Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Book Order Is In.
The book I ordered finally came in a few days ago. The book entitled A Hemorrhaging Church: Evangelization And the Neocatechumenal Way. I browsed through the book and will soon start reading it from start to finish. At any rate, as I was browsing through it, I would like to copy a section of it on this post. I will only copy some excerpts from it. Anyone who is interested in reading the entire book will simply have to purchase the book on their own. The section is "Why a Weekly Community Eucharist?" According to the author:
........It is logical to ask why the Way incorporates a Eucharistic celebration for the small community on Saturday evening. Why don't those in the community come to Sunday (or Saturday) Mass with the rest of the parish community? Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Way in January 2012 states two fundamental reasons: The Eucharist on Saturday evening responds to the needs of those who have gone far from the Church and the Eucharist on Saturday evening supports the radical nature of those living the Christian life in the Way. Let us look at each reason in turn,
First, the Eucharist in small communities helps in a special way those who have been far away from the Church and are just beginning a journey of renewed faith or faith for the first time. A large celebration with its setting of anonymity for someone who is on the fringe of the faith has an unsettling effect. Further, there is a loss of "belonging" to the community of the parish because of its relatively large size compared to a small community......
The second reason that the Pope stressed in the significance of the Saturday community Eucharist is that the community is walking on a Way that is quite counter cultural and as such is a radical way of life that needs the support of the Eucharist.
The celebration in small communities, regulated by the liturgical books, which should be followed faithfully, and with the particular features approved in the Statutes of the Way, has the task of helping those who are undergoing the Neocatechumenal itinerary to receive the grace of being inserted into the saving mystery of Christ, which makes possible a Christian witness capable of assuming the traits of radicality [155]
Now "radicality" is the state of being radical and "radical" relates to the "root, basis, or foundation of something; original, primary" (Oxford English Dictionary"). This focus is important because the "radical nature of the Way is not a nature that is separatist or fundamentalist or divisive as the word is often used in medial language. In its radicality, the small community of the Way in the parish returns to the root or primary reason for its existence. That reason is to make Christ present in the World through a radical (original) sign of Christian witness........
A third reason for the Saturday evening Eucharist in small communities is the reality of young people participating in a Eucharist rather than in the hedonist, "hook up" culture that encapsulates so many young people. The celebration of of the Eucharist in a small community on a Saturday evening (open to all the faithful) is so opposite to our "normal" way of weekend living that it is a point of rejection and a branding of the community as "strange" and apart. Indeed, the Saturday evening celebration of the Eucharist is a marked departure from the weekend culture. Yet it is the basis for an original and rooted faith life especially for young people who face a Saturday night live world of sex, drugs, and alcohol. For a young person to give witness of coming to a Eucharist on a Saturday night is to raise questions on the part of onlookers......"What is going on here? We see you all gathering each Saturday night and we wonder who you are." This is precisely the questions that the early Christian communities received and is the beginning of a process of evangelization that builds on the interest engendered by Christian witness.
,,,,,,,,,For the priest who celebrates with the community, the response is always one of having an experience that strengthens his vocation. The community Eucharist is not exclusive in the sense that only those who have membership can enter. It is a celebration that is born out of a community of persons who are walking together to discover the meaning of their Baptism. In doing so, the community relies on the strength of the Body and Blood of Christ. Guardini, in the 1930s, raised the question of how many people in the parish at large receive the Eucharist with a community surrounding them or receive Communion solely as individuals.
With respect to the third objection regarding the orthodoxy of the Eucharist, the liturgy has been recognized by the Church and celebrated by Blessed John Paul Ii and numerous bishops and pastors. It is a most dignified and holy experience contrary to some who paint it as a kind of group gathered around a table conducting their own ritual........
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Diabolical propaganda
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
DeleteWhat is diabolical about it? It is true that there are many youths who are present in Saturday night's Eucharist. These youths could "hang" out with their friends, doing all sorts of things, but they chose to be at the Eucharist. Imagine that! There are young people there who are 21 and over who could easily be out in the bars or discos on a Saturday night, but they chose to be at the Eucharist, and the Way's Mass is about 2 hours long and these youths don't leave Mass early.
