Messages and Signs from Naju, Korea

TO SAFEGUARD THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH

The purpose of writing this article is to safeguard the authenticity of the Catholic Faith (Cf. Canon Law #204; Catechism of the Catholic Church (=CCC), #904) and to seek recompense for the damage inflicted on the purity of the deposit of the faith and to protect the injured faithful from the abusive power and authority and serious harm resulting from the manifest and grave doctrinal errors contained in the pronouncement titled "The Declaration Concerning the Events Occurring in Naju in Connection with Julia Kim" issued by the previous Ordinary of the Kwangju Archdiocese, Most Rev. Victorinus Gong-Hee Youn with his teaching authority as the authoritative teacher of the faith and legitimate shepherd of the Kwangju Archdiocese and confirmed by Most Rev. Andrew Chang-Moo Choi, the successor of Archbishop Youn. After a careful study of this declaration, I have come to the conclusion that it contains doctrinal errors that are clearly in conflict with the Catholic Faith and can even be considered heretical.

1. All the Christian faithful who were baptized have the right and duty to participate in Christ's priestly and prophetic offices in ways fitting their abilities and they have been called to accomplish their mission to preserve the purity of the Heritage of the Faith, act on it, and pass it on to others without distortion. I consider that the obvious and serious doctrinal errors contained in the above-mentioned declaration infringe upon the Truths of God, cause serious damage to the Heritage of the Faith, and do great harm to the spiritual goods of the Church. Thus, unable to retreat from a sense of duty and the voice of my conscience as a Christian that tells me I must strive to repel errors that do harm to the Heritage of the Faith, I point out the obvious doctrinal errors contained in the declaration.

2. It is considered to be evident that the Declaration on the matters of Naju issued in the name of the teaching authority of the Church contains doctrinal errors that are totally contradictory to the Catholic Church's teachings in two of the statements therein. They can be pointed out and rebutted as follows:

(1) First, there is the following doctrinal statement in the declaration: "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 must remain." It is considered to be evident that this doctrinal statement in the Declaration presupposes a positive recognition that the factual reality described in this statement really occurred, because it would be totally senseless to make a doctrinal judgment on an imaginary event that did not occur.

Thus, this statement in the declaration makes the judgment that the phenomenon of the Eucharist turning into visible flesh and blood is in conflict with the Catholic Church's teaching and presents as the reason for this judgment a statement 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 must remain" as a Catholic teaching.

1) However, it is considered to be evident that this teaching and judgment by the Ordinary of the Kwangju Archdiocese in his declaration is in direct conflict with the "sensus fidelium" which follows the guidance of the Magisterium. Throughout Church history, the so-called "Eucharistic miracles" that involved changes of the Eucharist into visible flesh and blood have occurred many times and have been officially recognized as Eucharistic miracles by Church authority. Furthermore, the Magisterium of the Church has been collecting and preserving evidence of these Eucharistic miracles and encouraging the faithful to make pilgrimages to witness such evidence for the purpose of giving gratitude, praise, glory, and worship to God who has performed the amazing miracles and for reminding the faithful of the truth that "the substance of the body of Jesus is truly present in the Holy Eucharist" and thus promoting their Eucharistic devotion. Bishop Dominic Su of Malaysia already officially recognized as a miracle when Julia Kim received Holy Communion from him and it turned into visible flesh and blood in her mouth on September 17, 1996. Those faithful who have even a little Eucharistic devotion know well about such facts and form the sensus fidelium being guided by the Magisterium, and thus are capable of discerning that the teaching in the declaration that "the phenomenon of the Eucharist turning into visible flesh and blood is in conflict with Church teaching" is itself clearly an error that is in conflict with the teaching of the Catholic Church, are unable to accept such erroneous teaching in the Declaration. No one should follow errors. When the errors are obvious, the obligation to reject them is even greater.

2) It is considered to be evident that the Kwangju Archbishop's teaching and judgment in the declaration is also in conflict with the faith that we profess concerning the omnipotence of God. To God, all things are possible. His omnipotence reaches everything which is not in contradiction intrinsically. God's omnipotence reaches all things where there is no intrinsic contradiction (God's omnipotence reaches all things of intrinsic possibility). Also, there is no contradiction between the truth that "even after the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Lord's flesh and blood, the species of bread and wine remain" and the truth that, "through a special intervention by God, the phenomenon of the Eucharist turning into visible flesh and blood can occur." Eucharistic miracles are among the most vivid evidences of God's omnipotence being realized in a most excellent and clear way. It is considered that the assertion that any phenomena of the Eucharist changing into visible flesh and blood is in conflict with the Catholic Church's teachings has a direct effect of rejecting God's omnipotence, regardless of the excuses for making such an assertion (Cf. Can. 750 §1) Therefore, it is considered that such an assertion can even be considered heretical. All miracles are realizations of God's omnipotence. It is clearly inconsistent that one professes his faith in God's omnipotence and, at the same time, rejects the possibility of miracles where the Eucharist turns into visible flesh and blood.

