Now for my reply to Mr. Gennarini’s e-mail (see below for the text of the e-mail itself).
Dear Mr. Gennarini:
I’d like to make something clear up front, so here is
THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: I have no beef with the Neocatechumenal
Way. I have not read extensively on it. I have not had previous
interaction with it. I have no personal opinion on it. I accept the
judgment of the two most recent popes that it does good in the world,
and for that I applaud it.
My concern here is EXCLUSIVELY with your interview in Zenit in which you manifestly mischaracterized the document.
Nothing in the response you have provided has given me reason to think that this concern was in error.
You write that you were surprised by my hostile attitude. Actually, I feel no hostility toward you or the Neocatechumenal Way. I would characterize my attitude not as hostile but as shocked, for your interview with Zenit completely miscaracteritized the text of Cardinal Arinze’s letter to the leaders of your movement. The degree of mischaracterization was so extreme that I stated that you must either be grossly misinformed regarding the letter’s contents or that you are in denial. Which of these is the case, I do not claim to know.
Your own attitude toward Sandro Magister, however, is one that I would characterize as hostile since in your response you immediately accuse him of writing a piece which is "full of lies." To accuse someone of lying in a piece is a very serious charge because it involves an imputation of deliberate malfeasance. To make such a strong accusation when more charitable explanations are possible (like being grossly misinformed or in denial or even being disengenuous) demonstates hostility.
Your letter now moves to a series of four numbered paragraphs in which you engage various things that were said by Sandro Magister. I’ll respond with correspondingly numbered points.
1. The individuals listed as having celebrated Mass in conjunction with Neocatechumenal communities does not in any way show that there were not liturgical abuses at these Masses–not even in the case of John Paul II, for many times liturgical abuses would be performed not by the pope but by others at Masses where he was present. Further, it may well be the case that representatives of the NW were "on their best behavior" during these Masses and they may not have committed abuses that frequently characterize Masses in which the pope did not participate.
You also say that Magister is wrong regarding the type of bread used and the manner of distributing the Precious Blood. This may be the case. It also may be the case that the practice is mixed in different Neocatechumenal communities. The NW is a large movement and it is doubtful that practice at its Masses is completely uniform across the world. Magister may be in contact with NW communities whose practice is different.
I am not in a position to decide between you and Magister on this point, so I make no judgment in the matter. I reported what Magister said, and I’ve let you have your say, too.
2. Here you introduce what appear to be several elements of spin. First, you state regarding the "admonitions" in NW Masses that the Arinze letter "accepts [them] and turns an extraordinary practice into a common one."
This is not the case. In fact, what the Arinze letter says is
2. As for any admonitions issued before the readings, these must be brief. Adherence must also be shown to what is set out in the “Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani” (nn. 105 and 128) and to the Praenotanda of the “Ordo Lectionum Missae” (nn. 15, 19, 38, 42).
This gives the NW no special permission to do anything that is not already provided for in the liturgical books. Instead, it directs you to follow the liturgical books.
Your subsequent statement that "Obviously we have to keep in mind that the Neocatechumenal Way is gradual initiation and that 70% of the people are coming back to the Church" appears on its face to be a rationale for lengthening the admonitions and thus possibly circumventing the directive that they be brief (which is also stressed in the GIRM passages cited by Cardinal Arinze).
The statement that "Regarding ‘Echos’: no layman in the communities has ever done the homily at the place of the priests and the letter accepts as valid this new practice of the Neocatechumenal Way" has two difficulties.
First, the statement that no layman "has ever done the homily at the place of the priests" is ambiguous. If you mean that they have done the homily but in a different location than the priest gives it then this is a clear liturgical violation. If you mean that no layman has ever given a homily in a NW Mass then this is a very sweeping statement, and I would be interested to know how you could substantiate it. Given the significant numbers of lay people who have illicitly preached homilies in recent years, the size of your movement, and the prominence of lay people in your movement, it is such a dramatic claim that one could ask more than just your say so that it is true.
It also raises a question of why point 3 of Cardinal Arinze’s letter is devoted to stressing the fact that the homily is reserved to the clergy and restricting lay participation in this. If there are no reports of lay people intruding into homily time in an inappropriate way, why would Cardinal Arinze single this out for attention?
Second, regarding the responses given by NW lay members (i.e., the "echoes"), the Arinze letter states:
As for the occasional contribution of testimonies on the part of the lay faithful, the proper places and methods for these are indicated in the Interdicasterial Instruction “Ecclesiae de Mysterio,” . . .