I would imagine that it being such a great book and all, and the author such a learned man, that he would discuss or least mention that the lay neocats concelebrate the Eucharist?
DeleteDear Anonymous,
DeleteAs you read Kiko's message, the Pope's speech to the Way, and the Statutes, one of the purpose of the Way is to celebrate the way the Early Church did. The word "Early Church" and "Early Christians" have been mentioned so many times. As I pointed out many times, this word "concelebration" does not mean the same thing to the Early Church as it does today. In the Early Church, all Christians concelebrated according to their liturgical role in the Church.
In the Early Church, the bishops were still the authority, so I'm sure that they say the words of consecration while the people listened. Why? Because the Early Church recognized a hierarchy as we do today. The term in the Sunday's Visitors Catholic Encyclopedia says that all Christians in the Early Church concelebrated according to their role in the Church. The ministering priests (bishop, priest, and deacon) would come first before the common priests (people).
Yes, but does this book speak about "concelebration" in the way you do?
DeleteDear Anonymous,
DeleteIn the way I do???? How many times must I say that "concelebration" in the Early Church is not the same as what you think it means today? If you look at the archaeological fresco paintings of the Early Church, you find that they celebrated the Eucharist around a table.
And yet the GIRM (218) says "The parts spoken by all the concelebrants together and especially the words of consecration, Which ALL ARE BOUND TO SAY".
ReplyDeleteSo do the people say the words of consecration or not? And if not, either they are not concelebrants, or they disobey the GIRM. Which one is it Diana?
Dear Anonymous
DeleteAgain, you are looking at the PRESENT GIRM of today. How many times do I have to tell you that the word "concelebration" in the Early Church does not have the same meaning as today? How many times must I quote the Sunday's Visitors Catholic Encyclopedia that already stated that in Christian antiquity, ALL Christians concelebrated according to their roles in the Church, and that it wasn't until the Medieval Age when the word "concelebration" came to refer only to the bishops and priests????
According to the Sunday's Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, it stated that all Christians concelebrated ACCORDING TO THEIR ROLES IN THE CHURCH. According to their roles in the Church.....means that the common priesthood does not say the words of consecration because only the ministering priest has the authority to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. However, the common priesthood (people) are still concelebrants according to the Early Church's perspective and viewpoint.
I already stated that ONLY the priest utters the words of consecration because he is the ministering priest. We (the people) are the common priests, and therefore do not utter the words of consecration. On the other hand, we do not consume the Body of Christ after receiving it from the priest. Why? Because the priest did not take Communion yet. It is until after everyone receives the Body of Christ and after the priest receives Communion that we all consume the Body of Christ together.
Do you have any evidence that the early Church actually practised the reception of communion as the NCW do, seeing as though you continually say that the NCW celebrate as the early Church did?
DeleteI recommend you read Cochem's Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Explained, which you can get here:
http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/Fr.%20Martin%20Cochem%20-%20Explanation%20of%20the%20Holy%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Mass.pdf
Therein he quotes from the liturgy of the Concecration of a Bishop dated from somewhere between 100 and 150AD.
Under the heading "Communion", the following is written: "And after that let the Bishop partake, then the presbyters and deacons, and all the people in order with reverence and godly fear"
This book is an antidote for much of the nonsense that Kiko teaches about the Mass. I sincerely pray that you read this book with and open heart and mind.
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteThe oldest and earliest Mass is found in the Last Supper, which is in the Gospels. According to the weblink below:
The earliest and most detailed account of the Eucharist is found in St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, which, of course, predates the Gospels, and was written in Ephesus between 52-55 A.D. Scholars agree that the Consecration formula used by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, quotes verbatim from a stylized formula already in use in the Apostolic liturgy...........
