Rorate Caeli

Reform of the Reform: is the Kiko Rite approval coming up?

[Image: the Holy Father receives the leaders of the Way, Kiko Argüello, Carmen Hernández - in privilegio delle sweats-, and Fr.Mario Pezzi - Nov. 13, 2010]

All signs seem to indicate that the curious (this is a generous word) liturgical peculiarities (including some specific rites) of the Neocatechumenal Way have received thumbs-up from the pertinent Roman dicasteries, and that the leaders of the "Kikos" will be received by His Holiness on January 20, 2012, for the special approval of all their rites. [Rumor also confirmed by Spanish blogger Francisco de la Cigoña.]

It will be remembered that only a little more than six years ago the "Way" were ordered by the Pope to drop most of their liturgies peculiarities, notably their way of receiving Communion -- something that the "Way" has defiantly continued to maintain. That was supposed to have been the last word on the matter.

At least one blog identified with the "Way" has used the recent discussions on the blogosphere about the impending approval of the Neocatechumenal Liturgy to recall that the Bugnini-era Congregation for Divine Worship already praised the "liturgical spirituality" of the Cammino in 1974. (The full text of the 1974 CDW document can be found here.)



















 A Neocatechumenal Liturgy in 2011:


 

Canticle of Moses at a Neocatechumenal "Pascal Vigil" (2011):

 

Recent images of the Neocatechumenal Way's liturgy from the Osservatorio sul Cammino Neocatecumenale secondo Verità blog, a valuable resource for those who want to know more about the numerous aberrations of the Neocatechumenal Way: 


Snack time? No, "First Communion" at a Kiko Community

The dining hall at a Kiko-Mass


Wine tasting in Napa? No, Communion from the Chalice at a Kiko-Mass.

59 comments:

New Catholic said...

Thanks to Augustinus for his immense help in this post.

NC

Peter Moscatelli said...

So, let us roll up our sleeves and work even harder to get the Mass of all times into our parishes!

Cruise the Groove. said...

And the FSSPX has not recieved a "thumbs up" by Rome?
Curious...

Silvestrini said...

It's well known in Rome that Cardinal Canizares "the Little Ratzinger" Llovera has been preso in tasca (taken in the pocket) of the Neocats for some time ( they got to him soon after his arrival in the Vatican). it's still like the good old days of JPII in Rome, when new movements got whatever they wanted by way of back alley deals with the likes of Sodano and Dizwiz. We should pray for Pope Benedict XVI, but we can't really expect much from him. He is getting older and the Vatican Mafia are gaining ground. Corruption is rife. The new movements have in-built unravelling mechanisms. Look at the Legionaries of Christ, the Bethlehem Community, the Beatitudes, etc. etc. Pray for the poor wounded Bride of Christ on earth.....

Gratias said...

The V2 Church has become a big tent for experimentation. These Kukos are welcome, but so are we traditionalists. Never heard of this Kiko Argüello or of his new sect.

Surely the SSPX will be welcome if they just agree to a vague preamble. This is probably what these Kukos just did.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Sacred heart of Jesus have mercy on us!

Ferraiuolo said...

Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us! [2]

navinternetica@gmail.com said...

See here

http://www.internetica.it/neocatecumenali/english/home-en.htm

navinternetica@gmail.com said...

... and here, in italian

http://neocatecumenali.blogspot.com/

darius said...

Pope will send neocat in a "missio ad gentes", what are?

Knight of Malta said...

Here is Cardinal Canizares excitedly listing to one of the founding members of the Kookoos patiently explaining his new rite.

Gratias, I beg to disagree that Traditionalists are welcome; anything but in most parts of the world.

A Canberra Observer said...

I just love that the lady had to advertise for Adidas in her audience with the Holy Father ...

PEH said...

This is disgusting and a slap in the face to the FSSPX and to those who have held fast to Tradition. No wonder the Church is going downhill in our times. Everything and anything is accepted except Tradition and Pope is wheeled in and out of St. Peter's smiling all the while. Make no mistake about it, dear friends, we are living in a devastated vineyard.

Prof. Basto said...

The sweater just shows the high regard of this people for the See of Peter.

Sunshine State said...

I hope this story turns out to be a hoax. The disrespect shown in these disturbing photographs, in my opinion, deserves punishment, not an ordinate.

gabriele said...

It is not only disrepectful for the SSPX but much worse for the Sons of the Holy Redeemer. They have been waiting FOUR years for a Canonical Structure and still nothing. Rome has done to them exactly what the SSPX and the Seds said they would do. They answered the invitation to the Traditional Orders by the Holy Fathers when he issed the M P and have been treated apallingly. Their humbleness and patience have been commendable.

Peterman said...

Is that a Menorah on the table there? Super. They're ecumenical celebrating the festival of lights!

Brian said...

We should pray for Pope Benedict XVI, but we can't really expect much from him. He is getting older and the Vatican Mafia are gaining ground.

or . . . is it possible, Silvestrini, that the Holy Father approves of this move?

Anil Wang said...

Peterman, the Menorah is not so scandalous. It is mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse, which is the book of the Bible describing the liturgy of Heaven.

Silvestrini, yes the Pope is old and has a lot on his plate, but he could have just suppressed the NCW when he became Pope. Assuming the videos attached accurate, there really isn't much hope of salvaging something valuable from the NCW "liturgy", so correcting major abuses (which is what the Pope tried to do) is a waste of effort. Communion in the hand while the priest hand delivers it is bad, but the invasion of the Apse is far more sacrilegious than dancing around someone's grave.

If the NCW need a new liturgy, the only sane way to do it is to start with an existing valid liturgy and adding valid modifications (such as having the mass and readings completely sung....in Gregorian Chant of course). As such, I just don't see anything in the NCW liturgy worth saving that isn't available in an existing liturgy.

My own speculation is that after 50 years of outright rebellion, taming this wild horse will take another 50 years of good Pope. The Pope is just picking his battles. I would however be very surprised if NCW liturgy were approved, since doing nothing is the easiest sort of battle to win.

