesh and blood. Only neocats and Mr. Guile see the Eucharist as only one "channel" of faith among many.