The Eucharist is light among the shadows that threaten the world, the Pope says

Asia News ^ | October 17, 2004

[NYer]

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – In the solemn mass in St Peter Basilica announcing the start of the Year of the Eucharist, Pope John Paul II said that the Eucharist is light “for the heart of man oppressed by sin, disoriented and tired”, the light for a world that is “in a difficult search for a seemingly distant peace in a new millennium distressed and humiliated by violence, terrorism and war”. For the Pope, the “light” of the Eucharist is also a mystery as a way to relate to the problems of our times.

The solemn rite took place in Rome as the International Eucharistic Congress was coming to a close in Guadalajara. Through a live TV feed both events were linked. Unlike other times, the Pope could not be in the Mexican city in person but at least he was able to speak to the congress participants.

“The TV linkage between St Peter Basilica, the heart of Christendom, and Guadalajara, seat of the Congress,” the Pope said in Spanish, “is a bridge between continents and makes our prayer meeting an ideal Statio orbis bringing together believers from around the world. Jesus Himself is the point of encounter, truly present in the most Holy Eucharist through the mystery of his death and resurrection, the point where heaven and earth and peoples and cultures meet. Christ is “our peace, the One who made the two into one people”.

For the Pope, who seemed to be in relatively good health, the central theme of the Congress –‘The Eucharist as light and life of the new millennium– urges us to think of the Eucharistic mystery not only in and of itself but also in relation to the problems of our times.

Mystery of light! The human heart, oppressed by sin, often disoriented, tired and burdened by all sorts of suffering, needs light. The world, too, needs light in its difficult search for a seemingly distant peace at the beginning of a new millennium distressed and humiliated by violence, terrorism and war.

The Eucharist is light! In the Word of God constantly proclaimed, bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It is He, the resurrected Lord, who opens minds and hearts. When the bread is broken, He lets Himself be recognised as did the two disciples in Emmaus. It is in this convivial gesture that we relive the sacrifice on the Cross, experience God’s infinite love and are called upon to spread the light of Christ among the men and women of our times”.

 “Life’s mystery! What aspiration can be greater in life? And yet, menacing shadows are gathering over this universal human yearning: the shadow of a culture that denies respect to life in all its stages; the shadow of indifference that condemns countless people to a life of hunger and underdevelopment; the shadow of science whose research is too often at the service of the selfish mighty”.

The Eucharist means brotherhood. For the Pope, that compels us to feel “the needs of our brothers. We cannot lock our heart away and hide from their calls for help. And yet we cannot forget that Man does not live of bread alone for we also need the bread that comes from the heavens. Jesus is that bread. Feeding from Him means accepting God’s life and opening ourselves to love and sharing.”

“I especially wanted this year to be dedicated to the Eucharist for this mystery truly nourishes the Church every day, especially on Sundays, the day when we celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

“In this Year of the Eucharist, the Christian community is urged to be more aware and conscious of this observance through a more fervent and lasting adoration and a greater commitment to brotherhood and service to the humble.

The Eucharist is the source and epiphany of the communion. It is the principle and goal of mission. Following in Mary’s footsteps –“Eucharistic woman–, may the Christian community experience this mystery! Thanks to the “Bread of eternal live”, may Christians become light and life, source of evangelisation and solidarity!”

For the opening of the Year of the Eucharist, the Pope recited a prayer that he wrote himself:

““Mane nobiscum, Domine!” he said. “Like the two disciples in the Gospels, we implore You, Lord Jesus, stay with us! You, divine traveller who know the roads and our hearts, do not leave us in the shadows of the evening.”

“Help us in our weariness, forgive us our sins and lead us onto the path of righteousness. Bless the children, the youth, the elder, the families, especially the sick. Bless the priests and those who are consecrated. Bless all of humanity.”

“In the Eucharist, You have become the “medicine of immortality”: give us a taste for the full life, the one that leads us to walk on this earth as confident and joyful pilgrims with the eye always on the prize of endless life.”

“Stay with us, oh Lord! Stay with us! Amen.”

