He never kneels or genuflects before the Blessed Sacrament (he will kneel, however, to wash muslims feet or kiss the shoes of African leaders.)
And he places beachballs up against tabernacles.
Posted on 02/07/2023 9:38:07 PM PST by ebb tide
If there’s one thing that’s true of today’s Catholic Church, it’s that Jesuits gonna Jesuit.
Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., America’s second-worst Jesuit, has a history of undermining Church teaching while maintaining plausible deniability. It’s the modern Jesuit way. So while he typically won’t outright deny Catholic teaching on the pelvic issues the Catholic Left is so obsessed with—contraception, abortion, homosexuality—he will call it into question at every opportunity.
But recently, like Fr. James Martin, Reese appears to be getting bolder in his dissent from Catholic teaching. In a recent article for National Catholic Reporter, he wrote,
Since my critics often accuse me of heresy, before I go further, let me affirm that I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I just don’t believe in transubstantiation because I don’t believe in prime matter, substantial forms and accidents that are part of Aristotelian metaphysics.
First, this is like saying, “Since my critics often accuse me of theft, before I go further, let me show you this beautiful diamond necklace I recently stole.” If you don’t want to be accused of heresy, Father, perhaps don’t say heretical things.
And make no mistake: Reese’s rejection of transubstantiation is heretical. The Church has dogmatically defined that a Catholic must believe in transubstantiation. Now, it’s hypothetically possible for one to believe that another explanation of how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is superior, based on another (again hypothetical) philosophical framework, but even in that far-out case a Catholic must still accept that transubstantiation itself is true. In other words, he has to “believe” in it.
(And note, saying one believes in the “real presence” isn’t sufficient for a Catholic: Lutherans claim to believe in the “real presence” while rejecting transubstantiation.)
Further, Reese’s reason for rejecting transubstantiation rests on false premises. He bases his unbelief on his claim that transubstantiation is founded on “prime matter, substantial forms and accidents that are part of Aristotelian metaphysics.” What’s interesting is that the Fourth Lateran Council defined the doctrine of transubstantiation in 1215, before most of Aristotle’s corpus was even known in the West, having not yet been translated into Latin. (St. Thomas Aquinas—today’s great boogeyman of the Left who often incorporated Aristotelian metaphysics—wasn’t even born until 10 years later.) The term “transubstantiation” itself, in fact, was used as early as 1079 by Hildebert of Tours.
Reese’s reasoning isn’t unique to him or even very new. Back in 1950 Pope Pius XII explicitly condemned those who wish to deny the doctrine of transubstantiation due to it being “based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance.”
Of course, writing about a Jesuit flirting with or accepting heresy can be a “dog bites man” story. Been there, done that, got the crappy St. Louis Jesuits soundtrack. But I find two things particularly troubling about this specific incident.
First is the boldness of Reese’s assertion that he doesn’t believe in transubstantiation. As I noted, modern Jesuits are usually known for their genius in undermining Catholic doctrine without actually explicitly rejecting it. Yet here Reese feels comfortable simply rejecting the Church’s teaching with no fear of being disciplined by Church authorities.
And can you blame him? It’s become clear that Church discipline only applies to clerics who use the wrong “tone” or support the wrong politics (i.e., conservatism). Reese knows he won’t get in trouble, and that’s far more concerning than one priest’s rejection of a fundamental Church teaching.
And can you blame him? It’s become clear that Church discipline only applies to clerics who use the wrong “tone” or support the wrong politics (i.e., conservatism). Reese knows he won’t get in trouble, and that’s far more concerning than one priest’s rejection of a fundamental Church teaching.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
And let’s explore another significant problem with Reese’s pronouncement.
It’s Catholic teaching that the efficacy of the Sacraments are not dependent upon the holiness or the orthodoxy of the minister. If, for example, a priest rejects the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, his Masses would still be valid, as well as any other Sacraments he celebrates, such as Confession. To think otherwise would be to subscribe to the Donatist heresy, which was rejected by the Church centuries ago.