3) Also, if one says that the phenomenon of the Eucharist turning into visible flesh and blood is in conflict with the Catholic Church's teaching following the Kwangju Archbishop's teaching and judgment in the declaration, he would be implying that this phenomenon has occurred by some other causes such as human fabrications or acts of Satan. This would be tantamount to attributing the works of God to Satan and, therefore, giving enormous disrespect and insult to God.

4) In addition, when one rejects "the phenomena of the Eucharist turning into flesh and blood" as being contrary to the Catholic Church's teaching, he also refuses to recognize the Eucharist that is in the state of having changed into flesh and blood and denying the substance of the body of Jesus existing under the species of visible flesh and blood. This would be an enormous insult to Jesus. If one denies that the Eucharist which has turned into visible flesh and blood in the communicant's mouth is still the Eucharist, what else is it then?

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor and the Doctor of the Eucharist, said in his Summa Theologica that the miracles of the Eucharist turning into visible flesh and blood were possible and that, even when such miracles occurred, the dimension as the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist remains. Thus, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that host is the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the words of consecration under the species of bread and wine and also when the species of bread and wine are miraculously changed into the species of visible flesh and blood. He means that, under the species of flesh and blood also, the substance of the body of Jesus continues to be present. (See reference material in the below)

In addition, the miraculous phenomenon of the Eucharistic species of bread and wine changing into the species of flesh and blood explains the essential truth of the deposit of faith: the truth of God's omnipotence, the truth of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist for the salvation of the human race, the truth of the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and the truth of transubstantiation, etc (Cf. Can. 750 §2).

5) It also is considered to be evident that the statement in the declaration that "even after the transubstantiation of bread and wine according to the priests' consecration, the species of bread and wine must remain" mentioned for the purpose of condemning the "phenomenon of the Eucharist that Julia Youn received turning into lumps of bloody flesh" contradicts the original meaning of the Church's teaching on the Holy Eucharist (Cf. The Council of Trent, DS #1652). The reason is that the true meaning of the official Church teaching mentioned in the Declaration is that when a priest consecrates bread and wine, as a result of the consecration, the substances of bread and wine turn into the substances of the flesh and blood of Jesus, but, even after this transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine still remain; it does not mean that the species of bread and wine must continue to remain unchanged even after the consecration. The assertion that the Eucharistic species of bread and wine "must remain unchanged" is an alteration and distortion of the dogma on the Eucharist. The teaching and judgment in the declaration invoking the teaching authority that the phenomenon of the Eucharist received by Julia Kim turning into visible flesh and blood in her mouth is in conflict with the Catholic Church's teaching, based on the above-mentioned distorted version of the Church's teaching, can only be viewed as an attempt to oppose the miracles in Naju at all costs regardless of truth and the fact.

The Gospel tells us that those who opposed Jesus unconditionally made a terrible mistake of attributing the amazing miracles that he personally performed by the power of God to Satan. They could not deny the facts of his miracles, as they clearly perceived the miracles by their senses. In order to reject the amazing works of Jesus at all costs, they had no other recourse but attribute them to Satan.

6) All of the above-mentioned statements in the declaration seriously offend God's justice. Justice means that what is due to someone is given to him. Justice between God, the Creator, and us demands that we attribute what has come from God to him. As the power of creation is proper to God, the power of working miracles that transcend the natural order is also proper to him alone. Therefore, when we are faced with miracles wrought through God's omnipotent power, we ought to give gratitude, praise, glory, and worship to God who worked the amazing miracles. Justice between God and us demands this. Thus, to deny the Eucharistic miracles, which are the works of God, condemning them as contradicting the Catholic Church's teaching, is to deny God gratitude, praise, glory, and worship due to him, who wrought the amazing works, and seriously offends God's justice.

7) Accordingly, it is very evident to the eyes of the faithful who correctly understand the doctrines on the Holy Eucharist and God's omnipotence that the above-mentioned statements in the Declaration are erroneous.

