Jmj

A friend of mine just sent me an e-mail note to let me know that Pope John Paul has issued a new encyclical today. My friend gave me the URL to Ecclesia de Eucharistia (On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church) and sent me the following excerpt on a subject of mutual interest -- liturgical abuses. Every priest in the world needs to read this encyclical most carefully.

"52. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist.

"It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against 'formalism' has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the 'forms' chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.

"I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist.

"Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality."

WONDERFUL!
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 17, 2003

Answers

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 17, 2003.

Wonderful expression of love and concern by our Pope. Let us hope this is not used as a harsh stick in the forum but rather an invitation to acknowledge the wonder of it all.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 17, 2003.

I can hear the horde scratching at the chapel door already. Glib and bored, it bobs a limp, baby-clean hand against the Pope in a gesture of uninterested and effortless rejection.

"Well, of course you realize that this isn't an infallible document. The Pope," the horde sighs in poorly feigned compassion, "isn't well." Its face becomes stern, and it continues, "He probably didn't even write the letter. I'll bet that lots of reactionary and fundamentalist bishops would love to use him, which surely they can do now because he's vulnerable. Don't get me wrong--I love the Pope. I think he's a great guy. But honestly, noone in his age or condition should be controlling the Church now. Of course, if we weren't still living in the Middle Ages, we'd let the real Church, the People of God, vote." The horde makes a quick chuckle at its cleverness. "Well, it won't be long now. Let me tell you, the Church will be very different in fifty years. Just you wait-- we'll see how long the hierarchy lasts, if they keep publishing letters like these."

I hope many people here read the whole document. Don't skip the boring parts! Absorb it, know it, and love it. It's beautiful; it's like music! Read it, please, and be a Witness against the horde! Be a knight of Christ! Be a light to the World, like the Pope is. The horde grows, but our hope grows all the more! God bless the Holy Father.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), April 17, 2003.

More documents are to follow from the CDF in the celebration of the Eucharist, and yes, I can imagine many in progressive circles will make excuses not to make the mass more reverent. Hopefully this will be a further building block to restore much of the liturgy.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 17, 2003.

Thanks, guys, for your responses. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 19, 2003.

I know some of you guys are waiting for an answer from the self- professed progressive, so here goes.

The celebration of the Eucharist is what identifies us as Catholics.

It's who we are, from the beginning, -- instituted by Jesus Christ.

SACRED is not a word that offers ENOUGH reverence.

Personally, I have neither seen nor would condone abuses of the Eucharist.

No ifs, no ands, no buts, no maybes.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 19, 2003.

John G., On another thread, I asked this, but please, let me ask again: Are you a deacon or other religious?

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 19, 2003.

As a divorced Catholic, gifted with great faith, I am saddened that the Pope feels it necessary to undermine the very ecumenical efforts Rome has attempted in recent years. It would seem that recently directives from the Pope present us with nothing new - and serve only to raise the ire of those "brethren who have fallen away from the church." I don't see the point, except to, as I believe re-establish the papacy as supreme rule over the church. Additionally, the latest vatican directives which disallow extrodinary ministers from dispensing the blood, and disallow their presence around the altar - only serve to further disenfranchise the faithful. And further, in my diosese, the Bishop has gone so far in intrepreting renewed Vatican directives about proper posture while recieving communion, as to direct Eucharist Ministers to "pastorally address" communicants who do not bow. (Read: correct them.) He does add in his weekly column that no one will be denied communion for failure to bow. The following is an excerpt from Rev. Reese (attributed in "The Austrailian," in comments on the Pope's April 17th encyclical:

"That is what the Vatican is saying for years about the non-admission of public sinners to the Eucharist whether they be divorced or Mafia or people who are notorious criminals," said the Reverend Thomas Reese, editor of America, a Jesuit magazine

How sad, that we as Catholics are so consumed by the practice of our faith that we seem to have lost the meaning for it. That we are all sinners, to whom Jesus makes himself present, for whom Jesus died and without whom we are lost.

-- Dawn Grimes (DawnGrimesComm@aol.com), April 20, 2003.

I understand the Pope's position, and will respect it.

My own perspective is that, having divorced for what I believed to be compelling reasons, and having remarried, the Church considers me to be living in sin, and forbids partaking in the sacraments, such as the Eucharist. After considering this latest encyclical, it is my perception that the Pope is saying that while those in my situation are allowed to attend part of the Mass, there must be a public recognition that those regarded as sinners are to be foreclosed from the single most important part of Catholic life, the Eucharist, and that it would probably be better for us not to embarrass the good folks who've lived without sin by atending their gatherings on Sunday morning.

This probably sounds rather bitter, but I do feel abandoned by my Church. I've been a pretty active member of my local congregation, have volunteered a good deal of time and tried to do my part. When critics have spoken of abuses by errant priests, I've taken the position that individual sins should not be attributed to and considered part of the essence of the Church; don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Having said that, it does strike me as a bit odd that priests who have molested children, and bishops who have knowingly sent such priests into new communities with knowledge that there may be further abuse and further cover-ups and relocations, can celebrate Mass and dispense and receive Communion, so long as they have made private confession; while those of us who have (for whatever reason) divorced and remarried, are to be denied such participation and to be recognized in public as living in states of chronic and unforgiven sin, stagmatized forever. Our checks will be cashed, of course, but we are otherwise not wanted.

Perhaps divorce and remarriage are indeed intolerable practices, to be condemned at every opportunity, and certainly not capable of forgiveness (and in this sense to be distinguished from non-chronic sins, such as murder, child molestation, and the like, which may be forgiven). Perhaps the ecumenical spirit once embraced by the Church was a terrible mistake, and the policy of exclusion is vastly preferable to one of inclusion. Maybe it's best to hate the sin and love the sinner (so long as he or she agrees to stay out of the Church). We're easier to love, I guess, at a safe distance.

-- Bob (mensrea@aol.com), April 20, 2003.

Dear Bob:
You have an open forum here to pour out your complaints, and I'm glad you expose your disillusions. They are mostly grounded in self-pity. Yet, in your place, I'd probably have similar thoughts.

The fact is, you have had a cross placed on your shoulder. Without delving into the justice of your case, I leave it to you, whether you'll accept the cross and continue with unwavering faith. You are being tested, as anybody can see.

Why not become more and more devout and resigned to God's Will? It may come to surprise you how much God loves the ones who carry on with great faith, no matter what! His love will support you; if indeed you made a decision that now causes you to doubt in the Church.

Let me say for certain, the Church didn't dig that hole for you, which makes you so disillusioned. The Church didn't dig the hole for a covey of child-molesters or any other sinner; it's our own SINS which bring us to hopelessness and anger.

Even so, Bob. The way to return into the shelter of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus is never blocked. Not for you or anyone. You have the power to practice self-denial. You have the power to pray & give thanks to Him, for driving away temptations, for not giving up your FAITH. You can offer Him your body and soul, your sorrow and your insecurity. You can beseech His MERCY. And, within the sanctuary of the Holy Catholic Church, make your devout and unselfish SPIRITUAL COMMUNIONS before the altar.

Never consider failing in the communion of saints. You can still be a saint. Have more faith than others. Show it before the Holy Altar. He hears you and understands.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 20, 2003.

"As a divorced Catholic, gifted with great faith, I am saddened that the Pope feels it necessary to undermine the very ecumenical efforts Rome has attempted in recent years."

Boy, I know I am really going to sound argumentative saying this, but this is the way I read your opening remark:

"As someone who is wiser, holier, and more faith-filled than the Pope, I am saddened that he is undermining modernism by reiterating what the Church has consistently taught and instructed about the Most Holy Eucharist for over 2,000 years."

The Church has never condoned non-Catholic Christians receiving Holy Communion. There are no Church documents suggesting that those not in communion with Rome may licitly receive this Sacrament of Unity; the Source, Center, and Summit of our Faith. For a non-believer to do, would make a mockery of all that we hold to be sacred.

It isn't just a communal meal. It is the Body and Blood of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:27 "...whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord."

I think our Holy Father is absolutely amazing. If only people would listen to him and follow his instruction, they would find great peace and joy!

Pax Christi. May the Peace of Christ be upon you. <><

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), April 20, 2003.

Anne,
I think Bob is a Catholic. He said only that he was unable to take communion because of his divorce/remarriage. This is also in keeping with the traditional conditions. He somehow believes this makes him a stranger to the faith. But I reminded him he is still within the fold; only he is limited to spiritual communion. God will never reject him, as long as his sins are forgiven.

I agree with you about His Holiness John Paul II. He is a great Pope and a saint in the flesh.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 20, 2003.

Eugene,

Your response appears to be sincere and is appreciated. You make it clear that each of us must seek redemption and atonement from a different starting point. I wish sincerely that your own quest will be successful, and that you may be an emissary to others who seek salvation.

I certainly would not be so presumptuous as to deny that I have sinned, nor that the Church is some sort of democracy wherein the objective is the satisfaction of its members; I recognize that certain immutable and essential doctrines are of value precisely because they represent normative values and truths that are revealed, which are not subject to modification. Other rules, however, thought to be ancillary to these essential doctrines, have been crafted and interpreted in different ways over the years, and my wish that certain of these matters of interpretation had been different, in no way contradicts the right of the Holy See to articulate current policy in any way felt to be appropriate. No doubt many were disappointed in the ecumenical politics of Pope John XXIII, and no doubt some would draw lines of demarcation in different places as between the essential truths and the interpretative guidelines. But it is not my prerogative to make such judgments.

In my own case, had I sought a decree of nullity, my former wife would have been notified of the "charges" central to the petition, i.e., that her vows had been given in a fraudulent manner, with the consequence that the marriage had been a sham. For reasons not essential to this discussion, that would have been devastating to her, a woman who has suffered terribly already, and I could not in good conscience have done that to her. When, years after we divorced, I met someone with whom I fell deeply in love, I had to decide whether to marry within the Church by first seeking an annullment, to marry in a civil ceremony, or to remain unmarried. I made my choice and must live with it. Though I am richly blessed to share my life with a wonderful woman, I will admit to being disappointed that we would be regarded as pariahs under current Church policies.

The present policy of regarding those who have remarried as being in a state of irredeemable mortal sin, as contrasted with serial murderers who are forgiven upon making confession, does not mean that the former (folks like me) cannot be forgiven; it simply means that we cannot be forgiven by the Church. I may be disappointed in that fact that the Church pronounces me unworthy of forgiveness, but I don't quarrel with the Church's ability to make its own rules of inclusion and exclusion. I think it's wonderful that Christ died in order that the Charlie Mansons of the world may be forgiven, but wish there were a place in this Church, which I'd called my home for about fifty years, for folks like me, as well. The Church may condemn me for saying it, but I have to believe that there is hope that, in the Heart of Jesus, there may be forgiveness for the kind of sin that is mine.

