Sunday, August 14, 2016


(Posted by Glaucon Jr)

First, let me say that Diana has made some good points recently. And that’s genuinely gives us room to talk a bit more clearly.. 

It’s easy to assume some rage or inflexibility on the part of us here at JW, but the fact is that zeal for the Lord in a world of luke-warmness, constant secular attack, relativism, and buffet Catholicism is quite often confused with hostility. Defense of the truth sounds shrill to those who don't want to confront their own grievous error. That's why precise language is needed for thoughtful discussion, and Chuck White is a good example of that desire to be thorough, methodical, and charitable. God bless him.

When I do it systematically myself, I’m accused of being wordy and writing a book. Then, when I’m succinct, I’m accused of being incomplete and illiterate by the very same people. *sigh*

With that in mind, and because it's Sunday and I just got back from Mass, I didn't want to add even more comments into the Tabernacle fray that’s caused a dust up over at NCW, but since it’s inextricably linked to the Real Presence bombshell and what we learned from that yesterday, let’s add two final thoughts in plain English: first, about the Tabernacle as being for the Eucharist alone, and the second about the presence of Christ in the Scripture. 

We are after all allowed to grow in faith on Sunday of all days, yes? 

Now our goal here, among other things, is (with reform and renewal) to bring otherwise-faithful Catholics back into the Tradition in harmony and unity with us--that we all may be one. That requires absolute fidelity to Truth, which never changes. But we can't just will it to be so. We need to make things clear.

So even though the NCW teaching clearly denies the Real Presence as Magisterially understood, Diana in her way does tell us why there is this disbelief (apart from Christological issues), and that means that eventually a wholesome conversation may have room to begin since we can see the heart of what's wrong.

And pardon all the citations. I personally dislike it,but if it helps calm arguments, then so be it.

First, Diana notes when responding to a commentor  about defiance (here abridged):

Diana asks a valid question here that deserves a brief but unhurried answer, as do we all:

1) Just as there aren't Church rules that specify that Perrier cannot be added to the dough to make the Eucharistic bread, so because there isn't a rule strictly prohibiting it doesn't make it allowable, or even a good idea. In other words, just because it's not explicitly prohibited doesn't make it permissible (as someone else has rightly noted on her blog). I'm giving a silly example here, but I think the point is clear (so please don't get excited about water rubrics, it's just an example).

2) More importantly, and more to the point, what's the Catechism say? Par 1379 states (emphasis mine): "The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that IT EMPHASIZES and manifests the truth of the REAL PRESENCE of Christ IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT."

So none of this means that the Word isn't profoundly important or is to be dismissed (that's a false choice you're suggesting); it's means it's not same-same with the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

As for this being MY rule or OUR rule we need only check out virtually every tabernacle in the world not designed by Kiko. This understanding of "tabernacle" as "dwelling place" for He who is Life Itself—the dwelling place for the Eucharist--is universal wherever there is belief in the Real Presence.

To the second point she makes touching on  the Divine presence in the Scripture, Diana makes an interesting observation that gives a good insight to NCW thinking:

Again, two valuable things to note here:

She is absolutely right that the original tablets of the Law were indeed placed in the Ark of the Covenant as stated in the Old Testament, and that demonstrates those tablets' profound importance to the Israelites since it was indeed placed with the manna (which itself prefigures the Eucharist). The Law (all 613 of them) was God’s revelation to Israel (CCC 62) of how to be faithful to Him, and aside from liturgical laws, much of it is actually covered by Natural Law (and so applicable morally to all men). So all men are bound by Natural Law (read Romans 1 to see that for St Paul's take on that). I agree completely with her on all of this about the centrality of revelation.

But therein lies the problem of extending it: we aren’t Jews, and the Law (that part known by revelation alone in Torah) no longer applies to us (that’s the whole point of the Letter to the Romans). Likewise, in Matthew 5, we see that Jesus doesn’t abolish the Law, He perfects it. Because He is the fulfillment of everything (CCC 65).

In other words, Jesus Christ Himself IS the revelation of God (CCC 73). HE is the Living Presence in the Host and Precious Blood—Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. 

Likewise, HE is the revelation, not the Bible. The Bible is the written witness of Christ, and Christ is particularly present in the proclamation of the Gospel (cf CCC 81, where the Tradition transmits the entirety of the Word of God, rather than the Bible--and in what context--for further reading).

