|
There have been
numerous reports of supernatural phenomena throughout Church history. Only
those which seemed to have a special significance have been investigated
by the Church. Some have been approved, while others have not. When
negative decisions were made, the usual reason cited was that, despite
investigations, it was not possible to recognize supernatural origin of
the alleged phenomena.
The case of Naju,
Korea, seems to be unique in that the events in Naju were rejected in the
local diocese without any substantial investigation by the committee on
the ground that they already contradicted the Church teaching. A Korean
monsignor said soon after the Declaration: What’s the point in
investigating (the events in Naju), when they are in conflict with the
Church teaching?
If something
truly contradicts the Church teaching, it has no place in the Church,
because the supreme mission of the Church is to propagate the eternal
truth from her Founder without errors. When the Church declares that
certain messages, apparitions, miracles, theories, assertions, devotions
or liturgical practices do not conform to the authentic teachings of the
Church, it normally means a definite end to them as far as their standing
in the Church is concerned.
In fact, the
current atmosphere regarding Naju in Korea is serious. There is a
perception among many Korean Catholics that Naju is not to be visited,
promoted, studied, or even discussed. Some Korean pastors even threaten
their parishioners saying that they must go to Confession after they come
back from Naju. Being associated with Naju in any way is a sin against the
faith and obedience according to many in Korea.
But the essential
question to ask here is whether the teaching authority in a local church
can be exercised while lacking unity with the universal Church and
conformity with the authentic teachings of the Church. Why did the diocese
in Kwangju hastily make the negative decision on Naju without consulting
with the Holy Father and five other bishops who personally witnessed
Eucharistic miracles in connection with Naju and Julia and without
interviewing most of the many priests and lay people who also witnessed
the signs in Naju? The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
The bishops’
authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the
guidance of the Pope, (#895)
and also:
This Magisterium
is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only
what has been handed on to it.(#86)
The
Declaration in Kwangju misrepresents
the Church doctrines
(1) It was stated
in the Declaration in the Kwangju Archdiocese: The alleged phenomenon,
that as soon as Mrs. Julia Youn received the Eucharist, it was changed
into a lump of bloody flesh in her mouth is also contrary to the doctrine
of the Catholic Church that says that even after the bread and wine are
transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ with the formula of
priests’ consecration, the species of bread and wine remain. Such
phenomena do not enhance the faith of people in the Eucharist existing
under the species of bread and wine. On the contrary, they seem to act as
an element which causes a great confusion and embarrasses the peoples’
faith in the Eucharist. (underline added)
Thus, the
Declaration in Kwangju says that it is a Church doctrine that the species,
in other words, the appearances and other external characteristics, of
bread and wine must remain unchanged even after the consecration by the
priest (Note: The word "must" is not in the English text
of the Declaration but is in the original Korean text. In the English text
also, the meaning of this word is clear by the context). Therefore, the
Declaration concludes that the changes of the Eucharist into visible flesh
and blood in Julia’s mouth contradict this Church doctrine. Our
question, then, is if this really is what the Church teaches about the
Holy Eucharist. Does the Church really say that the Eucharist must remain
unchanged in its appearance and other external properties even after the
priest has completed the consecration of bread and wine? Then, what about
the change that occurs to the Eucharist inside our body after we receive
Communion? What about the slow but gradual change in the Sacred Hosts,
when they are stored in the tabernacle for a very long period of time?