So call my lament a matter of self-pity (at least in part), and I won't disagree; I am assuredly not without sin and have made of my life what it is. I must continue to seek the forgiveness not only of God but of those I've hurt in my life; and must remember the importance of forgiving those who have hurt me. With whatever sins and mistakes I've made, I am where I am, and wish to make the right choices on the road I must take.

Oh, and Sara, I've giggled when looking at others at times -- I'm a recovering Pharisee myself -- but have a sense that throwing stones with too much glee can be hazardous to one's spiritual health. You may not tear a rotator cuff, but giggling and/or rock chucking can make it just a little more difficult to see the Creator in those who are the targets of your ridicule.

-- Bob (mensrea@aol.com), April 20, 2003.

Hi Eugene,

Actually, I was responding to Dawn, not Bob. She posted above him.

Bob, I feel your pain, but the Church does not consider you a "pariah." You simply have made a life choice which is not in keeping with her teachings. Hopefully, in time, this can be rectified, and you and your wife will be able to return to the Sacraments. May God be with you.

Also, Bob, someone is posting "I giggled" and signing Sara's name to it on various threads. She posted a disclaimer about this on another thread. Being a public forum, we sometimes have to suffer with pranksters.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), April 20, 2003.

These juvenile "giggle" messages are not being posted by Sara. You can always recognize Sara's contributions by the depth and orthodoxy of their content. These harrassing messages are being posted by Andrew Finder (Andrew44@hotmail.com), who also posts as Andrea Lobster (Andrea3@hotmail.com), and a couple of other names.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

Dear Bob,

You state: "I recognize that certain immutable and essential doctrines are of value precisely because they represent normative values and truths that are revealed, which are not subject to modification."

A: Yes! And two of these immutable doctrines of divine origin are (1) the indissolubility of valid Christian marriage; and (2) the evil of polygamy. These are not "interpretive guidelines", but core moral truths which have been part of Christian teaching from the very beginning. The Church is therefore bound before God to profess these truths constantly and unerringly, until the end of time. Of course adherence to truth can be inconvenient for those who have already chosen a course which deviates from truth, whether innocently or intentionally. But the facts are clear. A valid Christian marriage cannot be terminated by any means except the death of one of the parties. Therefore, any subsequent "remarriage" after a first valid marriage, OR without proper determination of the validity of a first marriage, constitutes objective adultery and polygamy. The Church cannot soft-pedal this. To preach anything less than the fullness of truth on such an essential issue could place souls in grave danger of eternal damnation.

Your compassion for your wife is commendable, and surely no-one would want to see her unnecessarily subjected to suffering. But when the truth hurts, it is still the truth, and Jesus told us that the truth is what would set us free. You wish to spare her the pain of facing the possible fact that your marriage to her was invalid ("a sham", as you put it). But doesn't going on with life as though nothing ever happened, as though truth doesn't matter, place your subsequent relationships, and hers, in danger of being "shams"?

You are not considered "pariahs under current Church policies". First, because you are still welcome to participate in the life of the Church, except its sacramental life; second, because the Church reaches out to you, offering you whatever help it can offer, to address your situation, and if possible, to rectify it; third, and most important, because your situation has nothing whatsoever to do with "current Church policies". It falls completely under the authority of eternal, Divinely revealed, immutable truth, which supercedes "Church policy".

You state: "The present policy of regarding those who have remarried as being in a state of irredeemable mortal sin, as contrasted with serial murderers who are forgiven upon making confession, does not mean that the former (folks like me) cannot be forgiven; it simply means that we cannot be forgiven by the Church"

A: Again, polygamy is not a matter of "present policy". ANY sin can be forgiven, once it is repented and confessed. An ex-serial killer, who has repented, sought forgiveness, and made things right with God (St. Paul, for example) can expect salvation. A person who is living in a possible state of ongoing adultery and polygamy, who has not repented or sought forgiveness, or explored the possibility of making things right with God, has chosen their own course.

You say: "The Church may condemn me for saying it, but I have to believe that there is hope that, in the Heart of Jesus, there may be forgiveness for the kind of sin that is mine"

A: Condemn you? The Church alone holds out that very hope to you, and calls you to make use of the means God has provided within His Church to grant you forgiveness, and to get your life back on the path to salvation. I hope and pray that you will seek the guidance and healing which God offers us through His Church, for you won't find the fullness of truth or the certainty of forgiveness anywhere else.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

As I have said previously, abuses of the Eucharist should not be tolerated.

We are all influenced by our personal situations and our parish experiences. I am a strong advocate for ecumenical efforts. I see nothing wrong with masses celebrated using upbeat praise and worship music.

In my parish, the sacredness of the celebration of the Eucharist has never been diminished.

For example, during the consecration, the altar area is the only lighted part of the Church, in order to emphasize the sacredness of the consecration. etc.

Masses can be both sacred and praise filled. Proper worship for God can be and should be positive.

I am still digesting the encyclical and it's implications.

The policies of the Church remain unchanged. It disturbs me; however, that John Paul II felt it necessary to revisit these policies in an encyclical. There have obviously been worst case scenarios of the like I have not seen.

I pray that the encyclical does not hamper ecumenical efforts. I don't think that it will.

I have found of late, the motive in some protestant churches, of returning to ceremonial rites in search of the sacredness that the members found lacking.

If the expression of sacredness leads people to the Roman or Eastern Rite Churches, the Holy Spirit is indeed at work and all thanks to God should be made.

I wonder if it would be possible for the Church to lessen the burden in the reconciliation of divorced persons to the Church.

Since most protestant churches recognize the Lord's Supper as only symbolic with no hint of the express of the real presence, could not a Catholic in good conscience, participate, in a symbolic gesture if they full recognized the difference and made that known if questioned?

ie. "I participated as only a symbol of my Christian unity. I do not believe the true presence of Christ was there and will explain my beliefs if you would like."

If not, why not? Don't tell me, "cuz the Pope said".

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 21, 2003.

Dear Paul and Bob, et al:
To fully appreciate the great mercy of God, just consider --

The Catholic Church did not come by the seven sacraments as the wealth of her own saints and their good works. All sacraments come directly from the merits of Jesus Christ, gained by His Passion, Death and Glorious Resurrection. They're given His holy Church for the salvation of all who believe. Without Christ, there is no sacrament, and there is no grace at all on earth.

Salvation is attained by grace; and the ordinary channels for mankind are granted sacramentally; Christ provides the grace for His Church. We're taught in cathecism a sacrament is the outward sign of grace coming into the soul, while actually producing it. But the source is always the same Jesus Christ. --Just because the outward sign, in our Church's ritual, is the norm may not dictate grace can't still be accessed invisibly; or as Christ sees fit. This grace is the sole property of His Church; and only by extraordinary means is it given without an appropriate sacrament. To better express it, the sacrament may be sent personally by Our Holy Redeemer, from Whom all grace must come. And, I do believe He chooses to save many as direct recipients, for their FAITH in Him.

He acts for his Church in the world; not circumventing, but mercifully INCLUDING what may seem to be non-believers. Or, the fallen away, as Bob considers himself to be. The main imperatives in each extraordinary circumstance must be the known Cardinal Virtues; Faith, Hope and Love.

Christ has declared, ''Because she has loved much, much shall be forgiven her.'' --

I would esteem FAITH even more imperative, since we all hope, to some extent, and no one who accepts Him can fail to love Jesus Christ. But not all give to Him the total, unshakeable faith He demands and deserves.

So-- I dared advise Bob to render that very faith to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; Who is aflame with love and that urgent desire to save each one of us. Each one, no matter how hopelessly entangled his/her life's circumstances might be, --divorce-remarriage being only one.

Faith really can move mountains, Bob. Yes, our affairs can seem hopeless. But the Church over and above all teaches her children to PRAY. Pray with unlimited faith in Him.

Pray as well for the holy intercession of Our Blessed Mother. After all, she overcame every human trauma and tragedy imaginable. Her faith makes cowards of all of us. Not even Christ's death on the cross broke her bonds of faith with Him. You and I can only hope to keep that kind of faith. But Jesus is always waiting. He wants to see it for Himself. Pray; have faith, and don't fall away from His holy Church. You can accomplish it all; while yet respectful of all the sacredness of our priceless sacraments. Christ Himself will grant you grace, if you implore with great faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

As one of the "Separated brethern" and pastor of a Pro-Testari (Affirming) Christian Church, this has been an interesting view and notes the differences between our traditions. One of the last writers indicated that Protestant Churches do not acknowledge the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. That is not accurate.

The majority of Reformed (Calvinist/Presbyterian) and Baptist communities recognize the presence of Christ - we just don't use an Aristotelian metaphysics or world view to express it (ie, material accidents and eternal substance). The Reformed Tradition, in which I participate, uses language from the Age of Reason to describe what was being expressed by Jesus when he said, the bread was his body and the wine was his blood. The Liturgy for the communion uses the phrase, "Sign and seal of the covenant," which express the past and future promises of salvation given by God to the community of faith, His Church. The sign and seal have no authority without the eternal presence of Jesus Christ as the Living Word of God.

More to the point, this situation once again reveals why there will not be any meaningful mutual recognition among the Christian communities and the Roman Catholic tradition. Most Affirming Churches understand that the Communion transcends historical traditions and philisophical definitions. Rather (using Reformation language) it is a "sign and seal" of our ingrafting into the Body of Christ. The divine mechanics are really beyond our finite ability - but we do our best in each generation to use our particular language in our historic reference to proclaim the Good News to the next generation.

Since The Action of Communion is instituted by Christ (and not the philisophic definitions), the Protestant Ecumenical Traditions affirm the Act of Communion is the best starting point for mutual recognition, inspite of our differing doctrinal definitions.

I do not mean to be cynical - but, it appears to an outsider from the Catholic tradition that this is more an issue regarding power rather than the presence of Christ. Perhaps it would be helpful for the conversation to move the understanding of the Keys of the Kingdom from one of power exclusion in the direction of John Calvin's explaination, that the power of the church is in its proclamation of the Gospel. In other words, our power as Christians is not in who we control, but in what we say and do.

If we begin with the communion of Christ, then we may begin to see our unity in Christ is beyond ecclesiastical limitations and particular historical experiences.