But I agree with you, the new movements have in-built unraveling mechanisms, although some take a lot longer than others. Protestantism, for instance, began to unravel only in the last 50 years (with acceptance of contraception) and has become to really unravel in the last decade (becoming more concerned with entertainment and marketing the "Jesus Brand" than actually trying to worship God). 500 years is a long time to wait for things negligence to become irrelevant.

Barbara said...

Church movements of the last years have never attracted me. I went once to the Neocatechemunal "mass"...invited by a well-intentioned friend. I was totally shaken up by it - sitting around a table, receiving in the hand (I cringe) dancing round the altar table, afterwards.This was long before my discovery of the Old Rite, but even then I knew that it most certainly was not for me and that there was something "not quite Catholic about it".

Really, what is the Church thinking about in its approval of this sect-like movement?

"Vatican Mafia" - is it really necessary to use such a term? How depressing it is and gives ammunition to anti-Catholic enemies. And what about people who may be wavering outside - thinking coming into the One Holy Catholic Church and that are reading this blog? Not very appealing,I should think. I know corruption and confusion exists (humanity) - but really this language is getting quite tiresome and counter-productive...

Barbara said...

Spare us speculations Anil Wang...we have enough to contend with at present.
There appear to be quite a few mind-readers who comment here, with a special ability to discern the thoughts and motives of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI..

LeonG said...

As I have stated before and with increasing justification, this is a true liberal modernist papacy where every hue and nuance of faith is welcome, except of course, those who refuse to recognise, in unity with our venerable forefathers in faith, the vernacular rite of Mass.

LeonG said...

It has to be stated that this papacy is liturgically defective - accepting the NCW liturgy is an objective testimonial to this accusation.

I am not Spartacus said...

Try to imagine Pope Saint Pius X and Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val putting up with this crap.


As for the Menorah, introducing that into a putative Catholic Liturgy is judaising.

RJS said...

Am I the only one who has read Ratzinger's theological books? Why would this move surprise anyone? Based on what I have read of the NCW, their "theology" is almost identical to that of Pope Benedict. All you have to do is read his books, such as Introduction to Christianity, which was written in 1967 and republished with a new Forward in 2000 by the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

This is the dirty little secret (which is no secret at all) that no one is willing to face. In his books, Ratzinger denies just about everything the Church teaches. Not only does he deny it, but he usually ridicules it. Like I said, from what I have read about the NCW, their theology is very similar to Ratzingers.

I can understand why people would not want to face this troubling fact, but we need to be willing to face reality - and this reality is public for all to see.

For my part, I would rather live in the painful world of reality than the confortable world of denial and self delusion.

Mark said...

Lady wearing an Adidas t-shirt to a papal audience; receiving communion while sitting on fold up chairs; guitars and hand-holding; dining-room style round altars... I mean, I never paid much attention to this movement but what exactly is it's unique charism or goal -- tackiness?

Puzzled said...

LeonG, I am not Spartacus, RJS: very well put, as always.

Please understand and excuse me, that I'm not trying to affirm an actual full equating of the two by any means, but I cannot help but feel what is going on today gives me a taste of what it must have been like living under a 20th century totalitarian regime. You see the truth plain as day, but wonder in your darkest private moments if you possibly really are insane, as you witness the witless cluelessness all around you.

Barbara said...

Dear Mr. RJS,
Well, since you seem to be particularly illuminated and see THE TRUTH that some of us don't want to face up to, perhaps you would be kind and quote the book you are referring to (I do not own it,although have have others written by the Pope as Cardinal)and show where the theology is the same as the NCW?

- dirty little secret - painful world of reality - you can keep them!
Even if the Pope is bit liberal (for my liking) and has written ambiguous things - I do recognize this - that he is still The Vicar of Christ - and I am with him and not your "painful reality" which smacks of very pompous windybagginess...

People do change - the Church is full of such testimonies...

RJS said...

Barbara,

In the following quote, Ratzinger denies the resurrection of the body, by claiming that the Greek word "soma" (translated as body) can be translated as "the self". Therefore, he translates it as "self" and then claims that the resurrection of the body actually means the resurrection of the person - and not the resurrection of the actual physical body (which is a dogma of the faith). Also be sure to notice how he ridicules the teaching of the Church on this point by calling it "naive". He continuously cast ridicule on Church doctrine with similar language.

"Introduction to Christianity, pg 357-358: “…English cannot fully convey the enigmatic character of biblical Greek. The Greek word ‘soma’ means something like ‘body’, but at the same time also means ‘the self’. And this ‘soma’ can be ‘sarx’ that is, ‘body’ in the earthly, historical, and this chemical, physical sense; but it can also be ‘breath”… In Paul’s language ‘body’ and ‘spirit’ are not opposites; the opposites are called ‘physical body’ and ‘spiritual body’….

“One thing at any rate may be fairly clear: Both John (6:63) and Paul (1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body” IS NOT A “RESURRECTION OF PHYSICAL BODIES”. This, from the point of view of modern thought, the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological erudition with it subtle ways of construing how there can be eternal physical bodies. To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons, and this NOT IN THE RETURN Of “FLESH BODY”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he expressly describes as impossible (“the perishable cannot become imperishable”) but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord”.

The entire book is filled with similar teachings. He also ridicules the teaching that Jesus died for our sins to satisfy the justice of God. He claims that this makes God out to be a blood thirsty monster (which is exactly what the Neocatechuminal Way teaches). He refers to the doctrines of the Church on the Trinity, which were in the theological manuals of his day, as “a graveyard of heresies”.

By the way, Introduction to Christianity is available to read online as a google book. You can read it for yourself and see what I mean. But I would offer a warning: If you don't have a strong faith, do not read the book. I refer to that book as a weapon of mass destruction for the Catholic Faith.

I don't like writing what I did above, but we must face reality. Burrying our head in the sand will not benefit anyone.

Joe Potillor said...

I highly doubt that the rite will be approved...