What about all the Eucharistic miracles involving the change in the
external appearances of the Eucharist into those of flesh and blood, many
of which have already been recognized by the Church and several sites of
which have been visited by the Popes? (For example, in 1976, Pope Paul VI
visited the shrine of a Eucharistic miracle in Bolsena, Italy, and raised
it to the level of a Minor Basilica. — Eucharistic Miracles,
Joan Carroll Cruz, Tan Books & Publishers)
The correct
Church doctrine on this subject reads as follows:
If anyone says
that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the
substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the
whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance
of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only
remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls
transubstantiation, let him be anathema. (Council
of Trent, DS 1652)
The portion of
this doctrine that says: the species of the bread and wine only
remaining means that, even though the Eucharistic consecration has the
effect of changing the substances of bread and wine into the Body and
Blood of Our Lord, it has no effect on the species of bread and wine. This
phrase does not contain the meaning that the species of the bread and wine
must remain unchanged after the consecration. Therefore, if a
change occurs in the species of bread and wine after the consecration
through a special intervention by God, it does not contradict this
doctrine at all. During the Eucharistic miracle in Lanciano, Italy, in the
8th Century, the species of bread and wine changed into those of flesh and
blood as soon as the priest said the words of consecration (Eucharistic
Miracles, Joan Carroll Cruz). This has never been considered a
conflict with the Church teaching. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, such
miracles are no deceptions but represent the truth that Christ’s Body
and Blood are truly in the Blessed Sacrament (Summa Theologica,
Part III, Question 76, Article 8).
The problem in
the Declaration in Kwangju lies in that (i) it adds to the Church doctrine
on the Eucharist a new meaning that the species of bread and wine must
remain unchanged after the consecration, as though the consecration has
two effects — one changing the substances of bread and wine and another
keeping the species of bead and wine from changing — and (ii) it applies
the Church doctrine that explains the effects of the Eucharistic
consecration to the condition of the Eucharist after the consecration. The
truth of the matter is that the Church has never stated any doctrine that
explains what should happen to the condition of the Eucharist after the
consecration and that, therefore, precludes the possibility of Eucharistic
miracles that involve changes in the external appearances of the Eucharist
after the consecration.
(2) The
Declaration in Kwangju also states: The phenomenon alleged as a miracle
of the Eucharist fallen from heaven is contradictory to the doctrine of
the Catholic Church that says that only through the legitimately ordained
priest’s consecration does the sacrament of the Eucharist begin to
exist.
When the Fourth
Lateran Council (1215) declared, "Surely no one can accomplish
this sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained according to
the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself conceded to the Apostles
and to their successors" (DS 802), its purpose was
to refute the Waldensians, who rejected the hierarchy in the Church and
claimed equal powers for all the faithful. Against the Reformers’
teaching of the general lay-priesthood, the Council of Trent defined the
institution of a special priesthood, to which the power of consecration is
reserved solely (DS 1764). What this doctrine means is that
people who are not validly-ordained priests cannot and ought not pretend
to consecrate this Sacrament. It certainly does not imply preclusion of
direct intervention by God Himself. The Eucharist is not a lifeless object
but the living Jesus Christ Himself, Who is in Heaven with His full
Humanity and Divinity. In other words, the Eucharist and the living Jesus
Christ in Heaven are identical, except that in the Eucharist on earth the
glory, beauty, majesty and power of Our Lord are hidden. The Eucharist is
not something that carries the presence of Jesus but is Jesus Himself. At
the Last Supper, Our Lord did not say, "This bread contains My
Body," or "This wine contains My Blood," but "This
is My Body," and "This is My Blood of the new covanent"
(Matthew 26:26,28). Saying that the Eucharist begins to
exist only through a priest’s consecration ignores this fact that the
Eucharist is Our Lord Himself and also contradicts Our Lord’s
omnipotence.
Regarding the
Eucharistic miracles in Naju that involved the descent of the Holy
Eucharist, there may be three possible explanations:
(i) The Eucharist
was brought by an angel from a tabernacle in a church. This was the case
when a large Sacred Host suddenly appeared between Julia’s fingers
during the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio’s visit to Naju on November 24, 1994.
The Blessed Mother confirmed in her message that the Eucharist was brought
by St. Michael the Archangel from a Mass.
(ii) Our Lord
Himself consecrated bread and wine into the Eucharist. This would be no
problem to Our Lord, as He is the Supreme and Eternal Priest, Who
established the Holy Eucharist.