If the Catholic community chooses another Pope John XXIII, perhaps this conversation can start moving again. Peace, A different Bob

PS Just to be annoying (in good humor)- "presbutas" in Greek, means "elders" or "Aged Men." The Greek word for priest is " 'iereus." The Apostles and other leaders of the New Testament Church are never identified as " 'iereus." Only in Revelation, are believers (and martyrs) identified as priests. And the conversation continues!

-- The Rev. Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), April 21, 2003.

Interesting, Bob.
I hope you'll stay close by, this is an open forum and we hope to bring here the truth of Catholic doctrine and tradition without prejudice. The only dissent we do not tolerate is verbal abuse or falsehoods levelled against Our Holy Father, the Mother of God and his saints, and open proselytizing with the aim of destroying others' faith. We already have too much of that from time to time.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Hi John P.,

To participate in a "mock" communion service in order to symbolize a "unity" which does not yet exist...would be to lie.

It would be deceptive on our parts as Catholics to let non Catholic Christians assume, by our participation, that "their communion" is just as "good" or valid or equal to Catholic Holy Communion, where the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is offered and consumed.

In Truth, this would be a horrendous disservice to our separated brethren, under the guise of "unity." It would also be making a mockery of the True Body and Blood Sacrifice offered upon Catholic altars throughout the world.

I wish I had a gentler way of expressing this. I'm at a loss, however, so please understand, if my words sound harsh, I don't mean for them to be taken that way.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), April 21, 2003.

Anna, I fully understand your reasoning.

Here is what happened to me: I was at a prayer service last Easter season (related to my work). It was non-denominational. The minister who was leading the service offered the "Lord's Supper".

As a gesture of good will, I participated. But, I had the opportunity to express my beliefs, very tactfully.

One man, refused the offer, stating that he could not participate because the "communiion" was not offered in a church - the building itself. Don't really know where he go that. He was a Baptist minister.

Several people were upset, but this gave me an additional opportunity to explain our Catholic teachings on the Eucharist.

I made very sure that I explained the differences in symbolic and real presence. I feel it helped them understand the Catholic faith better.

I intended no malice and felt it was helpful.

I sorry but duty calls, I'll try to write more later. God Bless, John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 21, 2003.

You are absolutely right, Reverend Robert Fretz. The apostles were not priests.

Jesus could probably have qualified as a priest if his Mother Mary truly came from a Priestly family associated with Zechariah the husband of her relative Elizabeth.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 21, 2003.

Elpidio,
Jesus is the High Priest-- Saint Paul said it clearly in Hebrews 4:14; and it's believed by many scholars He was the person known in the Old Testament as the priest Melchisidech. Melchisdek made offerings to the Almighty of --right. Bread and wine.

Jesus Christ not only is the Priest of all priests. He ordained all the Apostles His priests. They in turn ordained all others, and by unbroken succession of the ''laying on of hands'', do to our present day. The succession is to the last day. It will never cease, because the Church received it from Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

The apostles were clearly the first priests of the Christian Church. Jesus personally conferred upon them every priestly function which is still operative in the Church, including consecration of the Eucharist and sacramental forgiveness of sins. Indedd, it is only by their ordination that the Church has a priesthood at all, and only by direct succession from the Apostles that any man can be ordained.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 21, 2003.

Absolutely, Paul,

The revealed truth is, Jesus Christ is both priest and victim immolated for the sins of the world on Calvary. No other person could offer this victim; only He who is the High Priest spoken of by Saint Paul in Hebrews. This is the very same offering which Malachi also prophesied in Mal 1:11; Christ's own Body and Blood.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Except for one quotation from the Council of Trent, strategically placed near the beginning of the encyclical, the 62 sections contain no other reference to the Council of Trent, but 26 direct references to Vatican II documents. I didn't even count the even more numerous references to post Vatican II commissions and committees. One would think that the Catholic Church was founded in 1965!

It is sadly clear. This encyclical is much too little and much too late. This pope has become so co-opted by the New Order that he can't see the handwriting on the wall. He's right about the effects, but not the cause. As long as he continues to adhere to the New Order, the ship of the Church of the New Order will continue to sink, until in due time Our Lord re-establishes His Church, His pope, His clergy, and His people. Until that time traditional Catholics, like the early Christians will continue to maintain the Roman Catholic Church, just as in the fourth century the orthodox Catholics in the minority maintained the Church for us against the Arian heretics in the majority in the Church.

-- Ed Richards (loza@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Ed, --
You have missed the beat. This last post of yours is a non sequitur; and you are wandering around. Get a good night's sleep, Dear Man.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

''One would think that the Catholic Church was founded in 1965!''

One would think you were born yesterday.

_______________ + _____________________________________________________________________ ___________

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

John P asks: "John G., On another thread, I asked this, but please, let me ask again: Are you a deacon or other religious?"

John G answers: No.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Jmj
Good morning, folks. I have responses for five of you.

Bob (mensrea):

QUOTE: This probably sounds rather bitter, but I do feel abandoned by my Church.

COMMENT: Try to put "feel[ings]" out of your mind. Stick to facts. Neither God nor his Church has abandoned you. You have sinned (and continue to sin) gravely, and you are reaping the consequences. Bob, be a man and own up to it.

QUOTE: Perhaps divorce and remarriage are indeed intolerable practices, to be condemned at every opportunity, and certainly not capable of forgiveness ...

COMMENT: Bob, you know very well that an invalid attempt at marriage (so-called remarriage) can be confessed and forgiven. What cannot be forgiven is any sin, even if confessed, for which the penitent does not have a "firm purpose of amendment." As long as you persist in adulterous sexual activity, you keep committing mortal sins. These cannot be confessed or absolved until you make a firm decision to stop committing them. Then you will be able to receive Holy Communion.

QUOTE: In my own case, had I sought a decree of nullity, my former wife would have been notified of the "charges" central to the petition, i.e., that her vows had been given in a fraudulent manner, with the consequence that the marriage had been a sham. ... [T]hat would have been devastating to her, a woman who has suffered terribly already, and I could not in good conscience have done that to her.

COMMENT: It is hard to believe that you are being honest in writing this, Bob.
First, you should know that your "former wife would" NOT "have been notified ... that her vows had been given in a fraudulent manner, with the consequence that the marriage had been a sham." That sounds like your imagination running away from you, because the Church would never have talked to her in such terms.
Second, you claim to have been worried about how "devastating" a Decree of Nullity would have been to her, but you don't seem to care how "devastating" your current invalid marriage is to her. If you really cared about her, rather than yourself, either you would not have attempted remarriage or you would have gone through with the nullity process, so that she could have peace of mind (knowing that the two of you were or were not married in God's eyes).

John Placette:

QUOTE: As a gesture of good will, I participated. But, I had the opportunity to express my beliefs, very tactfully.

COMMENT: John P, if you were aware of the fact that the Church forbids this as a serious sin, please don't forget to confess it. Although it may have led to an "opportunity to express [your] beliefs," that does not excuse the act. As the moral principle states: "A good end [sharing beliefs] does not justify an evil means [disobedience, at least]."

Bob Fretz:

QUOTE: If the Catholic community chooses another Pope John XXIII, perhaps this conversation can start moving again.

COMMENT: Bob, for you to say this kind of thing about Pope John XXIII, while at the same time clinging to "Reformed" theology on the Eucharist, tells me that you are not really familiar with the teachings of "Good Pope John." This is a common problem among both ecumenical-thinking Protestants (who rave about him as a supposed "progressive") and schismatic traditionalists (who whine about him as a supposed "progressive"). If you were to take time to read the works of Pope John XXIII, Bob, I'm sure that you would find that he was very much an adherent to ancient Catholic doctrine, and therefore that you would reject various things that he taught most firmly. If, having read his works, you have not been moved to conversion to Catholicism, I don't think that you will any longer be hoping for "another Pope John XXIII." (Unfortunately, not all his writings are available in English online, but you can get a taste here, by clicking on some of the categories on the left.)

Ed R:

QUOTE: Except for one quotation from the Council of Trent, strategically placed near the beginning of the encyclical, the 62 sections [of the pope's new document] contain no other reference to the Council of Trent, but 26 direct references to Vatican II documents. I didn't even count the even more numerous references to post Vatican II commissions and committees. One would think that the Catholic Church was founded in 1965!

COMMENT: Ed R, you poor, ill-informed fellow! Please spare us your attempt at "clairvoyance" -- telling us that the pope "strategically placed" a quotation from Trent. We have no faith in your ability to read minds and motives. More importantly, though ... By putting down the "26 direct references to Vatican II documents," you show that you never knew (or forgot) that those documents themselves quote heavily from Trent and other past Councils. Thus, quoting from Vatican II lets us see all the perennial truths, but in up-to-date language. Contrary to your heretical, sedevacantist thinking, Ed, Vatican II marked no doctrinal break at all with the previous 1,935 years of Catholicism

Eugene Chavez:

QUOTE: And, within the sanctuary of the Holy Catholic Church, make your devout and unselfish SPIRITUAL COMMUNIONS before the altar.

COMMENT: You stated the above in advising Bob (mensrea), and it was the same advice that I have seen you give to at least two other people (through the years) who had placed themselves into invalid unions. Although your compassion for Bob is genuine and commendable, I am concerned that you may be giving him advice that is contrary to Church teaching and that may even be indirectly harmful. I need to ask you if you can produce a Church document (or even a writing from a saint) that advises people who are in a state of mortal sin to make "spiritual Communions." My reasons for asking for this? I think that I have always heard/read ...
(1) ... that only a person who is in the state of sanctifying grace can perform meritorious acts and can grow in that kind of grace.
(2) ... that only a person in a state of grace can benefit from Communion, sacramental or spiritual (since the Trinity will not abide with a spiritually dead soul, one in mortal sin) ...
(3) ... that a person in a state of mortal sin receives only "actual graces" from God -- specifically graces to try to move him to Confession and amendment of life.
Therefore, if you tell Bob to make "spiritual Communions," he may reason in the following way, which would be very detrimental to him: "Ah, so I can receive the graces of sacramental Communion without actually receiving the Sacred Species? Fine, I will be very satisfied to do that and worry no further about the state of my soul. I cannot bear to give up my present way of life, and I am not willing to seek a Declaration of Nullity. But that's OK. God will understand. After all, he lets me receive Jesus's Body and Blood "spiritually," doesn't he?"

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

John,
think you'll find my rationale understandable enough if we agree on one thing at the start. No one can say when another man is in a state of mortal sin. From appearances only, a divorced, remarried out of the Church Catholic is living in sin. That's a given; and all that's left to question is the disposition of the sinner.

