Translate

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

HERE IS THE REASON WHY 70% OF CATHOLICS DON’T BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST AS HE TEACHES

Father Thomas Reese’s rhetoric in this National Chismatic Reporter article is what has led to the poor state of faith in the Church today. This is 1970’s theology and apologetics that I was taught in a seminary that refused adoration of the Blessed Sacrament as well as Benediction and placed the tabernacle in a side chapel and if anyone went there to pray they were immediately suspect.

My seminary class which was about 60 men in the fall of 1976 was only 23 in 1979 in part due to the progressive theology/ideology of those three years. Imparting this crap on the laity has accomplished the same goal!

Father Reese grow up, wake up and stop this crap. And the problem isn’t just catechesis, it is catechesis of the kind Reese spews wedged in 1970 as well as the entrenched manner in which the Ordinary Form of the Mass is celebrated today:

The Eucharist is about more than Christ becoming present 



There has been a lot of clerical hand-wringing of late about Catholics who don’t believe what the church teaches about Christ’s presence in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. According to the Pew Research Center, only one-third of Catholics agree that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Almost 70 percent believe that during Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion "are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ."
This certainly shows a failure in catechetics, [Yes, the kind of catechetics you are about to read!] but I think the church faces a greater problem: Like the Pew Research Center, Catholics have an impoverished idea of what the Eucharist is really all about. [Father Reese, your 1970's mentality about the Most Holy Eucharist is what is impoverished and has impoverished the Faith of Catholics!]
Much of Eucharistic theology — especially the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation — goes back to the 13th century, when people rarely received Communion at Mass. They went to church to adore Christ present in the Eucharist, and the purpose of Mass was to transform the host into the body of Christ so that people could adore him. Devotionally, the Mass was not all that different from Benediction, where the Eucharist is placed in a monstrance to be adored by Catholics. [This 1970's rhetoric I remember well! How bad and evil the 13th Century was for the Most Holy Eucharist! This is right out of the talking points of liberal Catholic liturgists!]
In order to explain how what looked like bread could be the body of Christ, 13th-century theologians used the avant-garde thinking of the time: Aristotelianism. [Yes, more horrors from the 13th century!]
In ancient Greece, Aristotle described reality using concepts of prime matter, substantial forms, substance and accidents. This allowed Catholic theologians using Aristotelian philosophy to explain that the "substance" of the bread was changed into the body of Christ while the "accidents"(appearance) remained the same. Thus, "transubstantiation." Using Aristotelian concepts to explain Catholic mysteries in the 21st century is a fool’s errand. When was the last time you met an Aristotelian outside a Catholic seminary? [Not often, but in my parish yes, but that's the problem!]
I personally find the theology of transubstantiation unintelligible, not because I don’t believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, but because I do not believe in prime matter, substantial forms, substance and accidents. I don’t think we have a clue what Jesus meant when he said, "This is my body." I think we should humbly accept it as a mystery and not pretend we understand it. [So, Fr. Reese dosen't believe it so it must not be used!]
In any case, Jesus did not say, "This is my body. Adore me." He said, "Take and eat. This is my body." Only in the early 20th century, with the encouragement of Pope Pius X, did receiving Communion again become common in the Catholic Church. [So let's destroy adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament and we'll get to what Jesus' wants as though Jesus didn't guide the Church to make dogma the dogma of Transubstantiation! This sentence by Reese is the single most devastating piece of evidence as to why we are where we are today in the Church!]
The church also spoke of the Eucharist as making present and effective the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. But even here, the concept of sacrifice was quite limited. Only in a holocaust sacrifice was everything burnt. In most Hebrew sacrifices, some of what was sacrificed was eaten in order to show God’s communion with his people.
At the 2005 synod of bishops on the Eucharist, the bishops were arguing about whether the Eucharist is a sacrifice or a communion. Pope Benedict had to intervene and explain to the bishops that it was both, something the bishops should have learned in their first course on sacramental theology. [By the way, the Baltimore Catechism has separate chapters on the Sacrifice and the Banquet of the Mass. Bring back the Baltimore Catechism for balanced catechesis!]
The context of the Last Supper is also essential to understand what Jesus was instituting. The Last Supper was a Passover meal where Jews remember the Exodus and thank God for his gracious acts toward his people. Here they also renew their covenant with God.