Peterman said...

Who said anything about scandal Anil? I'm heralding this potentially great new ecumenical springtime!

Tom Esteban said...

RJS, His Holiness doesn't (and never did) deny the resurrection of the body. In that book, he clumsily tries to show that our resurrected bodies will be glorified bodies; bodies that do not have the same kind of attractions that the 'flesh' as we now know it has. He seems to be using 'flesh' in that sense, rather than saying 'we won't have any bodies at all'.

Benedict XVI's Spe Salvi:

"God has given himself an “image”: in Christ who was made man. In him who was crucified, the denial of false images of God is taken to an extreme. God now reveals his true face in the figure of the sufferer who shares man's God-forsaken condition by taking it upon himself. This innocent sufferer has attained the certitude of hope: there is a God, and God can create justice in a way that we cannot conceive, yet we can begin to grasp it through faith. Yes, there is a resurrection of the flesh[33]. There is justice[34]. There is an “undoing” of past suffering, a reparation that sets things aright. For this reason, faith in the Last Judgement is first and foremost hope—the need for which was made abundantly clear in the upheavals of recent centuries."

Notice he says that there is a resurrection of the flesh.

Peace.

Susanna said...

I thought a Pope automatically could not be a heretic. We are bound to believe whatever he teaches and even if it appears to be heretical he will personally be punished by God if it is warranted. Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

Delphina said...

I'm surprised she didn't have a cigarette in her hand. Isn't she a chain smoker?

RJS said...

Tom,

He clearly teaches that the resurrection is not a resurrection of physical bodies. He even ridicules what he calls the "naive ...theological erudition with it subtle ways of construing how there can be eternal physical bodies". He claims that the resurrection is merely a "resurrection of the person", which is false.

The resurrection of the body is a resurrection of the physical body. As the Fouth Lateran Council teaches, it is the same body we have in this life. The difference is that it will have the four transendent qualities of subtlety, agility, brightness and impassibility, but it will remain a physical body.

Ratzinger: “One thing at any rate may be fairly clear: Both John (6:63) and Paul (1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body” IS NOT A “RESURRECTION OF PHYSICAL BODIES”. This, from the point of view of modern thought, the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological erudition with it subtle ways of construing how there can be eternal physical bodies. To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons, and this NOT IN THE RETURN Of “FLESH BODY”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he expressly describes as impossible (“the perishable cannot become imperishable”) but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord”.

Now, regarding the other quote you provided, I truly hope he now accepts this basic teaching of Christianity. But if he does, why would he allow this heretical book to remain in print? And keep in mind that the book in question contains many other heresies.

Bishop Tessier De Mallerais of the SSPX read this book, and in an interview he stated that it was "full of heresies", which it is. You can read most of the book online. Simply search the title in google books.

Here's a link to the interview with Bishop De Mallerais:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0430-tissier.htm

Jordanes551 said...

Tom Esteban is correct, and RJS mistaken and guilty of rash judgment. Cardinal Ratzinger's discourse on the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh is not easy to grasp, or can be easily misunderstood, but it does not deny the resurrection of the flesh, and the Church has never dogmatically taught that the resurrection body is a "physical" body, nor a fleshly body no different than the bodies we now have. We know the resurrection body is immortal, immune from disease, no longer subject to hunger and fatigue, able to walk through walls, able to appear as if out of nothing, etc., etc. Obviously it is not a mere fleshly body such as we now have, and is not "physical" (that is, something that moves through space and is subject to the laws of physics). Obviously the resurrection is a restoration and glorification of persons, not the resuscitation of fleshly organisms -- that is, it is the glorification of individual substances of a rational nature, substances having souls as well as bodies (and it is de fide that the soul is the form of the body).

Picard said...

Jordanes,

no RJS is right. He himselfe pointed to the 4. Lateranense. I will try to find more texts and sources. But I wonder that a traditionalist can question this clear teaching of faith. The ressurection of the body/flesh means a real body /real flesh, so a physical body/flesh.

And the then Card. Ratzinger really writes horrible things in this more than dangerous book; perhaps the most incredible thing is that he turns the teaching about the incarnation of God from top to buttom, upside down:

Because Christ is the perfect man he is God.

-- that´s pure antichristian humanism and existentialism, even if some "pious", "supranatural", "new theology-like" humanism-existentialism.

And read the chapter about the descent into hell/ad inferros and about this limbus patrum -- it is totaly modernistic, the limbus patrum is denied ("questioned" as you would say).

And so on and so for!

Jordanes551 said...

no RJS is right. He himselfe pointed to the 4. Lateranense.

Nothing Lateran IV taught contradicts what Ratzinger wrote.

But I wonder that a traditionalist can question this clear teaching of faith.

No one is questioning any teaching of the faith, but anyway neither I nor Pope Benedict are traditionalists.

The ressurection of the body/flesh means a real body /real flesh, so a physical body/flesh.

No, that does not follow at all. The Church has never taught that the resurrection body will be physical, subject to the laws of physics and thermodynamics, subject to change and entropy and decay. Quite the contrary. Nor is the resurrection the resuscitation of the biological organism with all the functioning of its cellular metabolism, division, consumption, digestion, excretion, reproduction. If that's what you think the resurrection of the flesh means, you're gravely mistaken.

And the then Card. Ratzinger really writes horrible things in this more than dangerous book; perhaps the most incredible thing is that he turns the teaching about the incarnation of God from top to buttom, upside down:

Because Christ is the perfect man he is God.

-- that´s pure antichristian humanism and existentialism, even if some "pious", "supranatural", "new theology-like" humanism-existentialism.


I've encountered plenty of traditionalist claims against things Ratzinger has written. In most cases I've found that they are based on out-of-context quotes, mistranslations, and seemingly deliberate misinterpretation or misconstrual of what he wrote. I've learned not to trust most "traditionalist" critiques of Ratzinger's words, not to take their word for it, but to demand full-context quotes and a reasoned and charitable construal of what he wrote.