If he has confessed his sin at the moment of deepest compunction and remorse, God can forgive him. If his circumstances allow, he ought to desist from sexual relations with the new spouse; and wait until a decree of nullity is granted them. But God would not necessarily judge the man's sins the way I do, nor the way you do. He is all-merciful; He is all- knowing, and He sees the souls of His children. Not WE.

Insofar as you have dictated the catechismal definitions of adultery, I can only agree with you. I know mortal sin separates us from God, no need to relay that to me now.

I also believe in FAITH. I believe God is above all our FATHER, who is willing to run to meet His prodigal son out in the road leading him back home.

It is in this spirit, not exonerating him, that I spoke charitably to Bob.

Bob seemed to blame the Catholic Church, and may have been entertaining thoughts of leaving. My intuition tells me it's more productive to meet this kind of challenge with a blessing than with a blunderbuss. I guess you can hold that against me, but I feel justified. Thanks, though for being concerned for my orthodoxy. I have covered all the bases, don't worry.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Concerning John XXIII,

John G, you're right.

I am a big fan of John XXIII.

I believe that the Church should revisit issues of marriage by priests, ordination of women to the diaconate, and easier reconciliation of the divorced and remarried. On these issues, I would consider myself a "progressive".

I see a very large difference between being a progressive and being a liberal.

John XXIII was not a liberal by any means.

He was progressive, but very orthodox. He was a very holy man.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 23, 2003.

Gosh, John,
You and I - John G also, true; have something in common. We are namesakes of recent Popes. I'm a namesake of Pius XII, Eugenio. You- and John of John XXIII.

If we were naughty kids, we'd be singing , ''My Pope's better than your Pope. . . ''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Eugene, Thanks, On a note of interest, one of my ancestors was very fond of St. Joseph.

All the males in the family, all of them -- passed down at least 3 generations, have the name Joseph, either as a middle name or as a first name and use their middle name.

My name of course is John, my brother's name was Robert. No Edward (or Ted, though, thank goodness).

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 24, 2003.

Ah, yes. The Irish Mafia. Dudes with money and power. Anybody in your clan named Rose? She suffered the way most good mothers do. But I hope she has the shinig crown which money & power can't buy, John. There's one stored for each of us in Our Lord's heavenly kingdom. Imagine when we risk the loss of that, by our sins? Holy Smoke!

___________________

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2003.

What I want to know is whether Eucharistic Ministers are really allowed to distribute Holy Communion, or is it a new practices introduced by freemasons who have infiltrated the church.

Also what I want to know is whther the Pope has ever agred in Holy Communion in the hand.

-- Andrew Swampillai (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), May 09, 2003.

It's at the Pope's and bishops discretion. The practices are nothing new.

One of the martyrs of Imperial Rome was Saint Tarcicius; a young boy. He was not a priest, yet was entrusted by the bishop in Rome to deliver the Viaticum, (a consecrated host) to other Christians in the city. He was killed on the way, by pagan boys. Before dying he consumed the Lord's Body quickly; to keep it from falling into his murderer's hands. Tarcicius was acting as an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. --Also, it was the accepted practice in the days of the infant Church to receieve the Sacred Host in the hand. I recall a detail; many of the faithful placed a clean handkerchief on their palm, and the host was placed there by the priest. But hands do not offend Our Divine Lord, if they are clean, and your soul is in a state of grace.

What offends Him is an impure heart, not our hands. You must think more like a man, and not like a fanatic. God loves you!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 09, 2003.

Hi John I havent read your link yet but do you know if this new encyclical on the eucharist brings the protestant and Catholic faiths any closer together at all?

I am reading a small book at the moment written by Fr Brian Young "a theology of the eucharistic sacrifice" it was written in the early 70's and he mentions briefly in the introduction the ground gained through meetings between Catholic representatives and Lutherans in America in 1967 and the Catholic and Anglican Churches in Windsor England 1971 in which substantive agreement was reached. In his book he suggests that the denomination of Calvary as a sacrifice is a vital part of the solution to the problem of disunity.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.

ps John P I agree with you on John XXIII.

WHat an amazing man, such wisdom, vision and above all goodness and love. Hes my second favourite after JPII!!!! When I see pictures of this Pope they remind me of St Pio.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Kiwi. You asked me "if this new encyclical on the eucharist brings the protestant and Catholic faiths any closer together at all?"

I'm sorry, but I have (1) no basis for judging whether or not it has already brought Christians closer together, and (2) no reason to think that I can predict a future closeness. We'll just have to wait and see how the Holy Spirit works on souls.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.

Have any of you seen the movie, "Chocolat?"

Have any of you read the book, "Reluctant Dissenter" by James Patrick Shannon?

Have any of you noted that Jesus was never angry at the broken little ones around him? Rather, read:

Matthew 25: 31-40 Matthew 9: 12-13

Have any of you noted to whom Jesus did display anger? If you're unsure, read Matthew 23 and Matthew 16: 5-12.

Then read Matthew 7: 1-5.

Matthew 5: 31-32 contains an important condition about divorce. May none of you who judge so readily ever know in your lives the heartbreak behind its meaning.

All references NAB copyright 1970 with Revised Psalms of 1991.

-- Phil Boettge (phil63@comcast.net), May 17, 2003.

Wow, Anna. Interesting reply. And particularly WHAT was it that I said that leads you to believe that I believe myself to be holier and wiser than the Pope? You simply said this was your interpretation, and yet you gave no reason for this conclusion. Yes I know, that the church has NEVER condoned non-Catholics recieving Communion. And so you make my point for me, WHAT is the point? The encyclical said NOTHING new. I have read many of your posts. Is it really necessary for you to attack one on a personal level to defend your arguments?

-- Dawn Grimes (dawngrimescomm@aol.com), May 17, 2003.

Dawn and Bob;

1 John 4: 7-21 and John 15:1-8 are important to us. These bear our commission as Christians -- realizing that anything harming one of us harms all of us. So if we love as Christ commands, we must encourage each other, bear each other, wash each other's feet, wipe each others' tears, and bind each others' wounds.

God is your Father. He loves you. He longs to heal you and bless you and set you back on your way to happiness as you would long to do the same for your child with a scraped knee.

So how does God judge? Let's take a look at the source, not at human expectations:

Luke 18: 9-14

John 8: 1-11

Luke 7: 36-50

And the really big one: Matthew 26:69-75, and then John 21: 15-19

Finally, take a look at: Matthew 9:12-13, followed by Matthew 21: 38-41.

So where do you feel healing and refreshing comfort? Find that place of shelter.

Permit me to cast these words before you:

"I told you, that we could fly; 'cause we all have wings. But some of us don't know why ..."

Where are your wings? Where do you stand in the sunlight to bear fruit for the Lord our God who created you? For you cannot do so in Shadow. Find that place of sunlight.

There are many around you who seek to clip your wings and shackle you in great balls and chains of unworthiness, that in your greatest aching brokeness, you are all unworthy to share in their tranquility.

These are the modern Pharisees. Avoid them, and you avoid the shadows that cut out your light.

-- Phil (phil63@comcast.net), May 18, 2003.

Praise be to God! This is the reason I, formerly an Evangelical Pentecostal, became a member of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. The goal of true ecumenism, and the ultimate hope of Protestantism is union with the true Church. It distresses me to see many claiming to be Catholic endorsing a Protestant agenda. Much of the proposed experimentation with the Faith has been unsuccessfully attempted by our separated brothers and sisters; let us learn from them and not repeat the same needless mistakes. I wish those claiming to be Catholic, yet acting in open dissent to the Pope and to the Magesterium, would have the integrity to (like our separated brothers and sisters) pursue such goals as professing Protestants--which is in fact what they truly are.

-- Patrick A. Burdick (pataburd@hotmail.com), May 24, 2003.

As one born in 1951, I had a glimpse of Catholicism before the madness ushered in by the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath took hold of the "mainstream" of the Church. If anyone had told a parish priest in 1956, the year I started Kindergarten at Saint Aloysius School in Great Neck, New York, that the Mass he celebrated, which had been the bulwark of the Faith in the Latin rite for nearly 1500 years, would be but a rare museum piece in the life of most Catholics by the third year of the twenty-first century, such talk would have dismissed as fantastic, if not just insane. If anyone had told a bishop in 1956 that successors of his would be preventing people from kneeling for the reception of Holy Communion and threatening to brand as schismatic those who sought out the Mass he himself still celebrated, the bishop would have recoiled in horror. If anyone hold told Pope Pius XII in 1956 that three of his next four successors would engage in the systematic deconstruction of almost everything authentically Catholic, the Holy Father, who was not unaware of the currents at work around him, would have found such a prediction hard to bear. That is, the world in which we now live as Catholics would have been as fantastic as Disneyland might be to a child without any religious training who is looking to believe in something above him.

-- Katy (Kalamazoocutie@yahoo.com), May 24, 2003.

Dear Katie,
Please give the Holy Spirit a chance to work. You judge as human beings judge. All your alarms are for nothing.

Our Holy Church is greater than ever. You need not waste your energy on subjective judgments. Faith in God is lacking in those souls who want to return to the womb. Our Lord is with us; and only by following Peter, His Vicar on earth, are we secure in the future. O ye of little faith!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 24, 2003.

You lost me, Gene.

Wake up.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 25, 2003.

Look at what you said, though, Gene. Carefully. I'm serious; just give it a minute of your thought...

ok, you said this: "You judge as human beings judge."

True enough, generally speaking. Yes, we all judge as humans, and this judgement is nothing before God.

Alright. But now look what you said next:

"Faith in God is lacking in those souls who want to return to the womb."

But in keeping with a stepping away from the judgements of the human kind, if we instead refer to the Savior Himself, He says this:

Unless you become like little children, you shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

Plus, it was out of the womb of Mary that salvation came for mankind. That womb is referred to by Saints as an Ark.

I realize that the new attitude regarding the ways of the past is that to seek them out is regress. Please consider that going back to the womb can in many senses be considered sound judgement.

The chances of me being won over anew by the legions of post- conciliaritis that I left behind are about the same as me deciding I'm going to ride a trike to work.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 25, 2003.

So, Emerald:
If you find a way to pick holes in a metaphor I chose, it leads you to a Tridentine-only faith?

Hardly. I expect you as well as Katie to address the question of faith. If you pretend that your longing for the past glories of the Church pre-V2 is keeping faith with the Pontiffs, and the Holy Spirit, you retreat into a fetal existence.

Faith gives the Catholic strength to carry on in good times and in hard times. The Church has been through many desperate times. But some of her members jumped overboard. Heretics, schismatics, some who loved raison, revolution, and the so- called reformers.