Yet I think there is a legitimate reason to at least question the validity of Reese’s Masses. When a Sacrament is celebrated, the minister must intend to do what the Church intends. Throughout history the Church has always interpreted this in a liberal fashion, lest she fall into Donatism. An atheist, for example, can validly baptize someone even if he doesn’t himself believe in the power of baptism. He just needs to think something to the effect, “This person asked to be baptized, so I’m going to do it as the Church intends, even though I don’t believe it myself.”
The question, however, is if Reese actually intends to do what the Church intends. By rejecting transubstantiation, Reese doesn’t believe that what is happening at the consecration is really happening (that alone wouldn’t invalidate the consecration), but does he even intend to change the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Why would he intend something he does not believe ever happens?
Many Catholics might dismiss this concern for fear of putting doubt into the minds of faithful Catholics about the validity of Sacraments. While I understand that sentiment, I don’t think we can so easily dismiss it in this particular case (and remember it is Reese who is fostering doubt, not those who challenge him). Reese’s rejection of transubstantiation strikes at the heart of the Church’s intention for this particular sacrament—does he then also reject that intention?
Again, a priest can be a heretic and still offer valid Sacraments. I see no reason, for example, to question the validity of Fr. James Martin’s Masses or confessions, even though he clearly rejects Church teaching on the issue of homosexuality. And the same applies to confessions heard by Fr. Reese. Yet to reject the underlying doctrine of what is happening at the moment of consecration at least should put some doubt into our minds as to the act’s validity. And doubt is the last thing that should enter a Catholic’s mind at the Mass.
Needless to say, the fact that these questions are even raised demonstrates the mess we’re in right now. We currently have few, if any, Church authorities willing to actually exercise their authority (unless it comes to crushing the few faithful elements left in the Church today). Even if Fr. Reese’s Masses are completely valid, he should be quickly stripped of any public ministry. A priest who publicly denies core Catholic doctrine has no place being a public representative of the Church. Yet we all know this is as likely to happen as Cardinal Cupich celebrating a traditional Latin Mass.
Sadly, Jesuits gonna Jesuit, and that’s definitely not going to change as long as one of their own is at the top calling the shots.
Ping
My grandfather was a devout Catholic and regularly took me to church.
I attended Catholic high school.
My husband was raised and confirmed in the Catholic church.
We married in the Catholic church. Two of my children were baptized there.
We are now Baptists. It broke our hearts to walk away.
I don’t recognize the Catholic church anymore.
The Catholic church used to be The Rock. Recent popes are made of clay.
Does the Pope believe in transubstantiation?
He never kneels or genuflects before the Blessed Sacrament (he will kneel, however, to wash muslims feet or kiss the shoes of African leaders.)
And he places beachballs up against tabernacles.
I went to a Catholic high school and to Marquette, a Catholic University. Long time ago, but I remember very well how much the Jebbies minimized my accomplishments because I was a mere girl. Now I live in Spokane, occasionally went to a 12-step-meeting held in a building on the Gonzaga campus when I first moved here. Always got visceral bad vibes when I walked near a certain building. Turns out that is the home for defrocked(?) pedophile priests.
And yes, the pope is no longer Catholic.
I go to church on Easter, because the Cathedral has a beautiful service and an extraordinary choir that includes singers from the local opera company. But I’m thinking about going to a Baptist Church. I did go to a Seventh Day Adventist church with a friend and thoroughly enjoyed all the people I met there. I was just diagnosed with a heart condition and am in the process of switching to meatless meals so their approach to diet would work really well for me.
Very curious / annoying usage of the word.
Regards,
Please review the effects of the Sacraments and the Magisterial teachings. They do not exist fully elswhere.
I’m not entirely convinced Bergoglio believes in God.
CC
Probably right.
My entire family went to Loyola, Xavier and Marquette - Jesuit Brain Washing Camps - some recognized the radical Jesuit teachings, others bought into it. We are still trying to de-program some of the liberal Jesuit BS out of the young graduates.
So, can anyone explain/elaborate on "prime matter" and his reference to " Aristotelian metaphysics" relative to the Eucharist?
Bergoglio had a Eucharistic miracle happen in Argentina under his watch. Yet, he seems shy and confused about the event when he should be dancing with golf shoes on this fellow’s face.
Jesuits seem lost to the Lord.
The "Hand of God"?
LOL! That's gonna leave a mark!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.