(2) The second error in the Kwangju Declaration is as follows.

In the Declaration, there is the following doctrinal statement: "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, even though the priest is in grave sin, because when all the sacraments are justly celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church (ex opera operato), Christ and His Holy Spirit operate in them."

Thus, the Archbishop makes the judgment that the descent of the Eucharist from heaven is contradictory to Catholic doctrines, and, as reasons for this judgment, he cites the Catholic Church's teachings on the worthiness of the administrator of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the validity of the Sacrament.

1) However, this statement in the declaration is in direct conflict with the sensus fidelium that follows the guidance of the Magisterium. Throughout Church history, there have been incidents of similar Eucharistic miracles by special interventions of God, including the well-known event in Fatima, Portugal, of an angel bringing the Sacred Host and the Chalice of Precious Blood and giving Communion to the three children. The understanding of such incidents among the faithful becomes part of the contents of the sensus fidelium that the faithful possess.

2) When judging matters regarding the faith, church authority is bound to present exactly Church teachings as they are without any change in point of fact. This principle must also be applied to the Kwangju Archbishop who has changed the authentic teaching of the Church in order to condemn and reject the Eucharistic miracles that happened in Naju.

The Kwangju Declaration (a) distorts the true catechism which stipulates who is eligible to consecrate the Eucharist, “Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord,” (CCC #1411), and (b) alters its meaning to the constitutive requisite for a Eucharist to come into being, “only through the legitimately ordained priest's consecration does the sacrament of the Eucharist begin to exist,” (the Kwangju Declaration) in order to reject or condemn the miraculous descent or movement of the Eucharist in Naju. This alteration in meaning is clearly not implied in the Catechism.

3) It also is considered to be evident that the statements in the declaration are in conflict with our profession of the faith that God is omnipotent. Because God is all-powerful, he can freely cause the presence of the Eucharist to exist at the time, at the place, and in the quantity that he wills. Furthermore, there is no contradiction, intrinsic or otherwise, between (a) the possibility of a Consecrated Host being moved from one place to another by some special intervention of God, as are the cases in the lives of saints, and (b) the Church’s teaching that “Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (CCC #1411) This is so because an already consecrated Host can be moved by His messengers such as angels or It can move by Itself, Who is the Living Lord.

“One day Jesus said to me, ‘I am going to leave this house...because there are things here which displease Me.’ And the Host came out of the tabernacle and came to rest in my hands and I, with joy, placed it back in the tabernacle. This was repeated a second time, and I did the same thing. Despite this, it happened a third time, but the Host was transformed into the living Lord Jesus, who said to me, ‘I will stay here no longer!’ At this a powerful love for Jesus rose up in my soul. I answered, ‘And I, I will not let You leave this house, Jesus!’ And again Jesus disappeared while the Host remained in my hands. Once again I put it back in the chalice and closed it up in the tabernacle. And Jesus stayed with us. I undertook to make three days of adoration by way of reparation.” (The Diary of St. Faustina, notebook 1)

The Eucharist is the Living Lord. He can come any time, anywhere, and in any manner He wills as shown in the above example of St. Faustina. It is clearly inconsistent to profess faith in God's omnipotence, on the one hand, and to reject the possibility that the Eucharist can be moved from one place to another by a special intervention of God, on the other. Denying such a possibility can only be construed as a denial of God's omnipotence.

3. As seen above, it is considered to be evident that the Declaration on Naju, which is an official judgment by the Ordinary of the Kwangju Archdiocese, who is the authoritative teacher of the faith and the legitimate shepherd in his diocese, concerning the events occurring in connection with Julia Kim in Naju, clearly contains teachings and judgments that are manifestly in conflict with the Catholic Church's teachings. The doctrinal statements in the declaration that are clearly in conflict with the Catholic Church's teachings actually form the core of the contents of the Declaration. As the many kinds of rights that are normally enjoyed by the clergy, religious, and laity are being restricted by the pastoral directives based on the above-mentioned statements, it can only be said that the formal validity of the Declaration crucially depends on these statements. Therefore, the Declaration, which contains the erroneous statements that are clearly in conflict with the Catholic Church's teachings, cannot be considered to be a legitimate exercise of teaching authority or to have a justifiable ground for validity. In consequence, it is considered to be evident that the declaration has never had, from its beginning, any binding power on the faithful who are obedient to the teaching authority of the Church (Cf. Can. 14) The role of the teaching authority is one of service for the purpose of saving souls. It does not stand above the word of God; its mission is to teach what has been received from God only and its power of demanding obedience from the faithful is valid only within the sphere of such a mission. If the teaching authority is used for teaching obvious errors and, based on the errors, making judgments and issuing orders, this is outside the sphere of the proper mission of the teaching authority and has no valid power to demand obedience from the faithful. It is considered to be evident that, in such cases, the faithful are not only NOT obligated to obey such teachings and orders but are obligated not to obey them.

