IS FATHER REESE, THOUGH, A HERETIC AND AN APOSTATE? OF COURSE ONLY A BISHOP CAN LABEL HIM THAT WAY AND UNLESS HE REPENTED, I PRESUME HE COULD BE EXCOMMUNICATED. HE COULD ALSO BE LAICIZED. SHOULD HE BE?
In a very, very embarrassing for him commentary he writes for the National Catholic Reporter, which you can read in full HERE, he says this in part:
Since my critics often accuse me of heresy, before I go further, let me affirm that I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I just don't believe in transubstantiation because I don't believe in prime matter, substantial forms and accidents that are part of Aristotelian metaphysics…
…So, first, forget transubstantiation. Better to admit that Christ's presence in the Eucharist is an unexplainable mystery that our little minds cannot comprehend.
However, this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’"
He’s a publicity hound and a boob
TJM, if he was a boob more people would click on him. Seriously, He demonstrates a good point about transubstantiation in that bread can be different from other bread by what it is in substance. Men are men, but each unique. I am a man, and so was Christ. But we are different in substance of our nature. Fr. Reese allows himself to be tempted to explain the Mystery rather than cleve to the Faith of it. He backtracks on this, a little too late, and probably out of ego.
I like the word "boob." I never took this guy seriously. He thinks he is being cool by dissing the term "transubstantiation."
To what end? There are legions of priest as bad or worse than him. The damage has been done and turning back isn't possible.
The postconciliar Church is ungovernable. The laity has been miseducated and neglected to the point where they generally don't care about apostasy and heresy.
For a time, it appears that the enemies of the Church have triumphed.
For a time.
Note well what is not in Trent's definition of transubstantiation: prime matter, substantial forms, accidents, or Aristotelian metaphysics. "Substance" here meant "what it is." In the previous chapter Trent declares that this change happens under the "species," i.e. appearance, of bread and wine. Thus all Trent is saying is that the "what it is" is changed but the "what is looks like" remains. It then says that this is fittingly and properly called transubstantiation. Those who try to discredit the Church's teaching on transubstantiation by attaching other meanings or explanations to it are being too clever and do not really understand the teaching of the Council of Trent on the subject.
Well said. There are very few of us left that understand what the Church actually teaches. Much of clergy is clueless.
That whole article by Father Reese was indeed embarrassing; a liturgical, "Hits from the '70s Revue!"
So many errors:
"Catholics then believed that it was a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday" -- and we still do, Father! It is still Church teaching.
"If you want to adore Christ in the Eucharist, go to Benediction, not to Mass." Why choose? And, more to the point, why should anyone neglect to adore Jesus ever?
"We should remember that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus tell his disciples to adore him."
At best misleading: Jesus accepted adoration many times, and he revealed himself as divine many time and in many ways.
"My approach will not be to use church documents or famous theologians" -- no, of course not, Father, that would keep you on a leash!
Father Reese, and so many progressives in the Church, remind me of the quote attributed to the French foreign minister, Talleyrand, spoken about the Bourbon kings: "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing."
Very well said. I hope all is well with you
It's probably too late for anyone to see this, but a further thought occurred to me about Father Reese's point that "nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus tell his disciples to adore him."
So, let's dissect that.
The problem with this assertion is that it forces the conclusion that Jesus must really be dissatisfied with the four Gospels as they finally took shape; because all four Gospels absolutely "tell" us to adore Jesus. They all present him as divine, and repeatedly show people adoring him, whether it is the Canaanite woman, the Magi, or the Apostles, to name three instances.
So the necessary implication of Father Reese's claim is to separate Jesus from the Gospels, and given how convenient it is to his agenda, it seems hard to believe it's merely an oversight. And this is a conscious school of thought, that creates a wide gulf between "the Jesus of history and the Christ of the Church."
The antidote to this is very straightforward. Ask: did Jesus have any role in shaping the texts of the Gospel? Even without adding in his divinity, the answer would seem to be yes; after all, where did the authors of the Gospels get it all? Now add his divinity, and there's no escape: how in the world can you say that the outcome of the Gospels is contradictory to his message?
And if Father Reese wants to come back with, oh I didn't mean to suggest Jesus didn't get the Gospels he wanted, or that the Gospels are unfaithful witnesses! Then his claim about Jesus not "telling" anyone to adore him is simply being disingenuous, because then Father Reese would concede that instead of telling, Jesus sent others to tell us to do it. "He who hears you, hears me." Who said that, Father Reese?
Post a Comment