« No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands:
It is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with
disregard for its sacredness and its universality.»
[John Paul II,
Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 52]
This page is meant to show the main liturgical differences between the
Neocatechumenal celebration and the Catholic Eucharist.
The instructions contained in the
Vatican letter of the Congregation for
Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to the NCW dated
December 1st, 2005 and signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze concern also the
ways the Eucharist has to be celebrated: It is allowed to use bread and
wine, but the attention is called on their distribution, not around the
table, but as a procession, by the presbyter.
It’s not a mere formal detail, since the Neocatechumenals stress the
importance of the ‘banquet’, living and overestimating conviviality to the
detriment of ‘sacrifice’. Observe the dimensions of the Porto San Giorgio’s
and Domus Galileae’s tables—the latter being used for the 2006 mission of
priests in Europe with the Chanukiah in place of the Cross! [See:
The Misuse of Jewish Symbols]
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
(click to
see full images) |
The matter is complex and it ought not be underestimated because the
authenticity and the profoundness of our relation with the Lord in
accordance with His teachings handed down inside and by the Church—lex
credendi—is given by the way we interpret and celebrate these moments.
To live liturgy in the presence of the Lord, as He taught us, is essential
to actualize again for us, for the Church and for the world, the memorial of
His death and resurrection, so that it may transform our lives and history,
harmonizing our presence in the world with the Father’s will: “Here I
come...”
Of course, this cannot happen if the sacrament is adulterated both in its
form and in its substance. The maximum result you can achieve is to set up
an exalting, consolatory group therapy and a nourishing approach to the
Scriptures; sometimes, you cannot carry out even that. Anyway, all this has
nothing to do with Eucharist and with the authentic worship of God, that is
the primary duty of the Church.
To summarize: According to Neocatechumenals, the Mass is not a ‘sacrifice’,
so, in the place of the altar, they put only the table and in Eucharist they
celebrate a mere convivial party between fellows who share the same faith in
Resurrection; the consecrated bread and wine are only the symbol of the
presence of the resurrected Christ, that ends with the celebration and joins
the fellow diners by communicating them His spirit, allowing them to
participate of His triumph over death. The Neocatechumenal doctrine asserts
that the passion and death of Jesus Christ wasn’t a true sacrifice offered
to the Father to amend our sins and redeem humanity; still, human beings
inexorably remain sinners (that is true, but the effect of Grace is not
considered). As a result, to enjoy the fruits of His work, it’s sufficient
for the believer to admit to be a sinner and believe in the power of the
resurrected Christ (which—as an evident echo of Lutheran doctrine—totally
eliminates personal response and responsibility).
Furthermore, the words of consecration—“This is my Body offered in sacrifice
for you”—don’t hold the pregnant meaning (factive, not narrative) such as
the one that is fostered by the Church. Consequently, Eucharist is not lived
in all its sacrality and its transformative power as the foundation and
source of the life of faith in the Lord, nor it renders actual again His
death and resurrection: “Do THIS in My memory.”
This is the reason why Neocatechumenal celebrations are quite a different
thing than the Catholic celebration we live after the Church handed it over
to us—in spite of the fervor of their hymns and the echos of the proclaimed
Word. In Neocatechumenal celebrations we witnessed a lot of exaltation,
scarce meditation and the trivialization of the mystery (the priest
pronounces the words “before celebrating the sacred mysteries” at the
beginning of the Holy Mass).
The Communion of Saints is also denied and substituted by the belief that
the Spirit circulates exclusively in the concrete, restricted community you’re
affiliated to. That’s the reason why celebrations are so fragmented—one per
community—and why they bar the great Assembly of the parishioners. There is
another reason, too: After the readings, the so-called “resonances”
represent one of the moments in which the rhythm of the rite is broken and
its sacral, intangible and unchangeable form is bended to Kiko’s diktat:
Kiko thinks that this moment is the most pregnant with meaning—and it is—with
regard to the community’s cohesion. That’s the reason why the rite is
twisted this way.