The Mass must therefore be seen as a sacrificial meal where we give thanks to God, especially for the gift of his son; where we renew the new covenant with him; and where we are united with him through Christ.
The Mass is not about adoring Jesus or even praying to Jesus. In the Eucharistic prayer said by the priest at Mass, we pray to the Father through, with and in Christ. We give thanks and praise to God for his wondrous deeds, especially for raising up Jesus as our savior. [Here you go, the apex of 1970's ideology!]
The Eucharistic prayer asks that the Spirit transform us so that we can become like Christ, or as St. Augustine said, that "we become what we receive." Ultimately, the Mass is more about us becoming the body of Christ than it is about the bread becoming the body of Christ. [Yes, 1970's theology the Mass consecrates us, which isn't completely wrong, but no matter how consecrated we are, we are still poor miserable sinners who miss the mark. Jesus never does and when we lose that focus in the Mass and who it is that is Transubstantially present and we can adore and worship, we end up where we are today and with Mass celebrated in the most casual and silly sorts of ways, the horizontal overpowering the vertical!]
The Mass renews the covenant that commits us to follow in Christ’s footsteps in loving our brothers and sisters, especially the poor and the marginalized. The Eucharist is about making us more Christ-like so that we can continue his mission of establishing the kingdom of God, of bringing justice and peace to the world. [Here we go, it is all about US ESTABLISHING GOD'S KINGDOM AND US BRINGING JUSTICE AND PEACE IN THIS WORLD. HAS FATHER REESE ANY CLUE AS TO WHAT WE, MEANING THE HIERARCHY AND THE LOWERARCHY HAVE DONE TO THE CHURCH IN THESE PAST 50 YEARS AND MORE WITH HIS KIND OF IDEOLOGY AND THEOLOGY ROOTED IN THE NARCISSISTIC 1970'S AND WHERE WE ARE gODS?]

Father Reese, it is time for you to retire and to retire your corrupt theology that has done so much damage to the Church's True Faith. But thank you for showing a new generation what truly went wrong in the Church of the 1970's that your generation is trying to regain! Nostalgia for the 1970's is worse than nostalgia for the 13th Century!

19 comments:

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Fr. Reese writes: "The Eucharist is about making us more Christ-like so that we can continue his mission of establishing the kingdom of God, of bringing justice and peace to the world."

Fr. McDonald responds:"[Here we go, it is all about US ESTABLISHING GOD'S KINGDOM AND US BRINGING JUSTICE AND PEACE IN THIS WORLD.]"

Allow me to interject: Our work on this side of the tombstone is not about our establishing God's kingdom in this world.

Why?

"Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he said in reply, “The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, ‘Look, here it is,’ or, ‘There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is among you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

Our work is making present that which already exists.

Our work is allowing God's grace to lift us beyond the temptations we encounter so that, through us, the Kingdom that is already present will be manifest.

In the Eucharist we praise God, give thanks to God for the gifts He has given us, and ask God to transform us - yes, to transform us - more and more into the holy members of the Body of Christ that we became when we were baptized. When we are so transformed, we will, by seeking justice, by making peace, by forgiving those who sin against us, by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the sorrowful, welcome the stranger and alien, etc., make the already present Kingdom manifest.

That is how the world is transformed.



TJM said...