They had the one thing in common: lack of faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 25, 2003.

"If you pretend that your longing for the past glories of the Church pre-V2 is keeping faith with the Pontiffs, and the Holy Spirit, you retreat into a fetal existence.

You hit the nail on the head. This is the absolute truth.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 25, 2003.

"Heretics, schismatics, some who loved raison, revolution, and the so- called reformers."

My 2 year old daughter is to cute to be outside of the fold.

j/k

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 25, 2003.

Raison was the goddess of Reason; who was installed atop the altar of the Cathedral of Notre Dame by atheists, Emerald. A prostitute. They had no faith in God; they gave their faith to human wisdom.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 26, 2003.

Let he who is without sin cast the next stone!

Outreach training does not turn a blind eye to Church history, but rather faces it square on, that we should know and understand the divisive forces within the Catholic Church itself that undermine our commission in Christ. Examples such as the papal inquisition from 1231 through the 16th Century and the fates of such as Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei show that not just atheists are subject to the human frailty of basing their faith on purely human expectations.

I can only laugh to see Mark 9:33-35 playing out right before me! "Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose!" Do you not recall that who would be the greatest among you must be the least and serve all the rest?

We are not called to pride. We are not called to judge. The ministries of healing, reconciliation, and restoration are not uniquely Protestant callings. We are called to love one another, as Christ loves us. Bear each other's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.

"We must consider how to rouse one another to love and good works. We should not stay away from our assembly, as is the custom of some, but encourage one another ..." Hebrews 10: 24-25

-- Phil (phil63@comcast.net), May 26, 2003.

Dear Phil: Please explain

''Examples such as the papal inquisition from 1231 through the 16th Century and the fates of such as Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei show that not just atheists are subject to the human frailty of basing their faith on purely human expectations.'' Who told you there was a ''papal inquisition''--? And is ''raison'' the reason why Catholic faith is never --ever undermined, no matter how many sinners, how many unfaithful Catholics or how many scientists--? Raison is the atheist's deity.

And, Phil; you refer to Catholics ''basing their faith on purely human expectations.'' When? In what way?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 26, 2003.

I was just teasing, Gene. I didn't know that about the god of raison; I thought it was a typo and that you meant reason, and as it turns out, it wasn't a typo but it still had to do with reason. My head is spinning. I saw raisins...

-- Emeralds (emerald1@cox.net), May 26, 2003.

Eugene;

History references are readily available in the public domain.

-- Phil (phil63@comcast.net), May 26, 2003.

Novus Ordo Cookie Monster and Cookie Okay, you doubting Thomases out there. This one came directly from the Catholic Voice, official organ of the Diocese of Oakland, California (June 17, 2002, page S-18). Pictured is the Novus Ordo bishop of Oakland elevating what is clearly a cookie. Not only do we have the photograph, but we have the actual "recipe" that the diocese uses for communion "bread," as do many others across the United States. This recipe was published by the St. Joseph Foundation, a Novus Ordo organization that does canon-law work, in its organ, Christifideles:1

Sift 2 1/2 cups white flour 1 cup whole wheat flour 1 tsp. salt 8 tsp. sugar 1 1/2 tsp. baking powder 1/3 cup melted margarine

Mix into above: 1/3 cup honey -- add water to make 1 full cup.

Roll 1/8" thick and cut to size. Bake at 375 for 12 minutes or till bottoms are brown.

In our satirical way, we call this Novus Ordo bishop the Cookie Monster because not only does he pander the invalid Novus Ordo all over the diocese, but he is one of the most Modernist bishops in the United States, a noted proponent of the "Gay Mess," which he celebrates frequently and in person.

Who needs nostalgia, when we have this..

-- Alicia Benswanger (B@what'sthis.com), May 26, 2003.

The Holy Inquisition, as it was known, was not a Papal tribunal at all. It is not the unholy crime you & many other people think it was.

The Galileo matter was not ''faith'' at work, but misplaced authority. It consisted of an unjust censorship and house arrest. Nothing so evil as you imagine. If you feel ''history'' has proven reason more powerful than faith, you're mistaken, Phil. We have never been asked to ''base the faith'' on secular reason at all. The Church receives the faith directly from the apostles; who received it from Christ. We base all our faith on Jesus Christ. Reason is secondary, and subordinate to faith; as in some theological works. They can be fortified very ably by reason; but we don't base faith on that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 26, 2003.

OK, Alicia:
You are the doubting Thomas here. I have an idea you've fallen for a trick. Anyway, you saw what might be a cookie elevated. I elevated a cheese sandwich yesterday. No Catholic Church is caught ''elevating'' a host.

The Holy Eucharist is consecrated and consumed; the Body and Blood of Our Saviour. Go back to your greener pastures. We stay in the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 26, 2003.

This is gross. This is awful! Why is it everyone stands in horror and disgust for Black Masses and rightfully so and things like this, people accept! This other church is destroying peoples souls. They believe they are being Catholic when they have left the church! The N.O., all of them, not just this cookie mass, are worse than Black Masses because the ones attending the Black ones aren't deluding themselves that they are Catholic. They know what they are.

I think all of these "situations" are wake up calls to everyone that adheres to JP2. This is NOT the Catholic Church. This is a horrible mirror of the Church. The real Church is opposite this stuff.

This has got to show how far the N.O. has gone. I think we all need to pray. Pray for the true Catholic Church.

One reason is that the N. O.'s are so spiritually dumbed down, that if they try to explain this one away, they have lost all faith whatsoever.

-- Phil G. (Phillip@earthlink.com), May 26, 2003.

Phil G:
It is because we have faith we will not abandon the Pope. It's our faith in the promises of Christ we rely on. He gave His Church the Holy Spirit; a matter about which you apparently are dumbed down. Why don't you go to your proper forum; a schismatical ex- Catholic one? Greenspun will open one for you. You are in open rebellion against the Catholic church. Very much as Luther, Henry, Calvin & Knox were in the 16th century. I feel sorry for you, Phil. You've lost the faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 27, 2003.

One can analyze the "New Mass" properly only by comparing it with that which its creators claim it is, the Mass of the Roman Rite. When Catholics now go to "mass," their habit is to see what is not there. The reason is, they have all but forgotten what the True Mass is, and what they see is a resemblance of it. They read meanings into words which the words they hear do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say. In this way the real objectives of the "vernacular movement" are realized. It does not occur to the faithful that their children, not having the mental background they do, are better able to see the thing as it is, for they see only what is there, and hear only the words which are spoken. The people do not wish to awaken to what has happened (and is still happening). They live in a fictitious world, and they resent any effort to jolt them out of it. Such an awakening would cause them a great problem, a great host of problems, every kind of friction, inconvenience, and readjustment. And it would impose such noisome burdens.

While the True Mass was being withdrawn from them, the people watched and endured it helplessly, uncomprehendingly, resignedly. And all the while it was being done, they were being "re-educated": on the one hand, while the True Mass was being hidden from view, erased from their memory, every kind of irreverent, pseudo-liturgical, and specious criticism was being made against it by their clerical indoctrinators; on the other hand, as the parts of the Replacement were being eased in, various and sundry equally implausible rationalizations were being pumped into their bewildered brains. Those who showed mistrust and suspicion or who raised objections were subjected to withering scorn. Even now, most Catholics are unaware of the immeasurable dissimilarity between the True Mass and its perfidious Plagiarism. They really think that the main differences are a change in language and the turning around of the altar. Three other factors contributed to their subversion. For one thing, the language of the "New Mass" sounds truly pious and prayerful. For another, everything about the "new religion" is decidedly easier, pleasanter, friendlier, more casual – and, at times, simply great fun! And most insidious of all is the argument that the changes are good if you like them. "If you like them!" this means you are praying better. If the new way makes you feel better, your worship is bound to be better. The one question never allowed was whether God approves of this "New Religion." Of course, it does not matter, for "The People is Baal."

-- Phil G. (Phillip@earthlink.com), May 27, 2003.

Another attack on the faithful:

''While the True Mass was being withdrawn from them, the people watched and endured it helplessly,''

I was a child in the late 30's, a faithful Catholic and first communicant in 1948; and also a faithful catholic pre- Vatican II and on to the present. There is no Novus Ordo Mass. It's the Missal we call N.O.

In no way do I or does Rome repudiate the Tridentine Missal. We honor and keep it.

You say a ''true'' Mass was withdrawn?

Yes; in your dreams! This is say because I was present, before, during after and still today. No Mass is withdrawn. You stand convicted of lies. No great work of spiritual daring, no upheaval. Just simple lies, Phil. Again I say-- I feel sorry for you. You have to resort to lying in your Gonzo elitism.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 27, 2003.

By now you should be getting a clear idea of the strategy with which the Catholic faithful were connived into accepting the legality of the "New Mass". We have seen how infallible the dogmatic content and how sacrosanct the rituals of the True Mass were seen to be in the days of the Council of Trent, (and ever since, save for the past decade or so). The "reformers," under the (at least visible) leadership of Pope Paul VI, have tried to throw the cloak of Tradition and of the Council of Trent over what they attempt to describe as a "new arrangement of the Mass." While we "dumb sheep" have been thinking they meant only to make minor changes in the Mass, they have been replacing it, parts at a time, numbing our reactions with their incessant blathering about the divine urgency and auspiciousness of it all! Over a period of time, they have introduced something altogether different from the True Mass. And, even while they were making a mockery of the traditions and the laws of the Church with regard to the Sacred Liturgy, they have been vesting themselves with the legitimate authority to do so through constant, mendacious references to those traditions and laws. Therefore, now that they have installed their irreverent Imitation, they are able to claim immunity for themselves and their Imposture which adhered to what they have (they hope) gotten rid of. They now claim for their Mass that infallibility of doctrine, that venerability, that historicity of origin, and that holiness of essence, which two thousand years of Catholicism could not preserve for the True Mass against the likes of them.

-- Phil G. (Phillip@earthlink.com), May 27, 2003.

Phil can't reply to my previous post; but he feels free to go on; even in face of being accused of lying. It's the single-minded attack; prolonged & without proofs, insensitive to replies.

The Big Lie of Goebbels got the name for using just that tactic. Keep repeating it; no matter how absurd it strikes the public. Some of it will stick, if you don't let up. But the Holy Spirit wasn't being attcked directly then. Phil G. has taken on much more than he can handle, attackiing the Holy Catholic Church. His big lies are only hurting him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 27, 2003.

