Blog Song

Friday, November 14, 2014

More Errors In The Jungle

An anonymous poster copied and pasted Tim Rohr's comments on the jungle under my last post:  

TimNovember 12, 2014 at 5:58 PM

There are two Kiko precepts on display here: 1) the Jewification of Christianity, 2) the obfuscation between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood or the "priesthood of all believers." These things are purposely confused because 1) Kiko must get rid of the Sacrifice of Christ and replace it with Jesus as a murdered scapegoat, and 2) he rejects the ministerial priesthood and believes in a return the idea of early church presbyters. Both of these things come together in his rejection of the Mass as Sacrifice, since a Priest is "one who offers sacrifice". There are so many heresies like this in the history of the church this would be another yawn except for the fact that we have a bishop who is subjecting this diocese to it.


1.  Tim Rohr claims that Kiko's intent is to Judaize Christianity.  How?  We are not going around demanding circumcision.  We believe in baptism, not circumcision.  We are not demanding or imposing Jewish mosaic laws on anyone.  Judaizers make demands and impose their rules and laws on others.

So, why do the jungle hate us?  One reason is because we use the menorah during special Eucharistic celebrations.  They tell us that we are wrong in using the menorah and demand that we get rid of it.  They impose their rules on us.  Below is the menorah in the Cathedral of Brunswick, which was built in the 12th century and given to the Cathedral by Henry the Lion:



A similar one can be found in the Cathedral of Milano in Italy.  The Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Church also use a menorah at their altar.  So, where is the law saying that Catholics cannot place a menorah in their church or altar? And if there is no such law, then why is the jungle demanding and imposing their so-called rules on us the way the Judaizers did on the Gentile converts?  

2) I believe that everyone in the Way knows the difference between the ministering priesthood and the common priesthood.  In the Way, only the priest turns the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.  The fact that you do not find any layperson turning the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at the altar is evidence enough that we are not confused and can indeed distinguish between the two priesthoods.

 
1)  Tim Rohr stated: Kiko must get rid of the Sacrifice of Christ and replace it with Jesus as a murdered scapegoat. 

Tim Rohr and Chuck White have always claimed that Kiko does not believe or denied the Christ's sacrifice on the cross.  Below is what Kiko Arguello stated in his interview with EWTN.  According to Kiko Arguello (the bold is my emphasis):
 
 Then I realized that the central point of apostolic preaching was the Resurrection of Christ, Christ’s victory over death. Take into account that I am speaking of when the Council was just beginning, 1964 – 1965, a time in which the Paschal mystery was not quite so bright, Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was stronger. In other words, the poor, that environment was like a culture broth, like a laboratory where the Lord gestated a kerygmatic-catechetic synthesis that today is being preached all over the world. This kerygmatic-catechetic synthesis was forged by the poor.
 
 
We see in Kiko's own words saying that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was very strong.  Thus, he never denied Christ's sacrifice on the cross. 
 
2) Tim Rohr states: he rejects the ministerial priesthood and believes in a return the idea of early church presbyters. 
 
An anonymous poster asked if Kiko rejects the ministerial priesthood, then why have hundreds of seminaries around the world?  If the intent of Kiko was to get rid of the ministerial priesthood, having 100 Redemptoris Mater Seminaries around the world with more than 1500 seminarians and ordaining more than 1200 priests defeats his goal and purpose. These seminaries have been in existence for 26 years now.  So, when is Kiko supposed to start decreasing the number of ministerial priests rather than increasing it....if that is his real intention?  According to the Vatican statistics, the number of ministerial priests increased.   
 
And finally, Tim Rohr says that Kiko believes in a return the idea of early Church presbyters.  Is there a difference between the early Church priests and the modern priests today???  Or is he saying that today's priest are BETTER than the early Church's presbyters??? 


 

26 comments:

  1. Dear Diana, as to your point 2 above, would you care to re-iterate what you have previously stated about the community "concelebrating" the Eucharist (that's Mass to Catholics)? This is the classic example of your shared misunderstanding about the essential differences between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of the people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:40 am,

      According to the SUNDAY'S VISITORS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, concelebration had a different meaning that today. In Early Christianity, ALL Christians concelebrated. This does not mean that the Early Christians were ignorant and did not know the difference between an ordained priest and the laity as a priest.

      In the MIDDLE AGES, the meaning of the word "concelebration" was changed. Today, it now refers to bishops and priests. Just because the Church changed the meaning of the word in the Middle Ages does not imply that the Early Christians were wrong in concelebrating.

      As a matter of fact, this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

      " The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration."

      http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12md.htm

      Do you see what I quoted, Anonymous? Let me capitalize it for you. The last sentence I quoted above from the Catholic Encyclopedia stated: " THE LITURGY OF THE EARLY AGES IS MOST CERTAINLY WORTHY OF ALL VENERATION."

