At the National Chismatic Reporter, Father Thomas Reese has an unbelievable essay on the Eucharist which he must have written in the early 1970’s. Maybe he forgot that he wrote it then and therefore it was out of date.
At any rate you can read the whole essay HERE which will explain why in the 1970’s tabernacles were moved out of sight, Benediction and adoration were deemed to be pre-Vatican II and post 1200’s and that transubstantiation and worshipping Jesus are not what Jesus meant at the Last Supper or the Passover Meal.
You can’t make this stuff up today! You have to retrieve this stuff from the 1970’s. Here’s something for your nostalgic reading—have bucket nearby to contain your puke.
CAN ANYONE SPELL HERETIC OR HERESY ANYMORE?
Six suggestions for the Catholic bishops' document on the Eucharist
…the document should not use the word "transubstantiation," which is a theological concept based on Aristotelian philosophy, not the Scriptures. I believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, but I do not believe in the Aristotelian metaphysics of prime matter, substantial forms, substance and accidents.
Transubstantiation was a nice way of explaining the Eucharist to Aristotelians, but it makes absolutely no sense to people in the 21st century. Better to admit that the transformation is a mystery beyond our comprehension. If a person can say "Amen" when the minister says, "The body of Christ," they should be able to receive the Eucharist.
Third, the document should emphasize that the purpose of the Eucharist is not to bring Christ down on the altar so that we can worship him. If you want to worship Jesus, go to Benediction. The Eucharist is about worshipping the Father, not Jesus. Jesus never asked his disciples to worship him. His message was all about the Father, not himself.
The ultimate purpose of the Eucharist is not to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ but to transform those at the Eucharist into the body of Christ so that they can continue his mission in the world.
The ultimate purpose of the Eucharist is not to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ but to transform those at the Eucharist into the body of Christ so that they can continue his mission in the world.
7 comments:
Why do guys like this waste the time and effort and seminary space to become priests?
Thomas, what Fr. Reese is teaching is what he was taught in the seminary in the 1970's. That is what I was taught. It isn't all wrong, but it pits one hermeneutic against another. For example, he denigrates transubstantiation because it is a philosophical category to explain what we believe. There is no need to do that, simply explain transubstantiation in a way most people would understand.
The heresy is that the point of the Mass isn't to consecrate bread and wine but to consecrate us to become the Body of Christ by going out to the world with our faith and good works.
It's not either/or but both/and.
That we don't worship Jesus borders of heresy too. We worship the Most Holy Trinity, meaning, we worship God the Father, through God the Son and by the Power of God the Holy Spirit.
I think he is heretical here and especially heretical to tell us if we want to worship Jesus go to Benediction, not Mass. Foolish and unpastoral.
I know we should abhor modernism because of its dishonest and because it is the synthesis of all heresies. But I particularly hate modernism for one more reason: IT IS INCREDIBLY BORING AND UNINSPIRING. The 1970's, in my view, was the absolute bleakest epoch in Church history. I've called Francis "The Liquidator". Maybe a more appropriate name might be "The Bore". This retro-70's vision of the Catholic faith is duller than dull and has about as much flavor as a stiff drink of Metamucil.
Thomas Garrett,
Excellent points and as good an explanation I have seen for the reasons we continue to shed members. Pope Benedict wanted to re-enchant the Liturgy, PF wants burlap and bland.
'The ultimate purpose of the Eucharist is ...' This in itself is not an heretical statement, in fact it can be seen as orthodox - the key word is 'ultimate'. Heresy is the 'obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith (CCC para. 2089), and Reese is at pains to point out that he believes that 'the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ'.
Creating confusion in the Bergoglian manner is one thing, but Reese is inteligent enough to steer clear of out-and-out heresy.
John:
I kind of had that thought as well; however, I think another statement by Father Reese is at least materially heretical:
The Eucharist is about worshipping the Father, not Jesus. Jesus never asked his disciples to worship him. His message was all about the Father, not himself.
The potential heresy here is separating Jesus from the Father. The Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are one in "substance" (that sound you hear is Father Reese gnashing his teeth); therefore, it is not possible to worship "the Father, not Jesus." That is, unless you reject the revelation that God is a Trinity.
I would also enjoy insisting on Father Reese demonstrating the truth of his statement: "Jesus never asked his disciples to worship him." That is a statement of fact that he would be unable to demonstrate. How can he know that Jesus never -- not once, ever -- "asked" his disciples to worship him? All he can know is what is revealed in Scripture -- but Father Reese was sloppy and didn't limit his assertion to what Scripture reveals; Father Reese asserted that it never, ever, ever happened, ever. And he can't know that.
Even regarding Scripture, he's on thin ice.
Jesus certainly accepted worship and approved of his disciples recognizing him as "Lord." It was once Peter made this profession, before the other apostles, that Jesus proceeded to reveal to Peter and the rest the fullness of his plan: to suffer and die and be raised. And Matthew 16 makes clear that Peter's "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" was an extraordinary assertion, which the Father must have revealed to him.
It's also -- to be generous -- silly and embarrassing for Father Reese to say: "His [i.e., Jesus] message was all about the Father, not himself." Oh really, father? Then why did Jesus make so many "I am" statements? "I am the Bread of Life" is actually about the Father, not Jesus? "I am the Vine"? "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me" makes no sense if the "I" and "way," "truth," etc. aren't about Jesus the Son; according to Father Reese, this statement actually means: "[The Father] is the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father, but through [the Father]."
It's just dumb to make such a assertions, so that's why I say this is "material" heresy; I don't think Father Reese really intends it, because it seems he is just a sloppy thinker.
His whole column reeks of tired, shallow thinking, I'm sorry to say. If he were a seminarian, he'd get shellacked for trotting out most of that.
Father Fox
Good points! I think the role of Advocatus Diaboli doesn't suit me, so I'll stay with Hilaire Belloc:
Heretics all, wherever you may be,
In Tarbes or Nimes or over the sea,
You never will have good words from me:
Caritas non conturbat me.
But Catholic men who live upon wine
Are deep in the water and frank and fine.
Wherever I travel I find it so:
Benedicamus Domino.
Post a Comment