What is the name of this heresy concerning Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GoldenArrow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GoldenArrow

Guest
I’ve run across something I know is a heresy.

The heresy:

"When you consume the Eucharist, you literally become a Living Host. By consuming the Host you literally become Transubstantiated into a Living Host and essentially become a walking Sacrament."
**

Two Questions:**

1) What is the name of this heresy?

2) Where can I find a written reference to it? **

**I’m writing an essay and need to have a reference.

Thank you smart Apologetics people!

God Bless!
 
GoldenArrow said:
I’ve run across something I know is a heresy.

The heresy:

"When you consume the Eucharist, you literally become a Living Host. By consuming the Host you literally become Transubstantiated into a Living Host and essentially become a walking Sacrament."

Two Questions:

1) What is the name of this heresy?

2) Where can I find a written reference to it? **

**I’m writing an essay and need to have a reference.

Thank you smart Apologetics people!

God Bless!
Click to expand...
It would seem to be a modern day interpretation of what St. Augustine said concerning the Eucharist; “You are, what you eat”
 
Check paragraph 460 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the term theosis on the internet. A lady named Rosemary Moss has a clear explanation of theosis. Briefly. We have a human nature, God has a divine nature. When we receive the Eucharist we receive sanctifying grace which does not change our human nature but which raises it so that we can share in the life of the trinity. In a sense then we become “divine” we become what we eat. We do not become God and possess a divine nature but we are enabled to share in it not possess it.
 
Check paragraph 460 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the term theosis on the internet. A lady named Rosemary Moss has a clear explanation of theosis. Briefly. We have a human nature, God has a divine nature. When we receive the Eucharist we receive sanctifying grace which does not change our human nature but which raises it so that we can share in the life of the trinity. In a sense then we become “divine” we become what we eat. We do not become God and possess a divine nature but we are enabled to share in it not possess it.
Click to expand...
AHH!

But “we become what we eat” in our souls, not in the body, right?

To say that we become transubstantiated is saying that our Human Nature is changed by consuming the host? So would this then be a variant of Monophysitism???

What do you all think?
 
GoldenArrow said:
AHH!

But “we become what we eat” in our souls, not in the body, right?
Click to expand...
Right. And all sacraments, not just the Eucharist, impart sanctifying grace. Transubstantiation applies only to the Eucharist, not to us. We do not become transubstantiated; our substance stays the same.
 
Who is Luisa Piccarreta? I hope not one of those masters of theology who grasped only half the lesson and are now trying valiantly to enlighten the ignorant. Note: This slam does not apply to all who have a masters in theology and pertains to no particular person.
 
Luisa Piccarreta is a Servant of God who was supposedly dictated instructions for a New spirituality called Divine Will or Living in the Divine Will.

I used to practice this, but NO MORE!!!

Anyway, I’m writing an essay to expose the hidden aspects of this Movement—not to teach it—but to defend the faith. I’m going to to publish it online. I’m just a layperson and have no degrees in Theology. I am trying to get my facts straight.

I’m at work right now, on lunch.

When I get home, I’ll post quotes from former critiques of Divine Will, so that you can see what the original message said.

To summarize, this Jesus tells Luisa that the reason He can be transubstantiated in the Host is because the Host has no will of its own to oppose His Divine Will. “Jesus” tells Luisa that He can be transubstantiated in her if she destroys her Human Will so that it no longer exists to oppose Him. That way she’ll have Perennial Communion. As such, her actions become accidents of the Divine Will and are done in the Divine Order. As such, she becomes a Living Host and a walking Sacrament that exceeds all other Sacraments. (I don’t believe this, of course, because it’s absolutely absurd and is an insult to our faith!) It’s also Quietism and Monothelitism. I’m simply providing a summary.

So what do you think? What heresy does it constitute when we say that by consuming the transubstantiated host our human nature also becomes transubstantiated? Monophysitism??? Or a variant?

I’ll let you know more info tonight.
 
I also plan on submitting this essay to the proper people in opposition to the beatification of Luisa Piccarreta, so this essay has to be GOOD! And free of error. I’m planning on having my Pastor edit first, and also my Catholic Adult Education teacher, who is getting a Ph.D in Theology, to edit it, too.

This woman can NEVER be made a saint, or it will unleash the Heresy of Heresies not seen since the likes of the Protestant Rebellion.

So please, help little old me if you can.

Thanks!
 
Most of this heresy is described in two places:

First, in this message, written in Luisa’s Diary called Book of Heaven. Volume 16: bookofheaven.com/volume_16.htm Please scroll down and read.