The Cardinal then quotes Ecclesiae de Mysterio, stating:
It is permitted to have a brief instruction that helps explain better the liturgy that is being celebrated, and even, in exceptional circumstances, a few testimonies, as long as these conform to the liturgical norms, are offered on the occasion of Eucharistic liturgies celebrated on particular days (for seminarians, the sick, etc.), and are thought truly helpful as an illustration of the regular homily delivered by the celebrating priest.
If the "echoes" in NW assemblies are given only in exceptional circumstances and only on particular days then the NW practice is in conformity with this directive. If not, not. My impression is that the answer is "not," at least in enough cases for Cardinal Arinze to feel the need to re-stress the directive.
3. You fault Sandro Magister for saying that NW Masses are celebrated at "unusual" times and done "separately" from the rest of the parish.
The term "unusual" can have more than one meaning. I think that the meaning that Magister has in mind (or that he reasonably may have in mind) is that it is unusual for a movent to celebrate its Masses only on Saturday evenings. While Saturday evenings are a time when it is permitted to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation, the Church’s focus remains on Sunday as the Lord’s Day and not Saturday evening, which is provided by way of concession to provide additional time for fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation.
"Separate" also can be taken in more than one sense. It could mean "no non-NW members are permitted," but this is clearly not what Magister has in mind. I take him to mean that NW Masses are separate in the sense that they are not the parish’s regularly scheduled vigil Mass and that the population who attends the parish’s vigil Mass and the population who attends the NW Masses are substantially different.
Indeed, the method of distributing Communion at NW Masses would seem to assure this.
In what I would presume to be agreement with you, however, I think Magister goes to far when he writes:
The statutes approved by the Holy See in 2002 require that the Masses of the Neocatechumenals be “open to other members of the faithful” (article 13.3), but in fact nothing has changed. The greetings, presentations, and applause during the entrance ceremony form a natural barrier to outsiders.
I didn’t quote this part because it seems to me that if NW Masses are open in principle to non-NW members then they are in compliance with the approved statutes on this point and Magister is going too far here. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t separate Masses, though.
4. You provide a list of quotations from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedixt XVI. The last of these does not mention the NW and so is not germane to the present discussion. The first three quotations do indeed praise it, which is not in dispute. I mentioned in my original piece that BOTH JP2 and B16 have praised the movement.
The Holy See is so concerned about the crisis in faith that is occurring in much of the developed world, and particularly in Europe, that they are delighted by and will say nice things about any movement attempting to recall people to the authentic practice of the faith.
Your movement deserves real credit for its efforts to do this, and you get that credit when people like the two most recent popes say positive things about you.
This does not mean that your movement is immune from criticism or that it does not make mistakes–even systematic mistakes–in some areas. Facing reality means acknowledging both the good a person or movement does and the bad as well.
The focus of the Arinze letter is on liturgical problems that have cropped up in your movement. These problems do not neutralize the good that it has also done, but neither can they be minimized or dismissed.
In your interview with Zenit, you went beyond minimizing and dismissing these as problems and inaccurately portrayed the Arinze letter as a complete vindication of your liturgical praxis, which anyone who reads it can see it manifestly is not. (Hence my shock upon reading your statements.)
In your response you next proceed to make a number of guilt by association charges against Sandro Magister as well as leveling a number of additional charges directly against him. I am not interested in the guilt by association charges as they are forms of ad hominem argumentation. As to the charges you make directly against him, these may or may not be true. I do not know. I’ve read a significant number of pieces by Magister, and I do not always agree with him, but I can say that he is a supporter of Pope Benedict, at least in broad outlines, and–here is the important part–he regularly publishes documents by others and I have never known him to publish a fraudulent document.
That’s the real key here, because even if you dismiss everything Magister himself says in the piece, the Arinze letter speaks for itself, and it is the clash between what Arinze wrote and what you told Zenit that I found shocking.
Next you have another quote from B16 that, while inspiring, does not discuss the Neocatechumenal Way.
Lastly you give another four numbered points in which you address my central concern: the spin that you put on the Arinze letter.
1. You write: "This is a private letter whose real contents are known only by Cardinal Arinze, Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez and Father Mario Pezzi. Any use of a private document to enforce a public policy is completely illegitimate and improper."
Unless the document is fraudulent, its conents are known by an awful lot of people, incluidng all those who visited the link I provided and read the text of the letter.
I don’t know if this letter is considered private or not. There is nothing in the letter that says it is private, Cardinal Arinze clearly expects is contents to be made known in some way so that NW Masses can be corrected, and letters such as this often show up in Notitiae, the journal of the CDW. For all I know, this will be published in Notitiae shortly.