Kavanaugh,

One thing you and Reese are missing: Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist, providing sanctifying grace to the Faithful to aid them in the present to be better people and attain Heaven. So why just not say it? The things you are mentioning, providing peace, social justice, etc., can be accomplished by atheists. So if that is the message, you have nothing unique to impart

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Exactly! That is why we can join with other Christians, other religions, agnostics, atheists and politicians and governments to secure the common good and peace and justice but that flows from Christ whom we adore and worship and who will complete what He began when He returns to judge the living and the dead and in mercy for how we have failed Him by what we have done and failed to do!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

TJM - Against my better judgment I will respond.

I have missed neither the Real Presence of Christ nor the gift of sanctifying grace.

I said: "Our work is allowing God's grace to lift us beyond the temptations we encounter so that, through us, the Kingdom that is already present will be manifest."

See those words, "...allowing God's grace to lift us..."?

That's not something atheists will attest to. I do believe it and I have STATED it. And, though an atheist would not be happy with the suggestion, we know that even they, when prompted to do good works, and moved by grace. You can't dismiss the good works done by atheists unless you dismiss the grace that underpins those good works.

Further I wrote: "In the Eucharist we praise God, give thanks to God for the gifts He has given us, and ask God to transform us - yes, to transform us - more and more into the holy members of the Body of Christ that we became when we were baptized. When we are so transformed,..."

That transformation is possible only because of the grace I have already mentioned.




Victor said...

Just a point of historical correction:
"Transubstantiation" was an idea already being used in the late 11th century when Aristotelianism still had not made an impact in Europe, was dogmatically used for the first time at the 4th Ecumenical Council of the Lateran in 1215 in reference to the real presence 10 years before Thomas Aquinas was even born and who amplified the idea using Aristotelian metaphysics, and was reiterated at the Council of Trent which clarified the real presence as "fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

"Transubstantiation" refers to a change of essence of something, so does not depend on any specific metaphysics, whether Aristotelian or Platonist. How this happens is a mystery, but something essential does happen. But if you are a Nominalist who does not believe in the essences of things like most Modernists are (generally, progressives consider essentialism a disease), then you will have problems even with the Nicene Creed which speaks of the Father as being consubstantial with the Son, that is to say, being of the same divine essence. It is easy to see why denying essences in this way leads to heresy.


Anonymous said...

It is amazing to me and not just today that when he gets excited and never mind the topic Fr. McDonald goes into one of his now infamous though usually mercifully short syntactically and punctuationally challenged orations-on-paper but that flows from an inadequate and usually unrecognizable connection to the topic that was the source though not the only source for the comment in the first place.

But I digress...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Thank you so much! I just love the style of your wryind and am overjoyed you mimic me, the highest form of compliment. I am honored.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Your style of WRITING ,,,,

TJM said...

Kavanaugh,

Why not use the precise and Catholic term, sanctifying grace? The type of grace which flows from reception of the body and blood of Our Lord?

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

And there, at 2:42, is the reason why I said it was against my better judgment.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Since the end and aim of all efficacious grace is directed to the production of sanctifying grace where it does not already exist, or to retain and increase it where it is already present, its excellence, dignity, and importance become immediately apparent; for holiness and the sonship of God depend solely upon the possession of sanctifying grace, wherefore it is frequently called simply grace without any qualifying word to accompany it as, for instance, in the phrases "to live in grace" or "to fall from grace".

NOTE WELL: "...wherefore it is frequently called simply grace without any qualifying word to accompany it..."

"Grace" is the precise and Catholic term.

Never again.

TJM said...

Kavanaugh,

I get it, you don't like the term sanctifying grace so you are squirreling around trying to find an excuse not to use it. If you recall your Baltimore Catechism there are two kinds of graces: sanctifying grace and actual grace. Your haughty "never again" confirms my opinion of you as being "clericalism on steroids." No charity, no touch of St. John Vianney.

JDJ said...

“...ultimately the Mass is more about us becoming the body of Christ than it is about the bread becoming the body of Christ.”
Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ

Well, that certainly puts the lie to my understanding of how Grace operates. My understanding for all these years has been it is the supernatural Grace conferred by the “the bread becoming the body (sic) of Christ” during Mass that then enables “us becoming the body of Christ”, sending us into the world. I do know one thing: this is how salvific Grace has operated in my life.