I replied with Saint Paul’s words (1 Cor 9:24) to the neocatechumenal priest
who reprimanded me exactly on the ‘Community of Saints’, telling me that the
Spirit circulates only inside the concrete community: Our ‘good fight’
resembles a race in a stadium, at the end of which everyone expects to
obtain the crown of victory and during which from the tribunes arises the
public’s incitement, sounding as ‘humming bees’ (see Heb 12:1, “surrounded
by such a great cloud of witnesses”; the Community of Saints pulls for us
the same way. This is a beautiful metaphor who has always comforted and
strengthened me; the priest, however, labeled it as “cheap mysticism”.
Fortunately, my spiritual father confirmed me that the Community of Saints
is a great, very important reality: It enriches our faith and introduces us
into a new reality, the ‘World to come’, the Reign that is almost preset
here, in our troubled earth, in our lives and in our history. In the Mass,
not only the communion with the congregation is reached, but also with the
past, the present Church and the Church of the future, earthly and heavenly,
both inside and outside the time.
Once we point out those differences—that are not trivial at all—with the
‘sensus fidei’ handed down by the Church, the liturgical celebration loses
all its solemnity and beauty, losing—we believe—its deepest beauty because
of its twisted reality.
Benedict XVI’s thought about the way the Eucharist should be celebrated is
well expressed in “The Ratzinger Report”, a book in which the then Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger is interviewed by Vittorio Messori. On page 130 we read: «Liturgy
is not an exhibition, a show that needs smart directors and talented actors.
Liturgy is not based on “funny” surprises, “captivating” stunts, but on
solemn repetitions. It must not express current, ephemeral events, but the
mystery of the Sacred. Many people thought and told that Liturgy must be
“done” by the whole community, in order that it can really belong to the
assembly. It’s a point of view that led to measure its “success” by its
spectacular efficacy, its ability to entertain. This is exactly how
Liturgy’s nature—that doesn’t depend on what we do but on what is happening—got
dispersed. We cannot “do” Liturgy all together. In Liturgy there’s a force,
a power operating that not even the Church may attribute to itself: In
Liturgy the absolutely Other manifest itself and reaches us through the
community: Consequently, the latter is not the master but a servant, a mere
instrument. For the Catholic believer, Liturgy is the common Motherland,
it’s his identity’s very same source: That’s why it must be “predetermined”,
“imperturbable”, because God’s Holiness manifest Itself through the rite.
The revolt against what has been called “the old scrupulous and superficial
rigidity”, accused of banning “creativity”, has involved even Liturgy in the
“do-it-yourself” vortex instead, trivializing it by adapting it to our
mediocre standards.»
In the “Orientations for the Teams of Catechists”, Kiko states: “There’s no
Eucharist without the assembly. It is the whole assembly who celebrates the
feast and the Eucharist; because Eucharist is the exultance of human
assembly in communion; because this created Church, this communion is
exactly the place where God’s action is manifested. It is from this assembly
that Eucharist springs.”
Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical “Ecclesia De Eucharistia” (2003), n.
31, writes instead: “We can understand, then, how important it is for the
spiritual life of the priest, as well as for the good of the Church and the
world, that priests follow the Council's recommendation to celebrate the
Eucharist daily: ‘for even if the faithful are unable to be present, it is
an act of Christ and the Church.’”
We want to remind that every Christian is aware of the importance of the
participation of the assembly, but nobody would never forget that the priest
celebrates ‘in persona Christi’. The Christian lives, participates, receives,
and the assembly is formed not only by his community: It is in communion
with all the Triumphant, Purgant and Militant Church, that is, with us.
Of course, there’s something good in claiming the attention on the need for
more concreteness and more involvement of the fellow parishioners in order
to live the rite as a community; however, the formative contents are not
those taught in and by the Church. The real result is a great concentration
of the spiritual experience in the context of small communities, with an
out-and-out exclusion of the ‘others’.