It is, after all, the obligation of those who publicly accuse someone of heresy of backing up what they say, especially if that person is the Pope.

Picard said...

Jordanes, don´t play with words.

Physical exactly means something real material, in opossition to non-physical, what means something immaterial (mental or meta-physical).

I totaly agree, you always have to consider the context - but just if you consider the context, you will see that the quote of Ratzinger re "physical" is in opposite of the traditional teaching of the Curch.

Ok, you are right here: therefore the Pope is not a traditionalist but I am.

Picard said...

the Church has never dogmatically taught that the resurrection body is a "physical" body, nor a fleshly body no different than the bodies we now have.

Nobody here in the discussion suggested that the resurrected bodies were "no different than the bodies we now have" (RJS explicitely pointed to the differences!!)

So why this straw-man, this kind of unsound discussion?

We know the resurrection body is immortal, immune from disease, no longer subject to hunger and fatigue, able to walk through walls, able to appear as if out of nothing, etc., etc.

As I just said, nobody did deny or question this (RJS pointed to this explicitly)

Obviously it is not a mere fleshly body such as we now have

Here again the strawman, if stressing the mere and meaning exactly the same as we now have (- I reapeat: nobody did question this, it is not the object of our discussion; of course the resurrected body will be very different to the one we have now!!) -

and is not "physical" (that is, something that moves through space and is subject to the laws of physics).

Here we come to the point of discussion, this is really denied by me or RJS, because this is erroneouse - and does not follow from the premises/correct determinations above.

Of course the resurrected bodys are (in principle, qua their nature) subject to the laws of physic - but by a permanent miracle of God many laws are suspended - or better: the bodys are freed from actual debt of beeing bound by the laws.

But we do not need to go into deep to that (how that is to be described exactly, what kinds of laws and miracles are involved, etc.) -
at least they will be physical in the sense that - as real, material bodies - they occupy some space, are spatial and therefore are subject to some physical laws.

Obviously the resurrection is a restoration and glorification of persons, not the resuscitation of fleshly organisms

Tha´t is illogical - if the resurrection of persons, then of courese also the resuscitation of fleshly organisms

because, as you correctly state, persons are substances having souls as well as bodies

But, here we also come to an other essential point: in contrast, better speaking only of the resurrecting of the fleshly body and not of the persons, because the soul and therefore the whole person as such, as a whole, is not resurrected, but only the body. - [The person only in so far as the body is an essential part of the person. ]

The direct object of resurrection is the material body, the fleshly organism, not the person. That´s exactly the point.

Sobieski said...

St. Thomas holds that the blessed will indeed have the same body after the Resurrection:

"...In like manner the errors of certain heretics are refuted. Some of them fell into the aforesaid opinions of the philosophers: while others held that souls are reunited to heavenly bodies, or again to bodies subtle as the wind, as Gregory relates of a certain Bishop of Constantinople, in his exposition of Job 19:26, 'In my flesh I shall see my God,' etc. Moreover these same errors of heretics may be refuted by the fact that they are prejudicial to the truth of resurrection as witnessed to by Holy Writ. For we cannot call it resurrection unless the soul return to the same body, since resurrection is a second rising, and the same thing rises that falls: wherefore resurrection regards the body which after death falls rather than the soul which after death lives. And consequently if it be not the same body which the soul resumes, it will not be a resurrection, but rather the assuming of a new body." (ST suppl. 79.1c)

The reason for the qualities of the glorified body according to St. Thomas is on the part of the form (i.e., soul) and not on the part of the matter (i.e., body). For example:

"...Hence others [correctly] say that the aforesaid completeness by reason of which human bodies are said to be subtle will result from the dominion of the glorified soul (which is the form of the body) over the body, by reason of which dominion the glorified body is said to be 'spiritual,' as being wholly subject to the spirit. The first subjection whereby the body is subject to the soul is to the effect of its participating in its specific being, in so far as it is subject to the soul as matter to form; and secondly it is subject to the soul in respect of the other operations of the soul, in so far as the soul is a principle of movement. Consequently the first reason for spirituality in the body is subtlety, and, after that, agility and the other properties of a glorified body. Hence the Apostle, as the masters expound, in speaking of spirituality indicates subtlety: wherefore Gregory says (Moral. xiv, 56) that 'the glorified body is said to be subtle as a result of a spiritual power.'" (ST suppl. 83.1c)

So according to St. Thomas, resurrected persons will have the same bodies as they have in mortal life with the exception that the soul will have perfect dominion over the (glorified) body by the power of God.

Sobieski

Devastated in the Vineyard said...

No formal training in theology here, but a plain reading of St. Thomas's Summa Q 54, Art. 1 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm#article1) seems to contradict then Cardinal Ratzinger's attempt to overly spiritualize the Resurrection, a common tendency in the New Theology. Also in the New Testament, Jesus seems to make the point that he is not a ghost by eating the fish he has prepared. While it is impossible for us to imagine in all its detail what a resurrected glorious body will be like, it seems to me that it must have some properties of what we know of "bodies" - at the very least it must occupy a "place" and must be of some material composition, although obviously possessing new powers and not subject to the effects of sin. To equate the resurrection merely with the resurrection of the "self" seems a confusing way to put it since our "self" is made up of both physical body and non-physical soul. In fact, the great tragedy of death is the dissolution of the self and even the souls in heaven are not fully "themselves" until the final resurrection. In this era of great theological confusion, what I find even more disturbing than the Pope not pulling his early theological speculations off the market, is the fact that he continues to write and speak as a private theologian and even goes so far as to invite others to correct him (in his first Jesus book)!

Barbara said...