Marc said...

While I’m not one usually to defend Fr. Kavanaugh, his statements here are worlds apart from this Fr. Reese character. I’m sure Fr. Kavanaugh and I disagree on many things, but his apologetic in this instance seems a good, Catholic one to me.

I heard a fellow after mass this Sunday claiming that our priest (of the SSPX, who recently celebrated his 15th anniversary of ordination) have a sermon that was “Novus Ordo theology” because he discussed how we, the laity, offer ourselves in a certain sense along with the to-be-consecrated host at the Offertory. I mention this to say that it is possible to be too vigilant with regard to assuming the worst intentions in people’s statments (something of which I have certainly been guilty).

TJM said...

JDJ,

Well you just confirmed that Reese is a heretic and not worth paying attention to at all

TJM said...

I guess "Father" Reese rejects Vatican II and Paul VI:

Concerning Fr. Reese’s bête noir, transubstantiation, already in 1968 – just shortly after Vatican II – in his Credo of the People of God St. Pope Paul VI warned theologians against abandoning the defined doctrine of transubstantiation:

“Christ cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine which our senses perceive. This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine, as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body.”

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

All quotes from Pope Benedict XVI:

"We cannot keep to ourselves the words of eternal life given to us in our encounter with Jesus Christ: they are meant for everyone, for every man and woman. ... It is our responsibility to pass on what, by God's GRACE, we ourselves have received."

"The Gospel purifies and renews, it bears fruit, wherever the community of believers hears it and receives God’s GRACE in truth and charity. This is my confidence, this is my joy."

"We must trust in the mighty power of God's mercy. We are all sinners, but His GRACE transforms us and makes us new."

"The "door of faith" (Acts 14:27) is always open for us, ushering us into the life of communion with God and offering entry into his Church. It is possible to cross that threshold when the word of God is proclaimed and the heart allows itself to be shaped by transforming GRACE. To enter through that door is to set out on a journey that lasts a lifetime."

"GRACE, lavished upon us by God and communicated through the Mystery of the Incarnate Word, is an absolutely free gift with which nature is healed, strengthened and assisted in pursuing the innate desire for happiness in the heart of every man and of every woman."

All quotes from St. Pope John Paul II:

"The Eucharist is a priceless treasure: by not only celebrating it but also by praying before it outside of Mass we are enabled to make contact with the very wellspring of GRACE."

"You will reciprocally promise love, loyalty and matrimonial honesty. We only want for you this day that these words constitute the principle of your entire life and that with the help of divine GRACE you will observe these solemn vows that today, before God, you formulate."

"There is no need to be dismayed if love sometimes follows torturous ways. GRACE has the power to make straight the paths of human love."

All quotes from the Council of Trent - On Justification-First Decree:

"A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of GRACE."

"This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the GRACE, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting."

"For, if it be a GRACE, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, GRACE is no more GRACE."

"That, by every mortal sin, GRACE is lost, but not faith."

"CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the GRACE of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of GRACE, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in GRACE,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema."

(Caps mine)

Are Pope Benedict, St. Pope John Paul II, and the Council of Trent examples of "squirreling around" and "clericalism on steroids"? I think not.

And I rest my case.



TJM said...

avanaugh,

LOL - you do not have the tone or demeanor of the popes you cite. You come across as arrogant, condescending, sneaky (posting under Anon) and not very pastoral - attributes of clericalism on steroids.

Pater Ignotus Was My Pastor said...

TJM at 1253 on 21 Aug 19: Bingo, you nailed it with your assessment of “clericalism on steroids”.

Joe said...

I’m sorry, but I had a bit of a hard time following the commentary vs the blogging. I couldn’t differentiate between phrases that are intended to be sarcastic and those that aren’t. I wish the commentary was written separately as a response. (I’m an Eastern rite Catholic who visits this site once a week or so)