Second, the heresy is also described in another message from the Book of Heaven, quoted in a critique written by Rick Salbato. I don’t know which Volume he’s quoting from though. It starts about halfway down just beneath the subheading: “Why the Sacraments and priests?” unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/DivineWill.html
 
I haven’t heard of Luisa Picarretta before. If she has put forward a heresy would that not be obvious to the Church hierarchy? Why would she be getting put forward for beatification in such a case?
 
Found this in Catholic Answers - Dragnet:

Archbishop Carmelo Cassati of Corato, Italy, in whose archdiocese the cause for beatification of Luisa Piccaretta has begun (this means the promotion of the cause is a local thing, not something under Vatican auspices), has written a letter to the American promoters of Piccaretta’s books. He noted that in 1994 he wrote a “To Whom It May Concern” letter in which he named Thomas Fahy and others as “authorized persons” who were encouraged “to speak about Luisa.”

But things seems to have gotten out of hand. Instead of restricting themselves to a consideration of Piccaretta’s personal spiritual status, they have been pushing her supposed revelations (the “Divine Will” movement), allowing readers to conclude (rightly, it seems, given the texts) that Piccaretta believed she was given a new general revelation-impossible, since general revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. “To insist a lot with conferences and propaganda on Luisa can be dangerous for the cause [of her beatification] because,” says Cassati, “before the Church pronounces itself in her regard, a true ‘cult’ to Luisa could develop, and this would in no way be in harmony with the tradition of the Church.”

Oops. Too late, it seems. There already is such a cult. The Archbishop worries that “America is very far away, and the bishop responsible for the cause [Cassati himself] cannot know what is being said in Luisa’s name. . . . You can keep the conferences you have already been committed to, but after them you must stop your activity both concerning conferences and printed matter.” In other words, Fahy and his associates are instructed to close down their operations.

The letter is diplomatic, but it’s clear that Cassati is worried that things have gotten out of hand. He seems interested only secondarily in what Piccaretta may have thought she heard by way of supernatural locutions; his main interest is in determining whether she had the requisite sanctity to be numbered among the Church’s beati. Of course, she could have lived a life of exemplary holiness while being in error theologically; she could have had the soul of a saint while imagining revelations that never happened. But her sanctity isn’t what is being pushed by the Divine Will proponents, except incidentally. They’re pushing the content of her supposed revelations, which contain theological errors and improbabilities. (She claims, for instance, to have obtained a higher spiritual state than any canonized saint, including the likes of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. Piccaretta’s only “competition” is the Virgin Mary).
 
GoldenArrow said:
To summarize, this Jesus tells Luisa that the reason He can be transubstantiated in the Host is because the Host has no will of its own to oppose His Divine Will. “Jesus” tells Luisa that He can be transubstantiated in her if she destroys her Human Will so that it no longer exists to oppose Him. That way she’ll have Perennial Communion. As such, her actions become accidents of the Divine Will and are done in the Divine Order. As such, she becomes a Living Host and a walking Sacrament that exceeds all other Sacraments. (I don’t believe this, of course, because it’s absolutely absurd and is an insult to our faith!) It’s also Quietism and Monothelitism. I’m simply providing a summary.
Click to expand...
YEOWZA! Let me first note that the following comment is completely conditional on the assumption that your above summary is an accurate interpretation of her spiritual writings. If so, that being said,…

That sounds frighteningly satanic to me. Yes, I used the word “satanic.” I’ll explain why. It sounds completely incomprehensible for the purposes of Divine Love. What is the story of Adam & Eve and the entire salvific history of mankind if not a love affair with mankind and a seeking to purify our will? There is no love without choice. Also, there is no love without persons. Our will is the essential characteristic of who we are. In fact, if we wanted to get philosophical, we might even be able to say that it is the only part of us that is “solely us”–meaning, our bodies are granted to us genetically from others, our emotions and thoughts are inspired by environment naturally (unless consciously transformed), but our will is totally ours for the shaping.

God has never in the history of man asked us to NEGATE our humanity or our will, but to purify it and unite it to his. Luisa is correct that if he relinquish our will we become an indistinct “host.” It is because in the relingquishing of our will, we cease to be a “person.” So, if we do this, our personhood is negated and there exists nothing to be loved and nothing to have union with. Why eternal God would even desire such a thing, I cannot imagine. The host couldn’t make him any greater, for he is infinite, and it could not be any gift unto humans to make them greater because their person would no longer exist.

The only other situations I know of where such negation of the will (as opposed to purification) are sought, are in demonic possession, Islam, and Buddhism. (Opens up a can of worms with that comment). I won’t touch on Islam or Buddhism, but obviously a demon would have much to gain from having a so docile “host.”
 
So, if we do this, our personhood is negated and there exists nothing to be loved and nothing to have union with.
Click to expand...
Would you mind if I used this idea in my essay? I’d not thought of it like that----that is we negate our personhood, there exists nothing to be loved and nothing to have union with.