“Many have been greatly mistaken as to this condition of obedience, believing that it consisted in doing at random whatever should be commanded, even were it contrary to the Commandments of God and of Holy Church… In all that relates to the Commandments of God, just as Superiors have no power whatever to give any contrary command, so in such a case inferiors have no obligation to obey - indeed, if they did so they would sin.” (St. Francis de Sales, The Spiritual Conferences, trans. by Canon Mackey, O.S.B., p. 179)

Despite this, the teaching authority of the Kwangju Archdiocese is demanding the faithful to accept his erroneous teachings and judgments in the name of obedience, harmony, and unity. In addition, he accuses those who refuse to accept his errors of lacking in the spirit of the church community and disobeying the Church's teaching authority, inflicting punishment on them by banning them from any official services in the church community. In this way, he is coercing the faithful, who are trying to follow the truth, to accept his errors. It is considered to be evident that such abuses of the teaching authority not only do harm to the integrity and dignity of authentic Catholic doctrines and teaching authority, but also infringe upon the legitimate rights of the faithful (Cf. Canon Law #208-231).

4. The evident and serious errors contained in the Kwangju Declaration have already severely damaged the purity of the truths of the Catholic Faith, caused confusion in the belief of the faithful concerning the Holy Eucharist and God's omnipotence, and increasingly deepened the disunity of the Church. Furthermore, the integrity and dignity of the teaching authority of the Church have also been severely wounded. These problems will continue to worsen, as long as the errors contained in the Declaration remain unrepealed and uncorrected.

Mr. Peter Lee, Seoul, Korea
June 18, 2006
Feast of Corpus Christi

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 76: Of the Way in Which Christ is in This Sacrament, Article 8 (http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP076.html#TPQ76A8THEP1)

Whether Christ's body is truly there
when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament?

Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body is not truly there when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament. Because His body ceases to be under this sacrament when the sacramental species cease to be present, as stated above (Article [6]). But when flesh or a child appears, the sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore Christ's body is not truly there.

Objection 2: Further, wherever Christ's body is, it is there either under its own species, or under those of the sacrament. But when such apparitions occur, it is evident that Christ is not present under His own species, because the entire Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He remains entire under the form in which He ascended to heaven: yet what appears miraculously in this sacrament is sometimes seen as a small particle of flesh, or at times as a small child. Now it is evident that He is not there under the sacramental species, which is that of bread or wine. Consequently, it seems that Christ's body is not there in any way.

Objection 3: Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by consecration and conversion, as was said above (Question [75], Articles [2],3,4). But the flesh and blood which appear by miracle are not consecrated, nor are they converted into Christ's true body and blood. Therefore the body or the blood of Christ is not under those species.

On the contrary, When such apparition takes place, the same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of "latria." Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the sacrament.

I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. Sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while no change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when to the same individual it appears for an hour under the appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance of bread. Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such species is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth, namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly under this sacrament; just as Christ without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii) that "when our pretense is referred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a figure of the truth." And since in this way no change is made in the sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be under this sacrament.

But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by a change wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which really exists outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by everyone under such an appearance, and it remains so not for an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that it is the proper species of Christ's body. Nor does it matter that sometimes Christ's entire body is not seen there, but part of His flesh, or else that it is not seen in youthful guise. but in the semblance of a child, because it lies within the power of a glorified body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part, and under its own semblance or in strange guise, as will be said later (XP, Question [85], Articles [2],3).

But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under its proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Lk. 24:31) that our Lord "vanished out of sight" of the disciples. But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper semblance.

Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done "to represent the truth," namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ's body and blood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (Question [77], Article [2]), the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1: When such apparition takes place, the sacramental species sometimes continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only as to that which is principal, as was said above.

Reply to Objection 2: As stated above, during such apparitions Christ's proper semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed either in the eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves, as was said above.

Reply to Objection 3: The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine continue, while a miraculous change is wrought in the other accidents, as stated above.