Dear RJS,
Thank you kindly for your reply. OK. It was painful for me to read such things written by Father Ratzinger (wasn't it way back in 1967?) - I've read other books of a similar ilk that came out of that period -strange, nebulous,ambiguous stuff -a la Teilard de Chardin. Difficult to understand for me. My faith survived - I just tossed them aside. But,I agree with you - it is puzzling, why as Cardinal, our Pope perrmitted another publication of such a progressive book,as since then, he has written so many things that could be considered more "traditional" for example on the Liturgy and the New Mass etc.,

RJS - It is an extremely serious thing to suggest that a Pope is heretical. I do not go along with the way that it is sometimes bandied around in such a casual manner on blog forums.It is not OK. Or Pope Benedict is "Our Most sweet Christ on earth" or he isn't? The latter is unthinkable.

So I thank Jordanes so much for this:

"It is, after all, the obligation of those who publicly accuse someone of heresy of backing up what they say, especially if that person is the Pope."

By the way, I am sure you have noted that among real liberal Catholic circles this Pope is particularly despised.

Who can figure this all out? Certainly not I.

Let us ask Our Lord to protect our Pope, RJS!
May Our Holy Mother watch over us all in this trying time of such ecclesial confusion!

Barbara

New Catholic said...

RJS,

Please, stop. When it involves His Holiness personally, back off.

NC

Mar said...

An unsophisticated and simple, honest and guileless person would have seen Jesus suffer and shed His blood. He would have seen Him die on the Cross. He would have
concluded from all this that Jesus had a human body just like all humans, which under certain conditions dies. He would have seen that dead body wrapped in linens and placed in a tomb.

Later on he would have seen that the tomb was surprisingly and unaccountably empty. That there was absolutely nothing left of the body of Jesus, although the linens were still there.

Later still he would see Jesus alive, and having realized that it was the same Jesus as before, would conclude the awesome fact of His resurrection, undoubtedly the
resurrection of the same body as before.

It is only through the testimony of such persons, the men and women who were the friends of Jesus in physical time and space, that we also know and believe.

What intrigues me, though, is how there were still wounds in the resurrected and glorified body of Jesus so that Thomas could touch them and so believe that it really
was He and no other.

Jordanes551 said...

Jordanes, don´t play with words.

I am not playing with words. I am using them precisely.

Physical exactly means something real material, in opossition to non-physical, what means something immaterial (mental or meta-physical).

No, that is not what "physical" means -- or to be more clear, that is not ALL that "physical" means, which is why the Church has never taught that the resurrection body is "physical." Physical implies motion and change -- motion in space and in time, yet we know the resurrection body will not be subject to physical laws.

I totaly agree, you always have to consider the context - but just if you consider the context, you will see that the quote of Ratzinger re "physical" is in opposite of the traditional teaching of the Curch.

On the contrary, in context, and defining words correctly, there is nothing in what he wrote that opposes the teaching of the Church.

Nobody here in the discussion suggested that the resurrected bodies were "no different than the bodies we now have" (RJS explicitely pointed to the differences!!) So why this straw-man, this kind of unsound discussion?

It is not a straw man nor unsound to underscore that the resurrection body is vastly different from the bodies we now have -- and that was Cardinal Ratzinger's point in stressing that whole persons, not merely bodies and not biological organisms, are what will be resurrected. It's absurd for you to characterise my expounding upon what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote and what the Church teaches as a straw man or unsound discussion.

Here again the strawman, if stressing the mere and meaning exactly the same as we now have (- I reapeat: nobody did question this, it is not the object of our discussion; of course the resurrected body will be very different to the one we have now!!) -

It certainly is the object (and subject) of our discussion. If you think it's not, then you don't know what the Church teaches about the resurrection of the flesh.

"and is not 'physical' (that is, something that moves through space and is subject to the laws of physics). Here we come to the point of discussion, this is really denied by me or RJS, because this is erroneouse - and does not follow from the premises/correct determinations above.

If you believe the resurrection body is physical or a biological organism, then show us where the Church has ever taught that, and explain how it is possible for the resurrection body to be such. Only then may you accuse the Pope of denying the resurrection of the body.

Of course the resurrected bodys are (in principle, qua their nature) subject to the laws of physic - but by a permanent miracle of God many laws are suspended - or better: the bodys are freed from actual debt of beeing bound by the laws.

A "permanent" miracle? Hilarious. And you accuse me of playing with words. If something always and invariably operates a certain way, that is not a miracle that suspends a law, but a law.

Can you tell us which laws of physics the resurrection body will be subject to (that is, will be compelled to obey at all times)?

Jordanes551 said...

But we do not need to go into deep to that (how that is to be described exactly, what kinds of laws and miracles are involved, etc.) - at least they will be physical in the sense that - as real, material bodies - they occupy some space, are spatial and therefore are subject to some physical laws.

Oh, but we do indeed have to go in that deep. After all, under prevailing theories of physics, the very idea of objects "occupying" space is archaic and inadequate, since space itself is a substance that God created.

In discussing these matters, we must always remember that we really don't know what the universe will be like when the news heavens and new earth are fully made manifest at the end of time -- when, as St. Paul writes in Romans 8, the Creation is liberated from its present bondage of vanity and decay and futility. We're only now just beginning to get a good idea of what "matter" is, and what "space" is, and thus what the present laws of physics are. How then can we be sure what the laws of physics might be when the Creation is renewed and restored? We know what it means to be "physical" now, but what does it mean in heaven and what will it mean in the world to come? From the perspective of what "physical" means as we experience and sense it to be, however, the resurrection body cannot rightly be called "physical."

'Obviously the resurrection is a restoration and glorification of persons, not the resuscitation of fleshly organisms.' Tha´t is illogical - if the resurrection of persons, then of courese also the resuscitation of fleshly organisms, because, as you correctly state, persons are substances having souls as well as bodies.

You are again mistaken. The resurrection is not a resuscitation of a fleshly organism, but is far, far more than that. The resurrection of Lazarus was a resuscitation, because the body of Lazarus eventually experienced death again, that is, the dissolution of the body. That is not what happened when Jesus rose from the dead, and it is not what will happen at the end of the world. Again, in the resurrection we will no longer be biological organisms -- rather, the flesh will have been glorified in God, and thus no longer will depend upon ingestion, metabolism, excretion, and cellular division to maintain its integrity. Our bodies will be indestructible, no longer subject to weakness or hunger or pain or disease or death. We will then have life in its fullest, not just a biological, fleshly existence as we have now.