And you assumed correctly. The entirety of those quotes is in the Salbato’s critique and in the Book of Heaven. Just see the links.

I now also believe this is Satanic. See, Luisa was only educated to a first grade level, and there is no way she could come up with this unaided. Something inspired these ideas, and I do think it was Satan. Her life is a tragedy!

Now, the reason you all probably have not heard of this movement until now is twofold.

First, if a person has a question about DW, the promoters of this movement defer all their answers to the Book of Heaven. One promoter, a priest, chastised me for asking so many questions because, as he put it, Luisa asks all the questions for us in The Book of Heaven and Jesus answers them. He said the souls practicing this spirituality have no questions because Luisa’s writings answer them all. And so, few of the faithful approach their pastors with this.

In order to get this Divine Will priest to answer my questions, I had to be a pest. I dare say I annoyed him to the point where he got mad. This, to me was not a good sign. I shouldn’t be chastised for asking questions!

You’ve also not heard of it because Volumes 22 and higher are not available in English.

BUT … don’t make the mistake of underestimating the Divine Will Movement. It is silently growing. All 36 Volumes of the Book of Heaven are available on the Internet in Spanish, and so Divine Will has taken off like blazing wildfire amongst Hispanic Cathollics, and is apparently quite popular.

When all 36 Volumes hit the Internet in English, expect the fire to spread to the English speaking countries.

This thought fills me with great dread.

We all really need to be on top of this one. We need to squash it. This is the next big heresy.

Anyway----does anyone have any idea what category of heresy (pert. to our bodies becoming transubstantiated) this falls under?

Thanks and God bless!
 
Originally posted by Thistle: I haven’t heard of Luisa Picarretta before. If she has put forward a heresy would that not be obvious to the Church hierarchy? Why would she be getting put forward for beatification in such a case?
Click to expand...
I have no idea.

I also have no idea why some of the original Italian manuscripts were given an Imprimatur while simultaneously being on the Index of Forbidden books. No clue. This is a mystery.

I also have no idea why these were given Imprimaturs.

My personal opinion is the Imprimatur to Luisa’s writing should be revoked, that the Index of Forbidden Books should be resurrected, and all of Luisa’s writings should be placed on them.
 
GoldenArrow said:
Would you mind if I used this idea in my essay? I’d not thought of it like that----that is we negate our personhood, there exists nothing to be loved and nothing to have union with.
Click to expand...
You may certainly use it. If you contact me privately, I can offer you more philosophical backing for those thoughts. I’m no philosopher, but if given time I usually know what I know and know what I don’t know and know where to look for the answer. I guess that makes me more of a researcher. lol
GoldenArrow said:
BUT … don’t make the mistake of underestimating the Divine Will Movement. It is silently growing. All 36 Volumes of the Book of Heaven are available on the Internet in Spanish, and so Divine Will has taken off like blazing wildfire amongst Hispanic Cathollics, and is apparently quite popular.

When all 36 Volumes hit the Internet in English, expect the fire to spread to the English speaking countries.

This thought fills me with great dread.
Click to expand...
Check your private messages soon. *

~Shaunna*
 
You know----I think this may be a new heresy. I’m not finding it in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. But I did find this:

**Dogma: After the Consecration has been completed the Body and Blood are permanently present in the Eucharist. (De fide). ** … “According to the general teachings of the theologians, the Real Presence continues as long as the species, which constitute the sacramental signs ordained by Christ, remain. **The ceasing of the Real Presence must be conceived neither as a destruction properly so-called nor as a transformation of the Body and Blood of Christ into another substance, **nor as a local movement, in which it returns to Heaven. When the species are corrupted, in place of the Body and Blood of Christ, those substances probably appear which correspond to the specific nature of the altered accidents.” pp 386-387.

To say that our bodies become transubstantiated after consuming the host violates this dogma for four reasons: 1) a priest would be needed to effect Transubstantiation (the wrong Form) 2) the Matter is also not present (unleavened bread) 3) the Real Presence ceases upon loss of the accidents (because they are eaten) 4) because the Real Presence in the Host cannot transform into another substance.

The latter is the reason I’m thinking this could be a variant of Monophysitism, defined as “The position that Christ is not only One Person but also only one single nature. They taught that Christ is indeed “out of” two natures, but not “in” two natures. Some assumed a transformation of the human nature into the divine nature, or an absorption of the Human Nature into the Divine Nature, other a confusion or mixture of the two natures into one third nature, others a composition of the two natures after the fashion of the unification of the body and soul in man.” Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 146.

What do you think? Is this a variant of Monophysitism, or is this a new heresy altogether?

(Well, this is in addition to also being Quietism and Monothelitism. These two have already been established).

Thanks!

God Bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top