That's what CCC 134 says, as Diana rightly cites in general: all speak of Christ and are fulfilled in Christ. That that doesn't mean that Christ is the book, right?

After all, the Lord never wrote the Gospel: He IS the Good News, and that Good News was spoken--proclaimed--for a long time before it was ever put to paper.

Putting the Bible in the Tabernacle is making these two very different "presences" equivalent. It’s making equivalent both me and the post I write. But I am not my post; my post expresses who and what I am, but it is not I, body and soul. My post points to me. Scripture does this as well, all do in a superabundant way because it is from God Himself. 

In the same way, we can't take CCC134-141 and interpret such that it conflicts somehow with CCC 81. So we have to be profoundly careful with "Word of God" and using it in an equivocal or ambiguous way. 

It’s tempting to take our devotion to the Bible and make the Bible something that it’s not. Protestants do this constantly, but so do so many others. Muslims (believers, not terrorists) are renowned for their devotion to the Koran as "Word-made-Book," and the Vatican 2 fathers praised such devotion as part of their faith (see "Nostra Aetate" 3). Such devotion in general is a profoundly good thing when the faith is founded upon their holy Book that is the once-and-final revelation. 

And that's why revelation is closed (CCC 66): because the Tradition is established for all time (CCC 53), not because God one day wrote the final page, then fini.

But that isn't our Faith.  God reveals Himself in the Scriptures, to be sure, but He IS the revelation; He is the Eucharist. Muslims believe in the Koran as God's revelation because they deny the Incarnation of the God-Man. We worship the God-Man. That's the difference. 

So to my mind, that’s what’s going on at NCW's blog reaction to the Tabernacle question and eventual admission to denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist. For them, it's an equivalence, but that doesn't elevate the Scriptures so much as it reduces the Real Presence of Christ to something mundane and tangible (several quotes on Diana's blog point ot this), and therefore simply functional to faith rather than the temporal manifestation of this perfect kenosis in the Sacrifice of the Mass at every hour of every day until the End (cf CCC 1325). 

And that's at the heart of why the "Jesus is a sinner" comment is so hard for them to let go of as well. And in the end, as I heard a priest say not long ago, all heresies in general come about from an over-emphasis on a point of doctrine to the detriment of another. We must all take care and cling to the Tradition to avoid this.  

ONE FINAL NOTE; I have no doubt Diana will read this, and she will very likely take me to task, tell me I'm in heresy, that I'm not teaching the Faith, I've got it all wrong. So all of you do me a favor: pick up the Catechism. If that's too much, ask any non-Guam RMS priest. Ask Abp Hon. They will all tell you what's been said here. 

Besides, if the Bible is the revelation and not Christ our God Himself, then which Bible? The Latin Vulgate? The Hebrew? The Greek? The Aramaic? The Gloss? What about textual variants? All of that is the absolute fastest way to chaos and error. Formal Protestants ought to know; they've perfected such errors with their 33,000 denominations.

Diana's lashing out without substantive content has been her reaction to virtually everything I've posted. I genuinely hope that's not the case now. She so often takes the Catechism out of context, then when corrected, she deflects. When called out for calling the Blessed Mother and the Rosary an obstacle of Christ, she hid. With the Real Presence, she dodges. She's not in dialogue. She's like a child who insists that the sky is blue because it's the reflection of the ocean, and she won't engage further than her own opinion, no matter how self-contradictory to Magisterium or common sense. So when she seeks to debate without regard for Truth, I shall mock. And why not? It's either funny or exasperating when the other is as receptive as a Chia-pet, so I choose to laugh and move on with my day.

But not today. Today, I hope it is taken in sincerity. Charity requires that, like Chuck, I try to help Diana see the Truth, and so I modify my tone (for once) to aid in that. After that, it's on her. 

No one likes to be made a fool of, but most of the time, we do it to ourselves. I have no interest in making her so.  I'm not attacking. I'm agreeing where I can. 

Their admission that the Real Presence is BUNK really made me feel so empty for these poor souls. This is what they were taught. Their catechists taught them so. So we must now at least teach them what they need to get back to where they belonged all along. 

No comments:

Post a Comment