George Nedumparambil Reacts to  the article: “Why Do Some Catholics Oppose Pope Francis”

Letter  to Editor

Dear Sir,

I would think that some of the alleged crimes of Pope Francis, as stated by his detractors, and that warrant his removal are justified while some are not but rather represent badly needed reform to the Church.

I would think that he should have been aware of the cultural and social and other differences that exist between the refugees who were flooding into Europe and those of natives before calling on nations over there to accept and absorb. He should have asked the rich Islamic nations to take them due to ideological, religious and other cultural similarities between them but he didn't. Pope should have respected the sentiments of Europeans as the world today is different and papacy requires a dynamic approach to issues and not to rely on standards of the past. All other crimes to me represents badly needed reforms.  

To me the alleged crime to permit divorced couple to receive Eucharist came as amusing and rather childish.  In my view the whole concept of Eucharist requires wholesale new make over.  The Catholic Church's emphasis on Eucharist (Body of Christ) ceremony is in need of a new definition. Current definition is that the wafer given out to believers during Mass turns into real flesh of Jesus.  Similarly the wine that the priest drinks (congregation in India is denied of this privilege) turns into real blood of Jesus. Which country in the world allows consumption of human flesh and blood?  I am not aware of any.  

Does not it look rather out of sync with the world realities and expectations?  The law authorities are not stupid to believe that wafer becomes real flesh and blood becomes real blood. Otherwise, this practice would have got declared illegal long time back. They are therefore looking the other way, I should imagine. True, some miracles get reported from here and there where bishops and priests claim that  they have experienced  wafer turning into real flesh.  

Assuming these miracles are true (and assuming that satan is not behind it as he would not like this "ungodly" practice stopped and wants  to ensure that every Catholics remain disqualified for Eternal Life by believing and practicing wrong), what possibly could be the meaning of these miracles, given that hard core Catholics are not looking for any proof? In the backdrop of such a belief being ingrained deeply into the brain, why would Jesus want to reaffirm it?  It does not make  sense.

The meaning could therefore be that Jesus is telling "please stop eating my body but instead eat my teachings and live by it".  In the Old Testament there is a verse that states "Eat my Words", the speaker being God. I would think that Jesus meant the same when he said to eat him (after all Jesus was the Word).  The new definition should emphasize that what happens in the Mass is a mere recreation or commemoration of Jesus' last meal with his disciplines.  Nothing magical or supernatural about it but a reminder to Catholics to learn all his teachings as contained in Bible and live by it.  If Pope Francis says it is how Eucharist should be viewed, I can understand cardinals clamoring for his removal not for reasons stated in the above article. 

George Nedumparambil

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.