By combining St. Paul's account with those of the four synoptic Gospels, we have the essentials of the Eucharistic liturgy in every ancient rite. Our Lord took bread, gave thanks, blessed and broke it, and gave it to His Apostles to eat; then He took a cup of wine, again gave thanks [Luke and Paul do not add this second thanksgiving], said the words of Institution [or Consecration] over it, and gave it to them to drink. We thus have the five essential elements for the Christian Eucharist: 1) Bread and wine are brought to the altar; 2) The celebrant gives thanks; 3) He takes bread, blesses it and says the words of Consecration; 4) He does the same over the wine; 5) The consecrated Bread, now having become the Body of Christ, is broken and is given to the people in Communion together with the contents of the Chalice, that is, the Precious Blood.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/mass-history.htm#EARLY
And if we look at 1 Corinthians 11, St. Paul tells the brothers regarding the last supper: So, then my brothers, when you come together to eat, WAIT FOR EACH OTHER (1 Corinthians 11:33)
Hang on. You are talking about the Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. I'm speaking of the Mass. On another page at this blog you made a big deal of the unity of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Where in the Gospels or in Paul's Epistles does it refer to the Liturgy of the Word at the Last Supper?
DeleteIs the Liturgy of the Word an "essential element" of the Mass or not?
You need to read the book I linked my dear. You are way off in everything you say. If you can, show me one reference to the Mass of the early Church where the people received communion as the Neocats do.
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteThe problem was never the Liturgy of the Word. Those who oppose the Way never say anything about the Liturgy of the Word. They complain about how the members of the Way receive the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.
Exactly, now, as I said, if you can, show me one reference to the Mass of the early Church where the people received communion as the Neocats do.
DeleteDear Anonymous,
DeleteI already did in my last comment.
The author displays the same tendency to distort the meaning of the words of the popes and the teachings of the Church. As an example look at what the pope said in January 2012, as quoted by the author:
ReplyDelete"The celebration in small communities, regulated by the liturgical books, which should be followed faithfully, and with the particular features approved in the Statutes of the Way, has the task of helping those who are undergoing the Neocatechumenal itinerary to receive the grace of being inserted into THE SAVING MYSTERY OF CHRIST, WHICH MAKES POSSIBLE A CHRISTIAN WITNESS CAPABLE OF ASSUMING THE TRAITS OF RADICALITY"
Now the pope here is saying that it is the "Mystery of Christ" that leads to this "radicality". He is not saying that it is the Neocatechumenal Way which leads to the "radicality". And yet, in the discussion that follows, the author asserts that the pope's reference to "radicality" is really an endorsement of the obsession the Way has with a return to the "early Church", as though the Church has lost its way. The pope is saying no such thing.
Also, note how the author completely ignores the words of the pope "regulated by the liturgical books, which should be followed faithfully"? He actually goes on to say
"With respect to the third objection regarding the orthodoxy of the Eucharist, the liturgy has been recognized by the Church and celebrated by Blessed John Paul Ii and numerous bishops and pastors".
Now this comment seems to indicate that the NCW actually has a liturgy of its own, whereas the pope's comments appear to stress that the liturgy of the NCW should "faithfully follow" the liturgical books.
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteThat is not what the author is saying about "radical". The author interprets the word "radical" to mean "original". He is saying that in this radicality, the Way is returning to the root of its existence. In other words, the "origin" of its existence.
The author also did not ignore "regulated by the liturgical books. How is it that you interpret the Pope to mean that the NCW is NOT following the liturgical books. The Pope stated the following:
The celebration in small communities, regulated by the liturgical books, which should be followed faithfully, and with the particular features approved in the Statutes of the Way, has the task of helping those who are undergoing the Neocatechumenal itinerary to receive the grace of being inserted into the saving mystery of Christ, which makes possible a Christian witness capable of assuming the traits of radicality.
Nowhere in here is the Pope even accusing the NCW of NOT following the liturgical books. You look at the phrase "should be followed faithfully" but you don't see the phrase, "The celebration in small communities regulated by the liturgical books". The celebration in small communities is regulated by the liturgical books.
How did you interpret the author's comment to mean that the NCW has developed a new liturgy, when the author already stated that the liturgy has been recognized by the Church?