Eugene;

I never said that the papal inquisition was a Tribunal. That is your misrepesentation. The papal inquisition was instituted by Pope Gregory IX in 1231. After that, the inquisition can be divided into three distinct practices: The inquisition of the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Holy Office in Rome.

The Church has formally apologized for its treatment of Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei. Both were persecuted for speaking the truth -- the heliocentric solar system. The papacy subscribed to prevalent expectations that, as God is divine and His Creation must be too, all bodies in the universe must therefore be perfectly spherical and orbit solely around the Earth. This is the one case of framing God's Divinity in human expectations of which I speak. Note that Protestant opposition to the Copernican system preceded Catholic suppression by 73 years.

Those expectations have been undeniably refuted since Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. But not before Bruno was burned at the stake and Galileo was undeservedly imprisoned.

Perhaps someday when you have lain on a hospital bed, fighting to gasp each shuddering aching breath, wondering whether your next was really worth all the effort, you too may recognize that each precious moment of every life is an irredeemable gift only God can give. Then perhaps you would resolve to spend more of your own finite counted moments in giving gentle compassion, kindness, love, encouragement, and healing comfort.

For time is a great leveler, reducing iron to rust and all pride to dust. The only work of any lasting value is the epitaph we write in every heart we touch.

I'm leaving now. I shan't be back.

-- Phil (phil63@comcast.net), May 27, 2003.

You shan't be back? WELL-- I ought not reply, then. I had framed a short reply; but had a system crash just now. I think the Holy Spirit was giving you scatter room, and rather than pursue you, I'll say thanks.

Your superficial renditions of Church history were easy enough to counter. But it's actually your contumacy which attracts my compassion. You entered as a proselytizer; and you leave a proselyte, just when you could have started rehabilitation. Too bad you shan't return. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 27, 2003.

You cannot refute what I say. You only hurl vindictive remarks at the messenger. Methinks that you protest too loudly.

A. Expurgations If you will simply find yourself an old missal and turn to the Ordinary of the Mass, you will easily see how many prayers and rites have been eliminated in the "New Mass." You will remember that with each such elimination a very recondite and plausible reason was given why it should be made. By now you have probably forgotten the reasons you were given. But, you see, now that the excisions have been made, the reasons make no difference anymore.

All the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, including the "ascental" Psalm (42), were replaced. The Aufer a Nobis was dropped for the same reason; namely, since there is no altar, one cannot "go up" to it. And since there is no tabernacle, there can be no mention of the "Holy of Holies". Since saints, and above all, martyrs, are not thought too highly of in the "New Church," no call for the Oramus Te being kept. Also found objectionable were the prayers Munda Cor Meum and the Dominus Sit; these were private prayers of the priest, and private prayer during the communal exercise is not to be tolerated.

Practically all the prayers of the Offertory, one of the principal parts of the True Mass, were deemed useless, which means that the following six prayers are not to be found in the "Novus Ordo": the Suscipe Sancte Pater, the Deus qui Humanae, the Offerimus Tibi, the Veni Sanctificator, the Lavabo (Ps.25), and the Suscipe Sancta Trinitas. As mere tokens, the prayers In Spiritu Humilitatis and Orate Fratres were kept.

The given reason for this incredible exspoliation is that all these prayers are recent insertions into the Mass; none of them were in the Mass before, say, 1100 or 1200 A.D. Obviously we cannot let any prayers a mere eight or nine hundred years old into our "renewed" prayer service!

To help you understand the real reasons why this whole collection of excellent orisons is totally irreconcilable with the "New Faith," let us analyze one as an example. Consider the prayer which the priest says in the True Mass as he raises the host on the paten toward heaven, the Suscipe Sancte Pater. Read this prayer slowly and see if you can find anything wrong with it. To help you, I suggest you make your judgment on the basis of these three questions: Is there anything here which is contrary to the Catholic Religion? Is there anything here which would offend a Non-Catholic were he to read it? Lastly, can you perceive anything herein which reveals that this prayer is improper for these exciting days .

Suscipe Sancte Pater: Receive, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for mine own countless sins, offenses and negligences, and for all here present; as also for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may avail both for my own and their salvation unto everlasting life. Amen. 35 35. St. Andrew Daily Missal. The E. M. Lohmann Co., St. Paul, Minn 1937 & 1951. All translations of the Missale Romanum of Pope St. Pius V are taken from this edition. Can you tell me now what is wrong with this prayer that it should not be allowed in the Mass, even to be said silently by the priest? Well, may I tell you that there is everything wrong with this prayer? To begin with, it was said silently by the celebrant, and silent prayers are decidedly outlawed in the "Novus Ordo". What is more, this prayer is spoken in the first person singular - it has the pronoun ego ("I") in it. Now, if there are two things which we cannot abide in the "new age," it is silent prayers during the communal prayer service, and the priest's acting as if he were about to do something in virtue of his own priesthood, which the laity cannot participate in. Here is an open and tactless admission that he fully intends to offer a sacrifice. Does he really think by whispering his prayer in Latin our "separated brethren" will not find out? And once they do, that will be the last we shall see them!

Besides this, the priest suggests he is "unworthy" to offer the Mass; in the "New Religion" everyone is "worthy." His mentioning his "countless sins, transgressions and failings," suggests there is such a thing as sin, which, as you know, is highly suggestive of a guilt-complex. Very out of place.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

-- Phil G. (Phillip@earthlink.com), May 27, 2003.

I'll try to stay on track:

''A. Expurgations If you will simply find yourself an old missal and turn to the Ordinary of the Mass, you will easily see how many prayers and rites have been eliminated in the "New Mass." You will remember that with each such elimination a very recondite and plausible reason was given why it should be made. By now you have probably forgotten the reasons you were given. But, you see, now that the excisions have been made, the reasons make no difference anymore--'' Reply: It's not for you to say if what you lament as ''elimination'' was a loss of stature before God; or whether the changes are a fall from holiness. Expurgation isn't prohibited the Magisterium, for good cause.

I'm very familiar with both Missals. I loved the Latin Mass; it is HOLY. I love the Mass as it now is celebrated. Before the Judgment Seat I'll eagerly testify IT is Holy. You maintain something diabolical, I maintain we worship God Almighty in spirit & truth, united with Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. With no prejudice either vs. Trent or Vatican II.

You say: ''Practically all the prayers of the Offertory, one of the principal parts of the True Mass, were deemed useless, which means that the following six prayers are not to be found in the "Novus Ordo":''

Firstly, the TRUE Mass is the Catholic Mass; not any single Mass you are attached to; and secondly, this was not lost to the Church. We still have the Tridentine Mass. You are lamenting something less frequented, not beaten or forgotten. The New Rite also has its offertory. We lift up our hearts to God; we love God and praise Him through His Son Jesus Christ. We have not lost the faith, no matter your pining for good vibrations. I find your horrors at:

two things which we cannot abide in the "new age," it is silent prayers during the communal prayer service, and the priest's acting as if he were about to do something in virtue of his own priesthood, which the laity cannot participate in. Here is an open and tactless admission that he fully intends to offer a sacrifice. Does he really think by whispering his prayer in Latin our "separated brethren" will not find out?''

I find it a collossal argument over nothing. Just what a pissant fanatic will tear his garments off for! A BAD!!! silent prayer! O Lord! Save us from this perverse generation, we are not to blame!

Ha ha! Let off steam, Phil. Deflate.

Hmm. ''I could go on, but you get the idea,'' says he. What idea? You've gone mad.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 28, 2003.

There is no tradition of complete optionalism in liturgical matters. From the very first, under the general supervision of the Apostles, custom governed everything in each church. (1 Corinthians 11; 14: 34-35). The constant tradition moved in the direction of ever greater uniformity, of ever more detailed rubrics; of taking the power to decide even the smallest things out of the hands, first of the local presbyter, then of the local ordinary (bishop or abbot), then of concentrating it in the hands of the Pope personally. 29 29. Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII November 20, 1947. Par. 58. Those who say that every celebrant should be free to devise the liturgy of the day seem woefully ignorant of the fact that ours is called the "Roman Rite" because the people took pride that it derived from the practices of the Community in Rome, where the Pope himself legislated and celebrated "the Mysteries." Practically the only optionalism there ever was had to do with the selection of readings. In the early days, the lessons were consecutive readings from the Old Testament and the Gospels and Epistles. The bishop would often have the ministers read particular passages as the subject of his homily.

With regard to preaching, the tradition moved from the simple explanation of the Scriptures (homilies) and catechetical instruction (catechesis) to the sermon, the panegyric, and the elaborate discourse. Some of the greatest orators of history have been Catholic bishops and priests. The idea of a mere unprepared "talk," much less a "dialogue" or a little chit-chat, is so foreign to Catholic (or any religious) tradition as to be ludicrous. I might add, throughout the history of sacred oratory even Orthodoxy was insufficient; that was taken for granted. Not only did the preacher have to be able to speak well, but he was expected to expound ably, persuasively, and with edification. (One shudders to think what might have happened to a priest who babbled in the presence of St. Paul the way some of ours do today!).

There is no tradition which allows those of other "faiths," those who may or may not believe in Christ as the Eternal High Priest and the Divine Victim of the Holy Sacrifice, to participate in the Liturgy. The further back you go in history, the stricter you find the rules to have been. The ancient practice was to require all who did not have the Faith, all who were not baptized into the True Faith, to leave before the reed. Only catechumens were allowed to stay till then; unbelievers were not allowed at all. Nor were those who had committed grave public sins, or who had incurred censures, nor those obliged to do pubic penance. (This is one practice which might very well be restored.)

There is no tradition for presuming "good will" on the part of unbelievers. There is a very constant tradition for praying for them that they might be delivered from their spiritual blindness. There is also a very constant tradition for trying to convert them. There is also a very constant tradition recognizing that Judaism is Talmudism, and that Talmudism is essentially anti-Christian.

Sir: I note that you are a man of talents in the detraction of another, if you do not agree with him. So be it, that is something that you will have to carry. As of now you still have not been able to defend the ludicrous performance that passes for a Mass. You can shout as loud as you like, but when you are all through, something that stinks.. still stinks.

-- Phil G. (Phillip@earthlink.com), May 28, 2003.

Aw, geez. Another thread devoured by an orthodox/traditionalist dispute. Why doesn't someone just create a new Greenspun forum for this purpose alone?

In any case, I would like to enter some thoughts on Rob Fretz' post.