[thor76]

I understand where you are coming from with what you are saying, but you are missing out on the "X" factor: that JPII knows both from prophecy, and from divine communication that the rise of Islam (in a very violent form), opposed to Western (formerly) Christian civilisation, is not only predicted - but is coming true before our eyes.

He knows that it has the potential to overwhelm and lay waste to Western civilization. And that it makes possible the rise of the Man of Sin.

He is desperately trying to keep us from killing ourselves, and trying to stave off a woldwide holocaust. All of this has very little to do with 911, the Word Trade Center, and the like. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

PLease understand! There is much more at stake then the priede of the USA here.

[marshmallow]

Sorry, the Church has not spoken. The Pope offered a prudential judgement to which any Catholic should give serious weight and consideration BUT with which we are not bound to agree nor to adhere. The Holy Father KNOWS who God is and He is not to be found in the false religion of Muhammad.The Church's relationship with the Muslims:

This is the Church's position:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 841, quoting from Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 16)

That's in the Catechism. That is what I meant when I said that "the Church has spoken on the subject." I'm not talking about the Pope's prudential judgement.

And, as to Zarqawi, do you really perceive him to be some sort of Iraqi, maquis-like figure defending his country against the imperialist aggressor? Need I remind you of the theicide being perpetuated in Sudan and the daily massacres of Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia, The Philippines and elsewhere. If you would care to send me your essay on the topic, I'll gladly critique it. No, my friend, Zarqawi and his ilk have already proffered you the option. A mihrab or a coffin. You choose.

You seem to believe that I'm unaware of the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism. Furthermore, I don't know where you obtained the idea that I think Zarqawi is some sort of patriot. I'm fully aware that he is a murdering cut-throat and that he represents a violent Islamic sub-sect.

What I do contest is the idea that invading Iraq furthers the cause of the fight against Islamic fundamentalism. I consider it totally within the realms of possibility that when all is said and done an Islamic regime will govern Iraq, that it will be far more anti-western and pro-terrorist than Hussein ever was and that the Iraqi Christians will have been either exterminated or exiled.

I'm not minimising the dangers posed by radical Islam. I am questioning the idea the invading Iraq is the correct way to combat it. Am I making myself clear?

[sevry]

You don't need to stop praying the old Rosary to start praying the new luminous mysteries

But you don't have to substitute these for the Holy Rosary. Do you understand THAT?

[sevry]

So John Paul II isn't the Pope.

And I suppose President Bush isn't the President?

Why not deal with what people actually post and write? Why put words in their mouths? That's what Democrats do.

[sevry]

By which you derisively refer to Catholics

I'm referring "derisively" to nobody.

YES - you were. And if you're going to be like that, then take responsibility for it, as well.

the Pope in overly critical and derisive terms. As to whether you can do this and still be Catholic,

Or whether you can remain silent and uncomplaining in the face of unholy 'reform' - and call yourself Catholic. True?

My answer is to be loyal to the one whom the Holy Spirit

Alright - if that's the answer, what PRECISELY is the question as you see it? Blind obedience to mistaken judgments by the Pontiff is no virtue, not in God's eyes, not by the teachings of The Church. Our duty is not to churchmen if it becomes a matter of obeying them, or else obeying God and His Church. It's not unknown that heresies have taken on the names of the churchmen who invented them.

[sevry]

I also manage when I pray to let God give me insight and understanding. He's never failed yet to do so.

By which you mean - except now?

What's your criteria, exactly, for whether insight comes from God, or the enemies of God and His Church? How do you judge that? What are your references? The writings of the Church Fathers? The teachings of the great councils? The writings of the Saints? Scriptures, as understood by The Church? What might it be?

Do you believe it's even possible that the devil might mislead the unwary, in so many ways?

[marshmallow]

A shame you don't take my word for what I intended when I posted. Oh well. As for "taking rsponsibility" for it, I wrote in the same post "If that appears to be the case, then I apologize." Does that seem like an attempt to evade responsibility?