But, here we also come to an other essential point: in contrast, better speaking only of the resurrecting of the fleshly body and not of the persons, because the soul and therefore the whole person as such, as a whole, is not resurrected, but only the body. - [The person only in so far as the body is an essential part of the person. ]

The resurrection reunites the soul and the body. Since we are both souls AND bodies, the soul (that is, the vital principle) also participates in the resurrection.

The direct object of resurrection is the material body, the fleshly organism, not the person. That´s exactly the point.

The body is not a fleshly machine or vehicle that the soul rides around in. The soul is the form of the body. Man is a body-soul unity. Therefore it is impossible to resurrect the body without resurrecting the whole person. . . . which was Cardinal Ratzinger's point. It is not "bodies" that God will raise from the dead, but human beings -- and the glorified, spiritual body will not be the merely flesh and blood biological kind of existence we know now, but will be unimaginable greater than that. Again, that was Cardinal Ratzinger's point.

Jordanes551 said...

Later still he would see Jesus alive, and having realized that it was the same Jesus as before, would conclude the awesome fact of His resurrection, undoubtedly the
resurrection of the same body as before.


It was the same body, in truth -- and that same body that was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, and the same body that sat with the elders and teachers in Jerusalem when St. Joseph and St. Mary lost Him for three days, and the same body that was baptised by St. John.

What I deduce from all those things is that when we are raised with the "same bodies" we have now, it doesn't mean a person's body will include every atom and molecule that has ever been a part of his body in this life.

What intrigues me, though, is how there were still wounds in the resurrected and glorified body of Jesus so that Thomas could touch them and so believe that it really
was He and no other.


Along the same lines, several times Jesus has appeared to the Saints as a baby or a small child. I imagine that might tell us something about the nature of the resurrection body and it's relationship with time and space and matter. What exactly it tell us I can't put into words, and I suspect it's impossible to do so. We know the body and the soul have such an intimate connection that our individual identities and how we can recognized by others stems from it, but in such a way that when we are single-celled zygotes we are the same person as when we are old. The body changes so much, but it's still the same body -- and that's just in this life. There is a far greater change in the resurrection, but it is still the same body, and in both body and soul we'll be recognizably ourselves.

Sobieski said...

I think it is important to explain what type of metaphysic one is working under here. The Church embraces hylomorphism as the explanation for the relationship between body and soul (cf. Council of Vienne, CCC #365). Aristotelianism is the only philosophy I know of that teaches this doctrine with St. Thomas being its chief and most notable proponent in the Church. In this regard, the Cartesian dualist, materialist and mechanistic accounts of the human person are incompatible.

On the hylomophic account and as St. Thomas explains, the glorified body has its qualities by virtue of the soul, viz., because its matter will be perfectly subject to it. When people speak as if this occurs on the part of the body (i.e., some type of tranformed matter), then it sounds like Cartesian dualism or mechanism or materialism to me (not necessarily intentionally) because on the hylomorphic account matter is potential being and a principle of substance. It is not a stuff or substance in its own right. Form is what makes a thing to be what it is, with its various attributes, powers, etc. This would be so in the glorified body as well.

Further, if one's body will be different from that which is now possessed, then as St. Thomas says, it is hard to see on this account how it is a resurrection of the body rather than the assumption of a new one. Rather, it is the same body, but the relationship between the body and soul is changed and perfected.

It seems to me this is the heart of the matter. I will leave the further details to St. Thomas.

Sobieski

Picard said...

1. Physical surely means under laws in space and time - but that is not something else that I said - becaus "material beeings" mean beings in space and time; well, time we can discuss - but at least space:

a material thing is spatial, has three dimensions, so is in space and so subject to physical laws.

2. So "physical" and "material" is either used coextensiv or at least every material thing is physical (if you will use "physical" also for those entities that are not material-spatial).

So a "non-physical material thing" is absurde and is playing with words.

3. So a corps / body is at least subject to some physical laws - laws that are connected to space, three-dimensionality.

4. A human corps / body that is non-biological or not an organism is absurde as well and also playing with words. (Not that all biological functions must be active; in contrary, St. Thomas or better: the Church teaches that the vegetative functions will not be needed anymore and so not exist or not be in action etc.)

5. According to Thomas the resurrected bodies are not only in space but also in time and need time if they travel in space. And yes, as real and living material beings, they move in time and space.
See S.th. suppl. q. 84, a. 2 et 3.

6. That the resurged bodies are at least in space / spatial is taught by the theologians and manuals and is a philosophical-logical truth (as said above); it is implicitly a doctrine of faith because it follows from the teaching that we will resurge in real, material bodies, with the very same bodies that we have now.
See f.e. the dogmatic manual of Diekamp, eschatology § 5. III. 1.: The "spiritualisation" of the corps does NOT mean he becomes totaly spiritual, a spiritual, immaterial substance. He will still be material.

So at least re space they are subject to physical laws, as said above. According to Thomas also re time!
(Don´t forget, even the Angels are not absolute eternal and without any time but are in the aevum..., need some "aevum-time" for their actions!)

Picard said...

7. A permanent miracle is not at all hilarious. Well, call it a new law, I am not against that. But this higher "new law" suspends the lower law.
It is teaching of the Church (see also the dogmatic manuals, f.e. Pohle, eschat., art. 3, 3.) that the gift of immortality, incorruptibility nd especially the 4 gifts of impassibilitas, subtilitas/spiritualitas, agilitas and claritas are supranatural (resp. praeternatural) gifts, so real miracles of grace.
Btw., another example for a permanent miracle is the Eucharist... (suspending some physical laws).

8. The resurrection is not a resuscitation of a fleshly organism, but is far, far more than that.

Nobody denied that it is more than that - but to be more than that at first it must be the resuscitation of the organism.