First, I can identify one issue of difference that is characteristic of the gap between Catholic and Protestant thought: Protestants are alwas trying to, as Rob put it, "transcend historical traditions," while the Catholic Church has always come down on the side of embracing history. If the Resurrection, the Empty Tomb, and the real humanity of Christ mean anything, it's that God works and acts in and through history, and tradition lives in the life of the Church, and is not confined in the scattered extant remnants of quasi- ancient Biblical texts scattered about Europe.

I would also like to point out that--despite obvious problems--one of the good things about post-modernism is that we now have an argument against the evolutionistic Grand Narrative - you know, like how some people think that Enlightenment thought has an advantage over Scholastic thought. That advantage is no longer presumed.

Third, let's call the "Age of Reason" the Enlightenment and be done with it. That age contributed more to the rise of wide-spread atheism (naturalism, physicalism, positivism, etc) than to any other age in history. It was murderous on many levels... most importantly on the level of good ideas.

Fourth, the statement, "One of the last writers indicated that Protestant Churches do not acknowledge the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. That is not accurate." is correct. It is not accurate, especially speaking of the Lutheran and Anglican traditions. However, the "majority of Reformed (Calvinist/Presbyterian) and Baptist communities" have been quite hostile to a sacramental understanding of Eucharist ever since the sacramentarians and their congeners argued (against Luther) that Jesus cannot be both at the Right Hand of God and on the altar at the same time. This goes much deeper than Aristotelean categories, and cannot be pooh-poohed. Only the Catholic and Eastern traditions have preserved Eucharistic adoration, which involves a belief in the Real Presence which is More Real and More Present than in any other community.

God bless. Jeff

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), May 28, 2003.

Phil,
You are half-right. ''Sir: I note that you are a man of talents in the detraction of another, if you do not agree with him.--'' I dont agree with you. But detract? It's you who detract from celebrants of the Mass. You oppose the legitimate authority, where the Missal is approved. Am I detracting? It's so.

''As of now you still have not been able to defend the ludicrous performance that passes for a Mass.'' Phil, Holy Mass needs no defense against laity. The Mass you call a performance is Holy. It is an act of worship. It is an encounter and communion with Our Lord. The sad fact you feel free to disparage and condemn it makes it no more vulnerable to attacks by yourself & fanatics of your kind. I need never ''defend'' something so clearly favored by God. Eagles don't hunt flies, Phil! I'm sorry for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 28, 2003.

Mr. Chavez (sir}, We shall someday go before our Creator for our final judgement. We will probably have to kneel in adoration. I will be able to say{whatever else sins I have committed,] that I have always kneeled in Holy Adoration. You will say "Lord the pope gave us permission, even orders, to stand". So if anything is amiss, blame him." Sir, if you do not kneel now when you receive Him, you certainly will do so then.

-- Phil G. (Phillip@earthlink.com), May 28, 2003.

Phil,

So your interpretation of the Gospels is that Christ wants his followers to grovel in His presence?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 28, 2003.

Hold on;

Yes, Phil. I will most certainly kneel before Our Lord. I stand receiving Holy Communion for a reason. It has nothing to do with my adoration. I kneel promptly on returning to the pew.

You kneel for communion in totally indifferent of the conditions set by your bishop. Which of us is doing Christ's bidding?

Every saint worth his/her name from the very beginning accepted the commands of his bishop without question. It is the proper place of the faithful Catholic, obedience before priests and bishops. And always has been. Saint Teresa of Avila, a doctor of the Church, wrote her confessions and sacred works in obedience to a spiritual director. Our bishops and Cardinals obey His Holiness the Pope. The Pope obeys his confessor. All saints are subordinates.

You are disobedient; owing to your pride. If Christ is more pleased with your lavish show of love on your knees than with your obedience to your bishop, you have turned the Church upside down. For your caprice, not for love of Jesus Christ, who has set our shepherds in authority. They don't act of their own but by Christ's authority, Phil.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 28, 2003.

> Far-reaching consequences > Cardinal Kasper warned against a "mechanical" interpretation of the > apostolic succession. "To stand in the apostolic succession is not a > matter of an individual historical chain, but of collegial membership in > a collegium which, as a whole, goes back to the apostles." This > interpretation had "far-reaching consequences" for other Churches, he > said. Succession was thus "not a question of an uninterrupted chain, but > of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission". > > Dr Kasper spoke of "a re-evaluation" of Apostolicae Curae, the bull of > Leo XIII which declared that Anglican orders were null and void; though > he said that "a final solution can be found only in the larger context of > full communion in faith, sacramental life and shared apostolic vision". > > After the conference, however, he said: "I think it should not be so > difficult to come to almost a partial recognition of the episcopal > ministry on both sides. We are no longer at the position of Leo XIII with > his bull. A partial recognition is there. The Pope gave the Archbishop a > gold cross — I have only a silver cross — and this is a symbol which is > meaningful. And he has a ministry of oversight, episcope, that is not the > same, because we are not in full communion, but we are in a high degree > of profound communion." > > However, Cardinal Kasper indicated that the Vatican was still worried by > the degree of "comprehensiveness" in the Anglican Communion. > "Comprehensiveness is a good thing, but it should not be exaggerated. > Pluralism should not become a new beatitude added to the sermon on the > Mount."

Take your pick...Cardinal Kasper...or Leo XIII

A little bit of heresy goes a long way these days.

-- Phil G. (Phillip@earthlink.com), May 28, 2003.

Dear Phil:
It's clear you take a morbid pleasure in raking a small number of deviates over the coals. Have a ball!

The Church herself is capable of keeping our faith above corruption, even if those tares may grow mixed in with our wheat. ''An enemy hath done this.''

You call it modernism or a Nazi complex to obey the successor to Peter? Who is the modernist? It's you! Catholics are bound to follow the Vicar of Christ faithfully from the first days of the Church. You now see this as following Hitler? What is schism? Is that to follow Christ without bishops? Good luck, Phil!

Our Saviour clearly prophesied the scandals that were to come. He did, in fact, say ''It were better if a millstone were tied around their necks, and they were cast into the sea.''

He did not say, ''Cast the baby out with the bathwater,'' Phil. YOU say that; and we would like to please you, but we can't. We are faithful Catholics. ''Dumb sheep; as you so confidently put it. --You're ''Cerebral Sheep''; and need no shepherd. You have many Marian apparitions to give you all the Church you can stand. Will Our Blessed Mother approve when you confess your sins in a schismatic confessional?

Or, when you kneel at the Last Judgment, will Saint Peter be hiding his face from you & Our Lord? He's the one who got us in this mess, isn't he?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 29, 2003.

Getting back to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper

Dear Jeff, Thanks for the response. However, I think you are finding gaps where there are none… I was not speaking of salvation history (in time and creation) implemented by God, but rather the transcendental experience (outside of time and creation) of the sacraments. While we obviously share the sacraments with people surrounding us (in time and place) we are also in communion with all the saints – including those who are with God, who is outside creation and time – “transcendent.”

As for scholasticism, it was out of the picture long before Luther and Calvin arrived on the scene.

As to the sacraments of the various Reformation Churches, the confessions of the Augsburg (Lutheran), Heidelberg (German Reformed), 42 Articles (Anglican) and Westminster (Presbyterian) – to name a few were generally and mutually recognized as valid witnesses to scripture by their Reformed colleagues. There are no meaningful differences. This is reinforced today by the ongoing mutual recognition of sacraments and ministry among the Reformation Churches. I will not speak for the Anabaptist traditions.

I return to the beginning. I am not sure there is any value in saying, “my real is more real that your real,” unless you are talking about a bio molecular transformation of the bread and wine - and I have never heard any credible Roman Catholic scholar make such a claim. There are a variety of metaphysical definitions and explanations in our extended family, but I believe there is common ground in the fundamental statement that Christ is present when the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is shared with the community of faith. While it’s not too complicated, sometimes, less is more.

By the way, a very good book regarding the interplay of traditionalism, modernism, and postmodernism is Huston Smith’s book, “Why Religion Matters.”

Peace,

-- Bob Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), May 29, 2003.

No, there is no physical transformation of the sacred species. However, the fundamental question is not "my real vs. your real", but rather, real vs. symbolic - a difference so fundamentally essential that everything rides on it. It might be less crucial if the Eucharist were just one of many traditions like, say, the rosary. But the Eucharist is the central act of Christian worship, and the principle source of grace Christ bequeathed to His Church. Indeed, it defines those who participate in it, recognizing it for Who it is. Nothing less can suffice. Unless you worship the Eucharist, you should not receive the Eucharist. Anything less would constitute objective sacrilege.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 29, 2003.

Dear Paul, Sorry about the delay in response, I was away from my office.

Since we agree that we are not talking about a physical transformation – using your word - then I think we are a step closer to a better appreciation our respective traditions explanations of the Lord’s Supper. I acknowledge that the word ‘symbol,’ which is used in the discussion of the sacraments by Reformed theologians, is a serious problem for Roman Catholics. I would also suggest that the word is being misapplied, similar to Protestant problems seeing a difference between worship and veneration.

If you are talking about symbolic in the same way that a statue or painting is a symbol of a person, bringing to mind the person, but obviously not there, then you are right – symbol and real are not the same. However, Reformation theologians, specifically, Calvin, shifted the language from ‘real presence’ to ‘a sign and seal’ of God’s grace; a physical experience of God’s promise of salvation through Jesus. (It is often illustrated as being like a deed. Even though the deed is a ‘symbol,’ it identifies “real” ownership of property.) Both identify “realness” in their expression. Yet, there is a difference.

It appears to me that the Roman Catholic designation of realness is in the item; the presence of Christ is in the particular elements used in the act of the communion. The Reformed identification of the presence of Christ is in the total action of the event; The Word of God, the Remembrance, and the gathered fellowship. (This is why communion to home and hospital – away from the Table – is to be celebrated by both minister and elder, representing the fellowship of the congregation.) I would suggest that both traditions follow the command,” Do this in remembrance of me…” It seems the difference of ‘realness’ is that The Catholic tradition places the emphasis on ‘this’ and the Reformed tradition places the emphasis on ‘do.’

If there is to be a continuing ecumenical conversation among the Christian communities – particularly those who affirm the ecumenical creeds of the early Church - there needs to be a willingness on all sides to mutually respect the particular traditions’ explanation of those sacraments.

Peace

-- Bob Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 04, 2003.

Paul,

I thought that Paul VI had taught that the presence is *in some way* physical.

See: Mysterium Fidei #11, 12, and 46

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), June 04, 2003.

It is physical; in the sense of changing from one substance to the real substance of Christ's body. If it's His body (and blood) it must be physically present; under a perceived contrary substance. The appearance of mere bread and wine.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 04, 2003.

eugene, i dont know how to post a link to another thread, you might post a link to that discussion we had about this awhile back, so that we dont have to go through the whole thing all over again.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2003.