I take it that you see nothing "derisive" or disrespectful in your own words concerning the Holy Father?

Blind obedience to mistaken judgments by the Pontiff is no virtue, not in God's eyes, not by the teachings of The Church. Our duty is not to churchmen if it becomes a matter of obeying them, or else obeying God and His Church. It's not unknown that heresies have taken on the names of the churchmen who invented them.

If the Pope's writings and teachings are subject to your approval, then you are the Pope. It's that simple.

[sevry]

If the Pope's writings and teachings are subject to your approval,

For every Catholic - and every Pope. That's 2000 years of history.

The High Priest at Mass, if not 'new order', isn't the Pope. The Church is protected from error on rare ex cathedra occasions, but not by the Pope. The Catholic standard was not written by the Pope. But he's expected to obey.

You confuse the high office of the papacy with the acts of any Pope. Such judgments may easily be mistaken, and lead souls to ruin. He himself is not the Catholic standard. The Catholic standard is. St. Peter did not say - because I say so.

The devil leaves many traps for us. You might self-righteously pronounce judgment on Catholics for defending God and His Church, thinking you are doing the Lord's work. You might pray about that. You might find when the mind clears that it isn't God's work you're doing. You'll have to answer that for yourself. Because you know my opinion concerning Church teaching, and have rejected it.

[marshmallow]

That's a shame.

It sounds as if you've lost faith that the Holy Spirit is still working through the Church.

[pascendi]

"It sounds as if you've lost faith that the Holy Spirit is still working through the Church."

I don't see that in anything sevry wrote. He or she is making complete sense.

[marshmallow]

OK. That's great. However, it doesn't stop me from feeling the way I do.

I guess sevry will enlighten me in due course as to the veracity of my feeling.

[sevry]

I guess sevry will enlighten me in due course as to the veracity of my feeling.

Sometimes, it's falls to each of us to question ourselves - truthfully. Is the truth found only in feelings? What of Church teaching?

[pascendi]

"OK. That's great. However, it doesn't stop me from feeling the way I do."

But see, that doesn't matter.

[sinkspur]

I don't see that in anything sevry wrote. He or she is making complete sense.

Sevry sounds like a sedevacantist, to me.

Let him declare himself otherwise.

Pasci, you are willing to throw your lot in with anyone who sides against John Paul II. You're well on your way out the door, as well.

[pascendi]

"You're well on your way out the door, as well."

You wish.

[pascendi]

I was going to tell you to beat it, but I thought better of it, as it might offend the bluehairs.

There's this other thing though. You could also be useful to me. I'm in the market for a fleet of Masonic parade go-carts, and thought, hey, sink might be able to hook me up with a good deal. Got anything for me?

[sevry]

Sevry sounds like a sedevacantist, to me.

You hate the sedes? HATE- HATE -HATE? And you're probably going to vote Kerry? It's a question.

I'm not convinced that the sedes are right. But if you want to rank ALL the Popes in history, from best to worst, and even for a few ties, one could make the case that JP II is - worst Pope ever! Still Pope. But that's the shame of it.

[Selous]

>> "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 841, quoting from Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 16) <<

Note a key phrase in there...”they profess to hold”. Do you think that slipped in accidentally? If so, then read a whole plethora of prior Magisterial pronouncements.

>> Zarqawi……”represents a violent Islamic sub-sect. “ <<

Agreed (almost). He represents a particularly repugnant subset of a sect that is rooted in the sword and was born of violence – Islam.

>> Am I making myself clear? <<

Well, clearer than your first two posts but clarity is no substitute for either accuracy or truth.

That said, I think we should both draw a line under our exchanges here. We are in danger of dragging the thread even further away from the original post. Feel free to have the last word if you need but, better still, you are welcome to pursue it off-post.

[old and tired]

But if you want to rank ALL the Popes in history, from best to worst, and even for a few ties, one could make the case that JP II is - worst Pope ever!

That is the most assinine statement I've ever read on this forum. Ever.

[marshmallow]

Agreed.

Best wishes.