      Delete
    2. Diana, you are being disingenuous again. Why did you not quote the large context for your reference to Mediator Dei? Namely,

      "It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

      61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity."

      Allow me to capitalize that bit: BUT ANCIENT USAGE MUST NOT BE ESTEEMED MORE SUITABLE AND PROPER, EITHER IN ITS OWN RIGHT OR IN ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR LATER TIMES AND NEW SITUATIONS

      This is unfortunately exactly what your argument entails. That it is more suitable and proper to use the ancient definition, the ancient practises than the definition given by the Church in its proper authority.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 3:19 pm,

      I provided the website so you can read the entire thing yourself. What makes you think that we did not obtained consent from the Pope??

      Delete
  2. Furthermore, the NCW is ordered to follow the liturgical books of the Roman Rite. It does not matter whether you, or some Catholic group decides that the use of the Menora is ok, because the liturgical books of the Roman Rite do not allow the menorah on the table (that's "altar" for Catholics).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:41 am,

      The liturgical books of the Roman Rite does NOT even mention the menorah. So, how did you come up with the idea that the menorah is not allowed on the altar when the menorah was never even mentioned in the Roman Rite?

      Delete
    2. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, para 306:

      306. Only what is required for the celebration of the Mass may be placed on the mensa of the
      altar: namely, from the beginning of the celebration until the proclamation of the Gospel, the Book
      of the Gospels; then from the Presentation of the Gifts until the purification of the vessels, the
      chalice with the paten, a ciborium, if necessary, and, finally, the corporal, the purificator, the pall,
      and the Missal.

      Did you see what I quoted, Diana? Let me capitalize it for you. "ONLY WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE MASS MAY BE PLACED ON THE MENSA OF THE ALTAR"

      Delete
    3. Using the menorah, a candelabra, a candlestick, does it matter? What about the candle? Does it have to be paraffin, 100% or 51% bee's wax, synthetic wax? How about liquid wax used at the Cathedral? I think we are even allowed to use 'electric' candles? What about oil lamps? At one time the church was mandated to use oil lamps for the tabernacle. Now we can use candles. Does that mean oil lamps are now illegal? A menorahs illegal because its not mentioned in the rule?

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 3:13 pm,

      We already have all those things that are required at the altar, but where does it say that we should not place an menorah at the altar? It does not say that. In fact, it does not mention menorah at all.

      When Protestants challenge me to show them where in the Holy Bible Mary ascended into Heaven, I simply tell them to show me where in the Holy Bible does it say that Mary did NOT ascend into Heaven. So, I am going to tell you the same thing. Just because it is not mention in the book does not mean that it does not allow us not to use it.

      Delete
  3. TO ANON 3:13 PM - The General Instruction of the Roman Missal number 307: "The candles, which are required at every liturgical service out of reverence and on account of the festiveness of the celebration (cf. no. 117), are to be appropriately placed either on or around the altar in a way suited to the design of the altar and the sanctuary so that the whole may be well balanced and not interfere with the faithful’s clear view of what takes place at the altar or what is placed on it".
    Number 117: "The altar is to be covered with at least one white cloth. In addition, on or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation. If the diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used. Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession. On the altar itself may be placed the Book of the Gospels, distinct from the book of other readings, unless it is carried in the Entrance Procession".
    So, multiple candles are permitted by law. A 'menorah' would satisfy the requirement of having 2 or more candles as permitted by law. Using a menorah does not go against church law as evidenced here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:55 pm,

      Thank you for providing this information. This multiple candles used in the Catholic Church is called a candelabra. Many candelabra looks like Jewish menorahs. Below is a weblink of a Catholic supply store selling candelabras. Anyone can see that some of them look like a menorah.

      http://www.st-jude.com/c/CNSCNLHLD.html

      Delete
    2. Diana - So now you say they're candelabras and not menorahs. Good one!

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 9:22 pm,

      For your information, a menorah IS a candelabra. According to Dictionary.com, "menorah" is defined as:

      1. a candelabrum having seven branches (as used in the Biblical tabernacle or the Temple in Jerusalem), or any number of branches (as used in modern synagogues).

      2. a candelabrum having nine branches, for use on the Jewish festival of Hanukkah.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/menorah?s=t

      According to dictionary.com, which I provided above, the word "Menorah" is a Hebrew word. It is NOT English. In English, "Menorah" means "Candlestick"

      Candelabra, on the other hand, is a Latin word. Latin is the language of the Roman Catholic Church.....and as I said in my previous comment.......the multiple candles used in the Catholic Church is called a "candelabra." The English word for "Candelabra" is "Candlestick." Both "Menorah" and "Candelabra" have the same English word, which is "Candlestick." So, a Menorah IS a Candelabra.