Paul,
Somebody here could make that link. I'm too stupid; I barely know a little html. John Gecik can link it up, I know.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 04, 2003.

Yes, something physical is truly present after the consecration which was not present before - the body and blood of Jesus Christ. However, that real presence is not manifested in any physical change in the bread and wine. Therefore it is correct to say that the presence of the physical body and blood of Christ is a reality; and it is also correct to say that no physical change occurs in the species. The change in the species is REAL and ACTUAL, but not PHYSICAL. Any physical change in the species could be determined by empirical means. No such change occurs. The change is in the essence of what is present, but not in the externals. And therein lies the mystery.

Pius VI expressed it in this way: "For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species‹beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 04, 2003.

Dear Paul,

It seems the conversation has returned to the Aristotelian framework of reality – substance (the ideal) and accidents (physical). While I understand its philosophical foundation (and respect your affirmation of it), it is not one most people live by, either as a worldview or religious conviction.

A significant reason to find another theological paradigm is that this understanding is also the foundation of alchemy (the idea that it was possible to transform lead to gold by changing the substance of the lead).

Is there another way to interpret the event of the Lord’s Supper from a Roman Catholic point of view without Aristotle?

-- Bob Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 04, 2003.

bob, yes there is another way to interpret it, but aristotle provides the simplest explanation of what happens. his explanation is the same one that has always been in the church, so using it isnt a fallacy...

by the way, this:

While I understand its philosophical foundation (and respect your affirmation of it), it is not one most people live by, either as a worldview or religious conviction.

is not right. only two theories dont recognize a FULL spirit and body realm. one, on the extreme spiritual side, is called the spiritualist perspective, a theory i mostly ascribe to. the other is the body perspective, that is to say that there is ONLY a body and NO soul whatsoever. all other philosophical combinations recognize a combination of the two. granted there isnt a significant majority, or minority for that matter, of atheists, it is safe to say that most of the world believes in both a physical and spiritual aspect of life.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2003.

I doubt it was Aristotle's influence which caused Aristotle's Creator to state "my flesh is REAL food, my blood REAL drink. No, there is no other way to interpret the Eucharist without sacrificing the truth. The one thing efforts in alchemy have taught us is that it is impossible. One thing the Eucharist teaches us is that for God, all things are possible.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 04, 2003.

Dear Paul and Paul,

I think you misunderstood my statement regarding the world’s rejection of the Aristotelian paradigm. It is not because people don’t believe in the ‘spiritual’ or transcendent experience of God, in fact most people have a sense of a physical and spiritual nature.

Rather it is the rejection of the idea (both philosophically and experientially) that the material world can mechanically manipulate the spiritual realm, which in turn directs physical reality. One example of that kind of manipulation are spells and potions used in Wicca incantations. Another could be (I would have to do more research) the way prayer is used in Christian Science to ‘spiritually’ heal a person that in turn heals a physical illness.

As I said, I understand the explanation used in the Roman Catholic Church regarding the sacrament. It makes sense in the Aristotelian world. However, I would contend that Jesus was not thinking about Aristotle when he said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”(Luke22: 19b) Jesus, a 1st Century faithful and observant Jew was talking to other 1st Century Jews.

If you believe that what Jesus said is to be understood in static terms, then we should only understand and explain the sacrament in the terms of a 1st Century Jew. However, that would eliminate the Aristotelian explanation. I would suggest that we all need to know what Jesus was saying from his historical/cultural experience and be able to explain it to our world in reference to our experience.

Giving Aristotle his due, all I am seeking is a Roman Catholic explanation or description of the sacrament that does not entangle it in the ‘magical’ nature of Aristotle’s worldview (No, I am not saying the Roman Catholic sacrament is ‘magical.' The issue is in the descriptive language, not the sacrament.).

If this is the only language available to the Roman Catholic Church for self description, so be it. Being able to mutually recognize and respect our spiritual vocabulary would be a significant step in the ecumenical conversation.

-- Bob Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 05, 2003.

There's a danger of slipping into a semantical argument in making broad statements;

''. . .and it is also correct to say that no physical change occurs in the species. The change in the species is REAL and ACTUAL, but not PHYSICAL. -- Says Paul.

This is incorrect. No change in the ''accidents'' or the specific material properties of bread & wine are evident. Neverthelss, it is just NO LONGER bread and wine. It's Christ's Body and Blood ONLY.

Naturally, we know nothing about the mystery. It's impossible. Faith alone can see what God has chosen to reveal.

But this shouldn't present some great burden on any Christian's mental awareness. Matter itself, in the natural universe, is a mystery; we can never realise the ways in which it truly exists, though we KNOW it exists before our eyes.

A steel bar, something quite concrete and definitive to the eye, even to a laboratory analysis-- Isn't what it seems to be. It is comprised of a gazillion billion atoms. The atoms are distributed within this matter, which we know as steel, over immense distances from one another! (Impossible to picture, but absolutely true. Then under that range of vision, another more mysterious one. Each atom is made of a nucleus with electrons and protons, etc; in a certain proportion to the element which the atoms are made into. Each electron is merely an electrical charge!!! Not matter at all!

If that's so with a steel bar; why should one question the appearances of bread and wine? Or the extension in ''space'' (another mystery) by which Jesus can be present on ten thousand altars here in our country, all at the same moment?

I just give up. I don't question the word of Jesus, who tells me, ''This is my body''. It's that physical, real body at this time and place, but perfectly identified with His holy Body hanging on the cross during a 3 hour interval in time and space. On Calvary, 33 A.D. It [HE] is actually PRESENT with us. Because Jesus says it's so! He is the author of all Creation. He must know.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2003.

Dear Eugene,

You started by quoting me - then offered the opinion that what I said was wrong - then proceded to restate yourself, in your own words, exactly what I had originally said! The semantics of this subject can be confusing, particularly the difference between "physical" on the one hand, and "actual" or "genuine" or "real" on the other.

You objected to my saying "'no physical change occurs in the species. The change in the species is REAL and ACTUAL, but not PHYSICAL"; then you immediately stated "No change in the ''accidents'' or the specific material properties of bread & wine are evident", which means exactly the same as the statement you just objected to. A PHYSICAL change is one involving the atoms of matter which are present, or at least the energy state of that matter. Such a change can be demonstrated by any number of scientific means. But you yourself just stated, correctly, that "no evident changes" occurred, which means "no changes that produced any observable evidence", which is simply another way of saying "no physical changes", which is exactly what I said originally. You seem to be concerned that I am somehow doubting that a REAL, ACTUAL change in the substance took place. I certainly am not, since I, like you, "don't question the word of Jesus, who tells me, ''This is my Body''. But the fact remains that not a single atom of the bread or wine was altered in any way. Therefore the REAL, GENUINE, ACTUAL change that took place in the essence of the substance was not a PHYSICAL change. As you said, His physical, real body is truly present at this time and place, yet the change into that real, physical body was not a physical change, but a spiritual one. What was bread is no longer bread, but REALLY His flesh, yet it is not PHYSICALLY flesh, and what was wine is TRULY and ACTUALLY His blood, but it is not PHYSICALLY blood.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 05, 2003.

Paul

its okay, eugene and i went through the same roller coaster about a month back... turns out we were both saying the same thing in a different vocabulary. lets not knock each others castles down since we're all on the same side. we all agree that the bread and the wine do in fact become the Body and the Blood. it is working together that allows us to outhink our protestant debators, whos sola scriptera interpretations keep them from any unity.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 05, 2003.

I'm very united to both of you Pauls and the faithful of our Church. I'll re-read this thread and pray for an insight; if I was missing one.

We all know our faith is never threatened as if this were discord or separation. God bless all of you!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2003.

Dear Gene,

“I just give up. I don't question the word of Jesus, who tells me, ''This is my body''

Don’t give up. I think we are having a good conversation (not a debate). The fact is, that most Reformed theologians would not disagree with your expression of faith or experience. “This is my body,” conveys the most intimate and open relationship a human being is capable of having with God.

I suggest that we can affirm “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” and “Do this in remembrance of me,” as the call of Christ to all who confess Him as Lord and Savior. That is why those of us interested in ecumenical conversations start with the Lord’s Supper rather than ending with it.

-- Bob Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 06, 2003.

Bob,
I guess I was unclear. I meant I give up as far as delving deeper into an unknowable mystery, and give up all possibility of seeing by reason something so ineffable as Transubstantiation.

I wonder if Reformed faithful don't truly realise that the Eucharist, with His True Presence, fulfills in concrete terms everything in John 6, from :32 to :67 . . .??? His Body and Blood are more than a call to unity and love. In this Sacrament, the faithful are given eternal life itself. This is why He told them, ''Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.'' (v.54)

In His Holy Mass, the Last Supper, Jesus offered us full participation in His blooody sacrifice to the Father on the cross. Saying, ''Take and eat, this is my body, / the cup of my blood''. He feeds us with the flesh of the sacrificed Lamb; His own body & blood on the cross. Then, as in the days of Moses, the angel of death is alerted to pass over us all. He sees the Blood of the Paschal Lamb.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 06, 2003.

Dear Gene,

It has been a good conversation. I think we have come along the road together as far as we can. Again, I suggest we do not disagree about the sacredness of the sacrament nor the presence of Christ, but rather its context. From what your collogues and you have said is that the Roman Catholic emphasis is on the sacramental location (the elements) and as I presented it, the Reformed emphasis is in its sacramental action (the congregational participation in the promise from the Word of God).

Thanks for a good discussion. Have a good life.

Peace

-- Bob Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 07, 2003.

Thanks for the discussion, Bob.
The parting is approximately in the straits where I sensed it would be. Symbol vs. substance. The usual story; because reformed or otherwise, most of our separated brethren balk when unshakable faith in Jesus Christ is demanded of them. The world gets in the way.

Ciao; and good luck.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 07, 2003.

Sorry, guys. I just saw this thread for the first time since in got cooking again on May 24, so I could not provide that link to the other thread for you. Had I been here, though, I would have had a problem, because I don't know the URL to that other thread.

Poor Bob Fretz of the Saddle River Reformed Church! He doesn't stop to think about the fact that the Church Jesus founded infallibly proclaimed the truth of Transubstantiation centuries before Protestantism even began to exist. All that is left is for him to believe! It would be good for him to be in contact with the Coming Home Network, wherein he would be paired with a convert to Catholicism (possibly an ex-clergyman) of his own denomination. He would get just the answers he is seeking, in the "lingo" he speaks.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.