(iii) Our Lord in
Heaven came by assuming the external appearance of the Sacred Host. In
this case, a priest’s consecration would not be necessary, as there was
no transubstantiation involved. For example, on July 1, 1995, Julia saw
Our Lord on the Crucifix turning into the live Jesus, bleeding from His
Seven Wounds. Then, she saw the Blood turning into seven white Hosts,
which landed on the altar before the Blessed Mother’s statue. Many
people in the Chapel saw the falling Hosts and heard the sounds of the
Hosts landing on the altar. In obedience to the local Archbishop’s
instruction, the seven Sacred Hosts were consumed the next day. The last
one received by Julia turned into visible Flesh and Blood on her tongue.
Fr. Francis Su from Malaysia dipped his finger in the Blood and wiped it
on a white cloth. Later the blood stain on the cloth was put to a DNA test
at a medical laboratory in Seoul and was found to be human blood.
The assertion
that the Hosts which descended in Naju were unconsecrated hosts does not
stand on any valid ground but on a conjecture which lacks faith and trust
in the power and love of God. It can also involve a risk of sacrilege. The
only way for this assertion to be valid would be to establish that the
descents of the Host in Naju were fabricated by humans. There isn’t even
remote evidence of that. That Our Lord came to us directly in the form of
the Eucharist represents a solemn act on His part of coming to us. When
the Lord comes, we are free to welcome or reject Him, but will not be free
from the consequences of our choices. Throughout Church history, there
have been numerous cases of miraculous receptions of the Eucharist. The
following are just a few examples (Eucharistic Miracles,
Joan Carroll Cruz):
(i) St. Clement,
Bishop of Ancyra (4th Century), received Communion from Our Lord, while in
prison awaiting martyrdom.
(ii) St.
Bonaventure (d. 1274) received Communion from an angel.
(iii) St.
Catherine of Siena (d. 1380) received Communion from Our Lord and also
from angels.
(iv) St. Pascal
Babylon (d. 1592) received Communion from an angel many times.
(v) St. Mary
Magdalen de Pazzi (d. 1607) also received Communion from Our Lord.
(vi) In Fatima,
an angel brought a chalice and a Sacred Host to the three children (1917).
(vii) The
Eucharist miraculously appeared on the tongue of Therese Neumann (d. 1962)
on numerous occasions.
These miracles
seem very similar to the descent of the Eucharist to Julia’s mouth on
November 24, 1994, and July 1, 1996. Other miracles in Naju which involved
the descent of the Eucharist to the altar in the Chapel or to the floor in
the Chapel seem to be unique, because the Sacred Hosts in these miracles
came down in a form in which they could be preserved, even though some of
them have been consumed. Two small pieces of the large Eucharist and the
whole of the small Eucharist that came down during the Apostolic
Pro-Nuncio’s visit to Naju on November 24, 1994, are being preserved in
Fr. Raymond Spies’ chapel in Gwachon near Seoul. The large Sacred Host
that came down during Bishop Paul Kim’s visit on June 12, 1997, and
another identical Sacred Host that descended during Fr. Spies’ visit on
August 27, 1997, were taken to the Kwangju Archdiocesan office.
Another factor
that reinforces our belief that the Eucharist that came down in Naju is
truly the Eucharist is God’s infinite truthfulness. When the Eucharist
descended to the Chapel in Naju with no natural explanation whatsoever,
the only possible understanding in the minds of the people who were
present there was that it was from God. If God sent us unconsecrated hosts
under such circumstances, He can be said to have misled us. Why would God
confuse us by sending unconsecrated hosts when the circumstances were such
that people could only perceive the hosts as the true Eucharist? What
would be the point in God’s sending us unconsecrated hosts? God will
never send us signs that are meaningless for our salvation or are
misleading. Saying that God sent unconsecrated hosts contradicts the
Church doctrine that God cannot deceive or be deceived (DS 3008).
The doctrinal
misrepresentation in the Declaration in Kwangju is not a trivial matter.
The official teaching of the Church is God’s teaching for His people
through the Church and cannot contain any error. Individual bishops,
priests, theologians, or anyone else have no authority to change the
Church doctrines or the interpretation thereof. The doctrinal errors in
the Kwangju Declaration need to be corrected urgently and unambiguously.