Furthermore, only by living the Eucharist in conformity to the teaching of
the Church we can say “Here I am” in a total and meaningful way and let it
transform our whole lives (thoughts, wishes, undertakings, actions,
relations with other people, the deepness of our souls and the intensity of
our relation with the Lord, with the others and with the events of our lives).
It’s difficult to talk about so complex and rich an experience: It’s even
better to share it and live it. The key is contained in Jesus’ words: “Do
THIS in memory of ME.” What do we mean with the word THIS? We must interpret
it as the exhortation to offer ourselves unconditionally to the Father; in
this way He ‘re-members’ (as a re-actualization, not just as the mere
remembrance) His Son and operates our transformation into the Christ. We
must be eager to be turned into a ‘holy, perennial sacrifice pleasing to
God’ (how Saint Paul teaches us) allowing God to make us a ‘living
Eucharist’, not just at the moment of Eucharist. Only this way we can go
beyond Kiko’s teaching and live an authentically Christian life.
Therefore, we repeat that celebrating an ‘eschatological banquet’ (as the
NCW teaches) and celebrating the ‘sacrifice of Jesus Christ’, born, dead and
resurrected, who ALSO invites us to the intimate nuptial ‘banquet’ with Him,
prepared by the Father before all the centuries (how the Church teaches) is
not quite the same thing. There is a great difference: If I’m just
participating to a feast, I’m a fellow diner who shares the “joy” (those are
the unheard-of words Kiko used talking to the Pope); if I participate to a
sacrifice, I receive by the Christ the gift to offer myself just as He did,
not as Kiko teaches [see the interview to him, June 2008].
We cite from Paul VI’s “Misterium Fidei”:
4. “At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Savior
instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in
order to perpetuate the Sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries
until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved Spouse, the
Church, a memorial of His Death and Resurrection: a sacrament of love, a
sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten,
the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.”
5. These words highlight both the sacrifice, which pertains to the essence
of the Mass that is celebrated daily, and the sacrament in which those who
participate in it through holy Communion eat the flesh of Christ and drink
the blood of Christ, and thus receive grace, which is the beginning of
eternal life, and the “medicine of immortality” according to Our Lord's
words: “The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life,
and I will raise him up on the last day.” (2)
Reasons for pastoral concern and anxiety:
9. There are, however, Venerable Brothers, a number of reasons for serious
pastoral concern and anxiety in this very matter that we are now discussing,
and because of Our consciousness of Our Apostolic office, We cannot remain
silent about them.
10. For We can see that some of those who are dealing with this Most Holy
Mystery in speech and writing are disseminating opinions on Masses
celebrated in private or on the dogma of transubstantiation that are
disturbing the minds of the faithful and causing them no small measure of
confusion about matters of faith, just as if it were all right for someone
to take doctrine that has already been defined by the Church and consign it
to oblivion or else interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine
meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved.
11. To give an example of what We are talking about, it is not permissible
to extol the so-called “community” Mass in such a way as to detract from
Masses that are celebrated privately; or to concentrate on the notion of
sacramental sign as if the symbolism—which no one will deny is certainly
present in the Most Blessed Eucharist—fully expressed and exhausted the
manner of Christ's presence in this Sacrament; or to discuss the mystery of
transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say
about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the
Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, as if
they involve nothing more than “transignification,” or “transfinalization”
as they call it; or, finally, to propose and act upon the opinion that
Christ Our Lord is no longer present in the consecrated Hosts that remain
after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass has been completed.
12. Everyone can see that the spread of these and similar opinions does
great harm to belief in and devotion to the Eucharist.
13. And so, with the aim of seeing to it that the hope to which the Council
has given rise—that a new wave of Eucharistic devotion will sweep over the
Church—not be reduced to nil through the sowing of the seeds of false
opinions, We have decided to use Our apostolic authority and speak Our mind
to you on this subject, Venerable Brothers.
