Monday, June 9, 2014

STILL the Neocatechumenical confusion of the REAL presence of Christ

Shared by Gerard:

From the website of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Perth Australia.  

"The Tabernacle shows the Sacramental presence of Jesus in the Scriptures (Silver Bible) and the Eucharistic Species (Body of Christ)."

Sacramental presence of Christ in Sacred Scriture???

The Catechism teaches us :

1088: To accomplish so great a work" - the dispensation or communication of his work of salvation - "Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass not only in the person of his minister, 'the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,' but especially in the Eucharistic species. By his power he is present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes, it is really Christ himself who baptizes. He is present in his word since it is he himself who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church. Lastly, he is present when the Church prays and sings, for he has promised 'where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.

The presence of Christ here in Scriptures being read, is not the same as the Holy Eucharist reserved in the Tabernacle.  The Catechism teaches:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."

1379 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.

1418: Because Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is to be honored with the worship of adoration. "To visit the Blessed Sacrament is ... a proof of gratitude, an expression of love, and a duty of adoration toward Christ our Lord."

Now, I dare the Neocatechumenal Way to cite Church teaching about the Sacramental presence of Christ in Sacred Scripture.  Does Christ's presence subsist and persist in Sacred Scripture even after Holy Mass?  Is the Book the same as the Bread?




Your reactions again Holiness???


  1. PART 1

    I would like to highlight that SO MANY Catholics easily fooled or swayed away from their beautiful faith simply because fundamentalist sects will woe them with a simple phrase: "That was never in Bible" or "You practice is NON-Biblical". Having been immerse in a civilization that looks for black and white, fundamentalists will never admit that their faith has been watered-down to a simple "To see is to believe" credo, ergo, if we do not find it in the Bible, it is wrong and was never Christian.

    For example, does anyone ever find the word TRINITY in the Bible? None, no, it is not in the Bible. But WHY does the Catholic Church profess her Faith in the One Holy Triune God? Simply because holy tradition taught her members to believe so. Ergo, not because it is not in scriptures, we are immediately to believe the fundamentalists' conclusion that it is non-Biblical, ergo it was merely an invention of Catholics. It goes the same with the CONFIRMATION. No one finds this word in the Bible, even if there are several passages that positively describes the Apostle's laying of hands for Christians to receive the Holy Spirit, and stated distinctly from Baptism.

  2. PART 2

    And so it is with the way these fundamentalists tries to debunk the Pope and Papacy (or the primacy of the Bishop of Rome). Alright, the word Pope was indeed never in the Bible. But if you browse through the New Testament, you will find Christ, NOT THE BIBLE, explicitly and categorically saying to Simon Bar Jonah: "You are KEPHA and upon this KEPHA, I will build my Church". In fact, Peter was mentioned most among the other Apostles at 195 times, he was mentioned always first in the list, the 12 were oftentimes called 'Peter & the 12' (not James and the 12). It was ONLY to Peter that Christ gave the power of losing and binding, ONLY to him did Christ gave the order of Strengthening his brethren, it was on his boat the Christ preached, it was to him the Resurrection was first revealed, it was only to him that Christ gave the order to FEED his Sheep 3x, where the greek word POIMANE not only means FEED but also means LEAD or GUIDE. It was Peter who made the decision and moderated the 1st council of Jerusalem, it was to him Paul presented himself to confirm his teachings, it was Peter who first spoke and preached after Pentecost. Is not the Bible overflowing with clues on the Petrine primacy, and just because the word Pope is not in the Bible are we to be easily misled that the Papacy was a Catholic invention and ergo a hoax? It was the Coptic Church of St Mark in Alexandria that first used the appelation Pope (from the greek Pappas or Father) to address their Patriarch, some 300 years ahead of Rome. But even if the Bishop of Rome was simply addressed as such, the whole Christian world, both from the West and the East, knew that whoever sat on the Chair of Peter holds an office of primacy, a primus inter pares (or first among equals). The undivided Church of the first century knew this well and infact referred to the Bishop of Rome any internal issues that they cannot resolve within their sui juris (or autocephalous) Patriarchate. And just because we cannot find the word POPE in the Bible are we to be easily fooled?

  3. PART 3

    Brothers and sisters in the Faith, recall the Christ sent to us his Apostles to spread the Faith, NOT THE BIBLE. He did not say 'He who reads you reads me.' Rather, even the Bible you can read, 'He who hears you hears me.' Never be fooled when fundamentalist quotes passages from the New Testament quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Note that each time that the word SCRIPTURE is cited in the NT, it does NOT and never meant the Bible as we have it today. Rather Scriptures or γραφή = GRAPHE in Greek surely pertained ONLY to the Jewish set of Scriptures which were available at the time when the NT was still being written. Also note that this passage DOES NOT tell us to believe the Bible and the Bible only categorically. In fact, even fundamentalist cannot find a single passage in the whole Bibles that categorically tells us to believe the Bible and the Bible alone. We ought to be thankful that through the Church's faithful handing over or tradition of the Universal Faith, we all received the Faith From the Apostles whom Christ sent --- NOT FROM THE BIBLE.

  4. PART 4

    The silly actuation of this Neocatechumen of juxtaposing the Bible with the Eucharistic Lord and even insultingly putting it ABOVE the Consecrated hosts is not simply a misguided idea, but a reflection of their screwed theology of putting an emphasis that belief in the Bible goes above and over the belief on the Body of our Lord in forms of Sacred Hosts. Nothing but an underhanded and silent way of undermining Catholic theology of the substance of Christ in the Form of a host that has to go under the mere form of the Bible. I wish the Vatican can step in and address these serious theological misrepresentations and underhandedness. Catholics and Orthodox use a lot of symbols but in this case, the neocatechumens use symbols to undermine Catholic Theology. This must stop!

    Laudetur Jesus Christus!
    Semper sit laudatus!

  5. I presume you made a post about a similar topic before eh?