Let´s quote Ott (eschatol., § 7, 2.): "the same body, that dies and corrupts, resuscitates/reanimates (wieder auflebt)"

9. I admitted that indirect also the person [but not the soul!] is resurrected - but only indirect. The soul or the person is rather the subject than the object of resurrection.

Because the soul is immortal and incorruptibile, it can not be resurrected.

Let´s hear Pohle again (eschatol., art 1, 1.):
"Resurrection of the dead (ressurectio mortuorum [...]) and resurrection of the flesh (resurrectio carnis, [...] sarkos) [...] The last expresion is the better / more fitting one, bescaues it stresses the somatical side. Because we can not speak of a resurretion of the immortal soul."

Abaigeal Daly said...

After having been raised in the Neocatechumenal Way and then finding my liturgical way in college (I am attending WCC), I have a more nuanced take on the NCW's situation then your average 'traditionalist'. First of all, the fruits of the Way cannot be ignored. Perhaps the fruits come from the way they celebrate the Mass... but I tend to think that the fruits come from two different characteristics of the Way: communal Lectio Devina and strict obedience to the 'traditions' of the Way. It shocks many people when I say that every NCW Liturgy is said in EXACTLY the same way throughout the whole world with very minor, usually unintentional deviations. Everything from each song to the proper set-up for the mass is handed down through word of mouth. EVERYTHING. The Way usually does not allow female alter servers (especially in diocese with seminaries b/c the seminarians act as acolytes), and the dressing of the altar and ambo are extremely important functions, which must be done beautifully. The Way has more discipline especially as regards their liturgy than the grand majority of diocese do. The only obvious problem is that they are following a rubric unfitting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. However, the fact that so many regular Catholics are living a liturgical life in STRICT conformity with some rule is very fascinating. Change the rule and they will obey. But they have a REASON for every little aspect of the liturgy (just as the Extraordinary Form does). It would be imprudent for someone on the 'outside' to dictate a 'new' (or rather ancient) rule without EXPLAINING every little detail first. Neocats love their liturgy because they know their liturgy. There is a symbol in everything from the layout of the assembly to each distinct song. (btw, the music of the Neocatechumenal Way when sung by their proper standards is arguably sacred. My first uninformed reaction to hearing Gregorian Chant was, "wow, this sounds like NCW music.") What won me over to the Extraordinary form was this love for tradition which had been roused in me by being in the Neocatechumenal Way. It is disapointing to me that Ratzinger hasn't noticed this and has not tried to re-educate the founders. My point is this: The Way has an innate love for tradition and a practical mode of transmitting it flawlessly through the culture they form. The Church simply needs to re-direct the Way's understanding of the Liturgy and the NCW could be the best thing to have come out of Vatican II.

CH DUPUY said...

"...but I tend to think that the fruits come from two different characteristics of the Way: communal Lectio Devina and strict obedience to the 'traditions' of the Way."
That is precisely THE PROBLEM. They act and behave like a sect, considering their own above everything else in the Catholic Church. I know from a relative that left "The Way" that he was treated like a pariah, and his family was sidelined as if they were outcasts.
"It would be imprudent for someone on the 'outside' to dictate a 'new' (or rather ancient) rule without EXPLAINING every little detail first. Neocats love their liturgy because they know their liturgy. There is a symbol in everything from the layout of the assembly to each distinct..."
So any layman, a former atheist to boot, has a right to design a liturgy that he argues resembles the first Christian liturgies and claim superiority over an "ancient rule" like the TLM whose prayers, despised by Kiko, originate well from the fifth century, and even before....

Picard said...

above in (8) the quote of Ott should better be translated as "resuscitated/reanimated" of course (German: wieder auflebt), sorry!

Ecclesia Militans said...

Abigail,
The point is not the appearance of the "Way" (or any other thing, for that matter), which means the strict observance of their rules, the decorations of their altars, not allowing women altar servers etc. Many protestant sects also have very strict disciplines, some also do not allow women to serve at the altar and many Lutheran churches look even more beatiful and more Catholic than some modern "Catholic" monstrosities.

The point is the substance.
For example, although those Lutheran churches retain many of the external ornaments and symbols of Catholicism, yet what they believe is heretical and what they consume is merely bread.

A saint put it something like this - a heresy is like a cup of warm milk with a few drops of poison in it. The milk might be nice and warm, and it might be good for you, but the poison will kill you.
That is to say that false teachings and false sects always contain some portion of the truth, otherwise they would not be believable, but the drops of poison in their teaching is what condemns those that agree with them.

The appearance of the "Way" might be 'milk' but its heretical teachings and sacrilegious rites are 'poison'.
What one usually reckognizes in this danger is the loss of souls of the faithful, but many forget the effect on the priests and priest-sympatizers of the "Way".

I have seen it for myself - a priest no true notion of sacrifice, with no true notion of redemption, a priest like that has an invalid intention and cannot celebrate valid Masses. Think of this tragedy...

The only positive thing in this is the fact that in many of the NCW 'masses', those said by such priests, there is no longer an element of sacrilege because what they abuse is not the Body and Blood of Christ.
But it is still a tragedy for souls. I can think of no other more suitable word to call it but "the abomination of desolation" - the churches where those kinds of priests celebrate are empty and the faithful are deprived of the Bread of Angels.

So be very grateful to the Lord of Hosts that he has freed you from this sect. Walk away and do not look back, except to save an unfortunate soul that is trapped in their midst.

I will say a prayer for you to persevere in the truth.

M. A. said...

Very good work, Picard.

Jordanes551 said...

Physical surely means under laws in space and time

In that case, the resurrection body cannot rightly be called a "physical" body, since the resurrected saints can suspend the laws of physics that govern the material, temporal realm (or at least, the laws of physics as we understand them). Space and time and matter will be at our service.

"material beeings" mean beings in space and time; well, time we can discuss - but at least space: a material thing is spatial, has three dimensions, so is in space and so subject to physical laws.