14. We certainly do not deny that those who are spreading these strange
opinions are making a praiseworthy effort to investigate this lofty Mystery
and to set forth its inexhaustible riches and to make it more understandable
to the men of today; rather, We acknowledge this and We approve of it. But
We cannot approve the opinions that they set forth, and We have an
obligation to warn you about the grave danger that these opinions involve
for true faith.
Let’s compare these teachings with those contained in Kiko’s “Orientations
for the Teams of Catechists”:
“Jesus Christ doesn’t invent a sign that was very ancient; He just give it
another meaning, another content: This bread is my body that offers itself
to death for us. Jesus gives depth to this sign by fulfilling Easter in
Himself; He carries out the passage from the slavery of death to the promise
land, that is, to the Father, ... the real Jerusalem.”
“With the Concilium of Trent, in XVI century, all is rigidly fixed. In this
age all the theories about Eucharist were born.”
“When you don’t understand what a sacrament is, because of the enormous
debasement of the signs as sacraments; when you don’t understand what a
memorial is, you start rationalizing, trying to give explications to the
mystery enclosed in it. The sacrament exists just because mystery transcends
its explication. The sacrament is more eloquent than reasoning; but at that
times philosophical explications to mystery were searched, ... because it
was no longer understood. So, debates about “how is He present?” started.
Luther never denied the real presence, he just rejected the little word ‘transubstantiation’,
which is a philosophical word (sic) that tries to explain mystery.”
“The primitive Church never had doubts about the real presence ... But the
most important thing is not the presence of Jesus Christ. He says: ‘That’s
the reason why I came: to pass from this world to the Father.’ That is, the
goal of His physical presence in the world is the resurrection from death.
This is what matters. His presence is a means of fulfilling Easter mystery.
His presence is in function of Eucharist, of Easter.” When he was
interviewed in the month of June 2008, the day after the ratification of the
Statutes, Kiko openly refers to Jewish Easter.
Is this the ‘Christian Catholic initiation’? In any case, it is not a
monopoly of the NCW, that made of this expression its ‘Trojan horse’ and
uses it to enter aggressively into the Church, in order to undermine its
bases and its truth from inside.
Further remarks:
1. From the “Orientations for the Teams of Catechists” of Kiko Argüello’s
Neocatechumenal Way:
“The bread and the wine are not made to be exposed, because they rot. The
bread and the wine are made to be eaten and drunk. I always tell to those
who build huge tabernacles: If Jesus Christ wanted the Eucharist to stay
there, He would have manifested Himself in the shape of a stone that doesn’t
rot. The bread is necessary for the banquet, to lead us to Easter. The real
presence is always a medium to lead us to a goal, Easter. It is not
something absolute: Jesus Christ is present in function of Easter mystery.”
That’s the reason why NEOCATECHUMENALS NEVER KNEEL during the Consecration.
That’s also why they didn’t admit Eucharistic Adoration. Only recently—maybe
because of the rebukes they received and the fact that our Popes highlighted
many times the importance of Adoration—they reintroduced it ostentatiously
at least in the Parish of Canadian Martyrs, but just once a month.
2. From Joseph Ratzinger’s book “Introduction to the spirit of liturgy”
“They say Transubstantiation (the transformation of bread and wine), the
adoration of the Lord in the Sacrament, the Eucharistic cult with the
ostensory and processions are just medieval errors which we have to
dissociate us from as soon as possible. The superficiality that gathers up
such silly ideas can only arouse astonishment ...
... Nobody may tell then: “Eucharist must be eaten, not worshipped.” ...
Communion reaches its depths only when it is supported by adoration and
included in it ... ”
Our faith make us agree with the latter statement, not with the first one.
In short, according to Catholic doctrine, Jesuah ha Nozrì, the Mashiah, the
Son of God, is really, not symbolically present in Eucharist; substantially,
not just virtually or temporarily; actually, entirely, with all His body,
His soul and His divinity, not just proportionally to our faith.