      Delete
    4. In any case, either as a menorah or candelabra, church law does permit the use of multiple candles on the altar mensa during the celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice. This question should be acknowledged as resolved.

      Its pointless to go around in circles with this argument. It's obvious where church law stands. I now invite the folks in the jungle to move on to the next point.

      Delete
  4. It was traumatic for the Jews when a man came before them proclaiming to be the Messiah....it must be equally traumatic to comfortable Catholics to accept JESUS presence in our lives TODAY. We are writing about menorahs and candelabras.......waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:01 pm,

      I think that World War II was much more traumatic for them.....something they will never forget. Accepting Christ in our life today is not traumatic, but a great joy.

      I do not think that writing about menorahs and candelabras are a waste of time. What is a waste of time......is the jungle arguing with us about the menorahs on our altar. Now, this issue has been resolved in this blog site.

      Delete
    2. What I meant to say that if a person comes to Mass or the Eucharist and is disturbed about the candles and candelabras may also be thinking about the color of the Priest socks; the clothes people are wearing. The Mass...the Eucharist becomes secondary to their rules and regulations.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 9:50 am,

      This post is "More Errors From The Jungle." One cause of the jungle's hatred against us that there is a menorah on our altar. If we are to bring unity, it starts with an honest dialogue with them, so they can know the truth. There is no longer any point in arguing about the menorah on the altar. This issue has been resolved.

      Delete
    4. Diana, I was the Anonymous person who who wrote the following in the jungle. Chuck White wrote all his opinions on Kiko and the Way. I asked if he got Kiko'sl response, and I was mocked. Look at Rohr's response.

      AnonymousNovember 13, 2014 at 7:02 PM
      When you don't get Kiko's answers, then your opinions becomes a one-sided propaganda just like your book Target. Didn't you say that investigative reporting involves both sides?

      Reply
      Replies

      TimNovember 14, 2014 at 9:46 AM
      This deserves both an LOL and an SMH, 7:02. "Kiko's answers", ummm, where would we find those? In his catechetical directory? Oh, that's right, that's not available to mere mortals like us. Oh, you mean we have to sit through 30 years of catechesis to find out. Thank God Jesus required no such thing. Investigative reporting? We've had to work like hell to find out what the hell you people believe and teach because you hide it. Hidden teaching is gnosticism. You are not Catholic. Catholic means "on the whole", "for all". You idiots consider yourself to be the new "chosen people". Have at it.

      Delete
    5. Diana - Where in JW does it say they have hatred against you because you have a menorah on your table? Hatred is a harsh word don't you think?

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 3:29 pm,

      We are being persecuted rather than being treated as fellow Catholics because of a menorah on the altar. Just look at Tim Rohr's words. He called us "idiots." and that we are not Catholic. He says that the Way is evil.

      Delete
    7. Hmm, the problem with the Way is that to accept it you must essentially believe Kiko. Everything of the NCW is about Kiko - the catechesis and interpretation of the scripture; the music, the prayers, the liturgy, the images/'icons, the moral position, the need to induce the existential moment; the setting, the language, the culture. Everything is Kiko.

      To say you follow the NCW is to say "I believe in Kiko".

      It is always risky putting your faith in a human being - unless that human being is also Divine. I'm pretty sure that Kiko is not divine (diabolical perhaps?). You end up worshipping the creature rather than the creator, and I don't think that will save you.

      Delete
  5. Edivaldo, (aka Diana), do something good in Guam, for Catholics of the island, the pope is saying some very challenging things for people,says in coming Archbishop of Chicago . The Holy Father is not saying, this is the law and you follow it and you get to heaven. He’s saying we have to do something about our world today that’s suffering; people are being excluded, neglected. We have a responsibility, and he’s calling people to task.
    Quoting the Catechism is not going to help bring people back to the church, it is not going to help you understand, remarried and divorce issues, same gender blessing.
    It will not help the plight of immigrants in the island who are here illegally, and the poor — including working people who live paycheck to paycheck, and “those who are caught in our world financial structures and are getting squeezed.”
    Wake up NCW, the world is bigger than you, it is not about you, even if it is noble.
    As the Holy Father has time and time again reiterated, the call for the church is to open discussion on sticky matters long considered settled, such as communion for the divorced and remarried, same-sex relationships, couples who live together without being married and even polygamists in Africa.
    And all the people say, Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank God mr rohr for having enough love for all the idiots.....what's your problem? He'll has enough love for you too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:13 pm,

      Love is kind. Love is patient. It is not envy. It does not boast and it is not proud. It does not dishonor others. Nothing in Tim's comment showed any love for the poster.

      Delete
    2. Intent was not to antagonize or demean rohr but to see ourselves in 1 COR 15: 9-34.

      Delete