Material things have at least three dimensions -- some material things may have more than three, perhaps many more than three. Perhaps that is why angels have so much greater power and agility than we do, because they do not exist in just three dimensions.

Also, given what we are learning about subatomic particles and the nature of space, we have to consider that being "in space" isn't to be understood as a substance occupying complete emptiness, because space is itself a substance that God created.

So a "non-physical material thing" is absurde and is playing with words.

In patristic and Scholastic tradition, angels might be corporeal, or not entirely immaterial. Are angelic spirits physical? Are they subject to the physical laws that operate within three-dimensional space?

So a corps / body is at least subject to some physical laws - laws that are connected to space, three-dimensionality.

Being material, existing in at least three dimensions, need not mean being subject to any of the laws that govern three-dimensional space.

4. A human corps / body that is non-biological or not an organism is absurde as well and also playing with words. (Not that all biological functions must be active; in contrary, St. Thomas or better: the Church teaches that the vegetative functions will not be needed anymore and so not exist or not be in action etc.)

A biological organism is an organism that depends on biological functions in order to maintain its life (bios). Since the vegetative functions will either not exist in the resurrection body or not operate, that means the resurrection body is not a biological organism. As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, the resurrection does not mean a return to the present biological structure that depends on respiration, digestion, metabolism, circulation of blood and lymph, excretion, cellular division, and immune system operations to continue its existence, nor physical exercise to maintain muscle tone or build strength. What is absurd is to refer to a body that doesn't depend on any biological functions as a biological organism -- and it's also absurd to conceive of the resurrection of the body as a return of the present biological structure, a return to our current state. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger said that the resurrection is not a return of "flesh-body" -- not because the flesh is not raised up, but because it IS raised up and glorified, so that it becomes, as St. Paul wrote, a spiritual body rather than a natural body.

Jordanes551 said...

According to Thomas the resurrected bodies are not only in space but also in time and need time if they travel in space. And yes, as real and living material beings, they move in time and space.

St. Thomas, like everyone else in his day, had a poor understanding of physical laws (just as he had a poor understanding of biological laws, believing in spontaneous generation, for example). The exact relationship we will have to space and time in the resurrection is something we cannot ascertain, except that we know it won't be like our current relationship to space and time.

The "spiritualisation" of the corps does NOT mean he becomes totaly spiritual, a spiritual, immaterial substance. He will still be material.

Indeed, even angels might be material to some degree. Anyway, what you said here is not in dispute, and you have not shown that Cardinal Ratzinger disputed or questioned it.

A permanent miracle is not at all hilarious. Well, call it a new law, I am not against that. But this higher "new law" suspends the lower law.

In which case it is not a miracle, as I said. What I find hilarious is your oxymoron "permanent miracle." If it's permanent, how can it be distinguished from a law?

Btw., another example for a permanent miracle is the Eucharist... (suspending some physical laws).

No, transubstantiation is not a "miracle" properly so called, just as the Hypostatic Union is not a miracle -- these wondrous things are "mysteries" rather than miracles int the proper sense, because they do not fall under the grasp of our senses. We believe that God substitutes the substance of His Son -- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity -- for the substance of the bread and wine, but we do not sense any such change. We know God does it because God says He does it, and we know God always tells the truth -- but we don't see or hear or feel, etc., any change the way we do when God heals someone miraculously, or when someone levitates or walks on water or bilocates or reads someone's heart.

Nobody denied that it is more than that - but to be more than that at first it must be the resuscitation of the organism.

To claim that the resurrection body is a biological organism is to at the very least imply that the resurrection is not more than a resuscitation. Anyway, let us agree that the resurrection is a resuscitation, just as 5,767 is 1, because to be more than 1 you must first start at 1. (In other words, "resuscitation" is not the correct word for what God does in the resurrection.)

Let´s quote Ott (eschatol., § 7, 2.): "the same body, that dies and corrupts, resuscitates/reanimates (wieder auflebt)"

"Wieder aufleben" means "to come back to life again." That's not necessarily the same as resuscitation or reanimation.

I admitted that indirect also the person [but not the soul!] is resurrected - but only indirect. The soul or the person is rather the subject than the object of resurrection.

It's more than indirect -- if I am raised again from the dead, it is not just my body that is raised but I, because a biologically functioning fleshly body without a rational soul is not a person. This was Cardinal Ratzinger's point in stressing that it is not "bodies" that God raises from the dead, but persons -- not to deny that the body is raised, but to underscore the momentous transformation that we will undergo in the resurrection -- a change so great that we can only begin to apprehend what it will be like.

Abaigeal Daly said...

Ecclesia Militans and others,
I think you missed my point. Remember, I left the 'Way' because the 'substance' of the liturgy is by anyone's definition a break with tradition. My point though is that the 'Way' attracts people for good reasons; it attracts people who want a rule to follow, who want a disciplined life as well as a life devoted to the reading of scripture. Obviously the average Joe in the Way has been misled, but there is some hope for them to be redirected because of their love for discipline, tradition, and scripture. Also, I just wanted to point out that although the leaders may appear to hold staunchly protestant views, since their message is handed down through word of mouth, very few of the majority have a similar view point, especially as regards the Eucharist. Once again, I was raised in the NCW for 16 years (since I was 5 years old). I received my first communion at a NCW Easter Vigil, and received what I would now considered to be a very traditional catechesis in the Real Presence, and in all my years in the Way I personally never heard anything contrary to the doctrine on the Real Presence (if anything I only heard reinforcement of that doctrine).
To sum up, the NCW is not ALL bad simply because it has a 'bad' liturgy (although that cannot be helpful) ;) and just because the leaders may have strong heterodox views (which might be unmalicious material heresy) the majority of the average Joes still have strong traditional beliefs. Remember, they did NOT join the Way because they hate tradtion, rather out of a strong desire for it. The average NCWers love for TRADITION(as oxymoronic as that may seem) and their zeal for reading SCRIPTURE
provides a prime foundation
for education in the Extraordinary Form (especially) as well as the Ordinary Form (done fittingly).