The unspoken truth is that Kiko and Carmen didn’t limit themselves to the
“foot washing”, which is an “inverted rite” that introduces to the status of
disciple (this is the right meaning of the words “to sit down”—as Kiko
writes also in his letter to the Pope—while Christ “serves” His disciples
and take them on the merkavà, the burning chariot!). The last supper,
however, is not important just for the foot washing or because it may be
seen as a “nuptial, eschatological banquet”—as it certainly is: It is also
the institution of Eucharist and a prefiguration of the Calvary and
resurrection (that’s why we call it Eucharist, that is, thanksgiving,
singing of praises). This is the true Catholic meaning of the Mass, not just
the initiation to the status of disciple during a banquet; furthermore, foot
washing is also the symbol of Sacramental Confession, that the Lord requires
so that we can be “clean” when participating to the Sacrifice.
The whole celebration is a thanksgiving (not only its final moment, as Kiko
subtly argues criticizing the Church in his catechesis); it is a revival of
‘Easter mystery’, not just of the final moment of ‘resurrection’, but the
mystery in its entirety: ‘Passion, death and resurrection’ of the Lord Jesus
Christ.
Again, on Eucharist:
The Church spoke clearly about the celebration of Eucharist in many
documents and with the official examples of our Popes; we will cite Paul
VI’s “Misterium fidei” and John Paul II’s “Mane nobiscum Domine” and
“Redemptionis Sacramentum”, that may be considered the seals of his
pontificate and a common heritage for all believers.
On the other hand, the very same Ratzinger, commenting the First Epistle to
the Corinthians in his document “Communion in the Church”—that he wrote when
he was still a Cardinal—stated: “The apostle worries mainly about the local
community of Corinth, that lost the real meaning of gathering together,
because its many groups coexist but remain separated. However, a new horizon,
opened on the Church as a whole, is extended above the local dimension:
Actually, all the Eucharistic assemblies as a whole are one assembly,
because the body of Christ is only one and the people of God may be only
one; all communities must celebrate Eucharist so that they can gather
together, beginning from Christ and through Christ. Those who don’t
celebrate Eucharist with all the others, are celebrating just a caricatural
Eucharist. Eucharist is celebrated with the only Christ, therefore it must
be celebrated with the whole Church or it must not celebrated at all. Who,
celebrating Eucharist, is just looking for his own group, who doesn’t
involve himself in the whole Church in and through Eucharist, who doesn’t go
beyond his own particular point of view, is doing exactly what the
Corinthians were reprimanded for by Saint Paul. Somehow, he sits turning his
back to the others; in doing so, he destroys the value Eucharist holds for
himself and spoils the value Eucharist holds for the others. He is just
eating his dinner, despising the Church of God. (1 Cor 11:21)”
However, how is it possible to follow these instructions for somebody who
lacking of any theological basis, being sincerely orientated to the faith
but not provided with any capacity of reasoning, approaches Neocatechumenal
Eucharist? As a final result, he will reject any other Eucharist celebrated
outside the NCW, considering it a valid ritual but inferior in its range and
its content.
I myself experienced great discomfort listening to that aberrant preaching,
living the moment of ‘communion’ in a general outcry and assisting to the
coarse, final part of the Mass (the so-called ‘davidic dances’, that are
absolutely out of control) instead of enjoying an intimate moment with the
Lord, as I used—and use—to do in ‘normal’ celebrations, those of
second-class Christians without guitars, rhythmical, gipsy songs, that can
give us exaltation and project us outside ourselves instead of helping us
concentrating the powers of our soul and offering them to the Lord.
What can we say then about the NCW Eucharistic prayer, in which the priest
thanks God “for admitting us to Your presence to perform the sacerdotal
service”, mistaking it for its ministerial role and with the common
priesthood (such distortions are borrowed from Luther and its proselytes)
It’s not a chance that Arinze’s letter, at the sixth paragraph, requires
what follows:
6. The Neocatechumenal Way must also make use of the other Eucharistic
Prayers contained in the missal, and not only Eucharistic Prayer II.