The faithful should be obedient to the teaching authority in the Church,
but also expect purity of the faith in the exercise of this authority.
It is the
modernist forces in the Church that
are resisting and blocking Naju
Rev. Soon Sung Ri,
who is a professor of dogmatic theology at the major seminary in Kwangju
and the secretary general of the Naju Investigating Committee, published
an article in the March 1998 issue of The Pastoral Care, a
monthly magazine published by the Korean Bishops’ Conference, in an
attempt to present a theological defense for the Declaration. Its title
was, "A Correct Understanding of ‘the Transubstantiation in the
Blessed Sacrament’ mentioned in the Kwangju Archbishop’s
Declaration." In this article, Fr. Ri denied the physical
presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist and justified his position by saying
that it would promote unity between Catholics and Protestants. He seems to
need a reminder of the Vatican II document on ecumenism, Unitatis
Redintegratio:
Nothing is so
foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism which harms the
purity of catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine and certain meaning.
In another
article published also in the spring of 1998, Fr. Ri rejected the
hierarchy and teaching authority in the Church, saying that the Church
is a community of people who obey the Holy Spirit only ("The
Relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Church" in
Theological Outlook published by the Kwangju major seminary). The
Naju Investigating Committee relied on the teaching authority of the
Church to block Naju, but Fr. Ri and other leading members of the
Committee are rejecting the teaching authority in the Church.
Fr. Je Min Ri,
another leading member of the Naju Investigating Committee and former
professor at the Kwangju major seminary, also published an article titled:
"Is the Catholic Church Catholic?" in the May 1998 issue
of The Common Good magazine in Korea, defiantly repeating
his modernist ideas despite repeated warnings from the Holy See.
Modernist
inclinations are deeply rooted in Korea (and around the world). While
there also are many clergy, religious and lay people who remain faithful
to the authentic teachings of the Church and loyal to the Holy Father,
they have usually been overpowered in many dioceses and parishes by those
who are determined to continue liberal reforms based on their incorrect
interpretations of the Vatican II documents. These modernist forces
continue advocating female priesthood, which the Holy Father already
rejected in a definitive way, abolition of celibacy for priests, mixing
the Catholic Liturgy with shamanistic rituals, and many other measures to
make the Church more acceptable to the secular world. They continue
insisting that the Church dogmas must change as the world conditions
change and infusing in people’s minds the idea that morality is a
personal matter, making such concepts as sin, repentance and reparation
meaningless. Accordingly, the meaning of sanctity has also become
obscured. To the modernist priests and their followers, Naju is nothing
but an obstacle, because the messages and signs in Naju constantly draw us
to the authentic teachings and devotions in the Church.
The Church on
earth is the Church Militant. A constant, fierce spiritual battle is
inevitable between the army led by the Blessed Mother and the other army
led by the devil. At stake is the eternal fate of countless souls. It
seems that this spiritual war is now nearing its climax. To participate
and assist in the Blessed Mother’s coming victory over evil, we must arm
ourselves with fervent prayers, self-denial, and the purity of the faith
and devote ourselves totally to serving Our Lord and Our Lady. As the
Blessed Mother said in Naju, there is no time to hesitate (October
7, 1998).
Even among some
of those who are favorable toward Naju, there seems to be a perception
that the events in Naju are just another help for our personal devotion.
Actually, they are much more, as the focus in Naju is not just on the
repentance of sins and amendment of life at the individual level but also
on overcoming a major crisis of faith and morals in the whole Church. By
means of the many messages and signs in Naju, God is giving us a stern
warning as well as an effective cure. Our Lord seems to be saying to us
what He already said to St. Francis in the 13th Century, "Rebuild
my Church." He does not mean a new Church but His same Church
that is in need of purification from the secular spirit and restoration of
the splendor of truth and holiness that can only come from Our Lord
Himself through the Blessed Mother. Whether there will be a terrifying
chastisement or an outpouring of God’s blessings depends on how we
respond.
— from Mary’s Touch, Special Issue - 1998
#3 |