It is also convenient not to ignore other reflections about Eucharist based
respectively on the General instruction of the Roman Missal and the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, fundamental documents that those who
follow Kiko’s catechesis deem irrelevant.
From the General instruction of the Roman Missal:
44. Among gestures included are also actions and processions: of the priest
going with the deacon and ministers to the altar; of the deacon carrying the
Evangeliary or Book of the Gospels to the ambo before the proclamation of
the Gospel; of the faithful presenting the gifts and coming forward to
receive Communion. It is appropriate that actions and processions of this
sort be carried out with decorum while the chants proper to them occur, in
keeping with the norms prescribed for each.
...
86. While the priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion chant is
begun. Its purpose is to express the communicants’ union in spirit by means
of the unity of their voices, to show joy of heart, and to highlight more
clearly the “communitarian” nature of the procession to receive Communion.
The singing is continued for as long as the Sacrament is being administered
to the faithful. If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the
Communion chant should be ended in a timely manner.
Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease.
...
160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the
communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.
The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred
chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The
norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is
standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they
kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing
the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1373 “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at
the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many
ways to his Church: [195] in his word, in his Church’s prayer, “where two or
three are gathered in my name,” [196] in the poor, the sick, and the
imprisoned, [197] in the sacraments of which He is the author, in the
sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But “He is present
. . . most especially in the Eucharistic species.” [198]
1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique.
It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the
spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” [199] In the
most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with
the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole
Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” [200] “This presence
is called ‘real’ —by which is not intended to exclude the other types of
presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in
the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which
Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” [201]
1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and
blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers
strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of
Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.
Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of
Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the
role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God‘s.
This is my body, He says. This word transforms the things offered. [202]
and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing
has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature,
because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ’s
word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things
into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their
original nature than to change their nature. [203]
1376 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.” [204]
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the
consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ
is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in
each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not
divide Christ. [205]
1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our
faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by,
among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of
the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the
sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but
also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care,
exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in
procession.” [206]
1379 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 his 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.
1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present
to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his
departure from His own in His visible form, He wanted to give us His
sacramental presence; since He was about to offer himself on the cross to
save us, He wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which He loved
us “to the end,” [207] even to the giving of His life. In His Eucharistic
presence He remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and
gave himself up for us, [208] and He remains under signs that express and
communicate this love:
The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus
awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to
meet Him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making
amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration
never cease. [209]
I believe the behavior of the community of believers—that obviously reflects
its inner attitude—as it is suggested by the Missal (by the way, this has to
do with Arinze’s letter, too), is perfectly appropriated to the great,
sacred meaning of what believer are doing: Approaching to the Lord to
receive Him in His body, His blood, His soul and His divinity.
Don’t we recognize the trivialization or—that is worst—the implicit
profanation in Neocatechumenal praxis? Neocatechumenals don’t even care
about the fragments of the consecrated bread; in their teachings, they sneer—now
not officially—the practice of Eucharistic Adoration. Their Tabernacles are
‘black-dressed’ and ‘double bed’, because, besides the sacred host, they
contain the Torah, giving the same importance to the Book and to the Person
of the Lord.
Let’s meditate on Eph 4:11-14: “And to some, his gift was that they should
be apostles; to some prophets; to some, evangelists; to some, pastors and
teachers; to knit God's holy people together for the work of service to
build up the Body of Christ, until we all reach unity in faith and knowledge
of the Son of God and form the perfect Man, fully mature with the fullness
of Christ himself. Then we shall no longer be children, or tossed one way
and another, and carried hither and thither by every new gust of teaching,
at the mercy of all the tricks people play and their unscrupulousness in
deliberate deception.”