The statement that "Any use of a private document to enforce a public policy is completely illegitimate and improper" seems not to be relevant here since I am not trying to "enforce" anything. I have no capacity to enforce anything that the Vatican mandates. All I’m doing is pointing it out when a representative of a movement MISrepresents what was said in a Vatican communication.
Which bring up this: If the letter is indeed meant to be private then what business did you have characterizing its contents in the press?
It seems to me that if it is fair for you–someone to whom the letter is not addressed–to characterize its contents to the press then it is certainly fair for others who happen to have knowledge of its contents to correct your characterization.
Whatever the implications may be of the fact that a document is privately circulated, it certainly does not include a one-way rachet that allows you to publicly mischaracterize the contents and be immune from correction.
And once the document is public–as it was before I wrote–the privacy issue is moot. The document is out and people can read it for themselves to see if it is being accurately characterized.
The only defense I can see against this would be to charge that the document is fraudulent, and this you have not done.
2. In this point you appear to misuse the term "instrumentum laboris." This document is not an instrumentum laboris (certainly not in the proper sense), as is clear from the fact that it is not labelled "instrumentum laboris."
It is a communique to the leaders of your movement are being in which the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship states "I am to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions" and then goes on to issue liturgical directives from Pope Benedict that require changes in the way NW liturgies are celebrated.
Now, these are the two top guys, liturgically speaking. If the pope decides something and the head of the CDW tells you, you’ve got to do it. You can’t simply dismiss it as a "working document" (instrumentum laboris). So this is more spin from you.
Further, here’s another case where you can’t have it both ways: You note with satisfaction in the Zenit interview that one of the points in the letter (Arinze’s point #4) extends permission to you to continue having the Sign of Peace at a point in the Mass other than where the rubrics currently call for it. You can’t say that Arinze’s point #4 is authoritative while arguing that other points of his are only tentative. You have to take them as a batch. Either all of his six points are things that are to govern your liturgical practice or they all are only proposals (something manifestly contrary to the way in which they are phrased).
3. The statement that every decision regarding the NW must be approved by four dicasteries seems simply to be in error. Your Statues were so approved, and your Catechetical Directory is in the process of being so approved, but this letter makes no reference to the latter. The letter deals with your liturgical praxis directly, not your Statutes or Catechetical Directory.
Further, since the regulation of the liturgy is within the competence of the CDW and since Pope Benedict has (it seems) approved the decisions communicated in the letter then, unless Pope Benedict changes his mind, these are things that your movement is expected to implement.
Further, even if everything you said in point 3 were true, none of that gives you license to misrepresent the contents of the Arinze letter to the press.
4. Finally, your statement that "What is for now the actual norm is the confirmation by the Holy Father of the liturgical praxis of the Way" is again more spin.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t represent the Arinze letter as being authoritative when it confirms something you are doing and as non-authoritative when it says you must change what you are doing. It’s either genuine and authoritative or fraudulent and non-authoritative. You can’t have it one way when it’s convenient for you and another way when it’s not.
And you most especially can’t mischaracterize what it says. Your statement to Zenit that
[T]he way of distributing Communion as it currently takes place, is allowed for a long period of time, if only "ad experimentum." Such a grant shows that this practice is not irreverent, but fully legitimate, as can be attested by anyone who participates in a Eucharist of the communities.
This concession is written within the context of the final approval of the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, which are right now approved also "ad experimentum." When this period "ad experimentum" ends, the interdicasterial commission of the five congregations which approved the statutes … will verify the necessary adaptations.
is flatly at variance with what the Arinze letter says:
5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.
So whether or not you were properly informed about the contents of the letter (and I’d be interested to know whether you had read it yourself before characterizing its contents to the press), you clearly have misrepresented what it says.
Had you simply come out and said, "We can’t talk about the document because it isn’t public" or then I would not have been shocked and would not have blogged the matter.
If you had said "We accept the document and will make the necessary changes in our celebration of the Mass" then I almost certainly would not have blogged it and, if I had, I would have said, "Good for them. They’re doing the same thing Life Teen did after a letter like this. I know it’s painful for them, but they are doing what the Holy See is telling them to do, and for that they deserve credit."
Instead, you grossly mischaracterized the contents of the document, and I wrote to correct this mischaracterization.
READ THE ARINZE LETTER (WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY SANDRO MAGISTER).
Masterful response – Mr. Gennarini has no legs to stand on. Go Arinze. One can only hope that he (and LifeTeen) realize that they can never hope to effect any “good” outside of the Church.
Never start an argument with Jimmy Akin. He buys ink by the megabyte. 🙂
Another fine example of when someone has no case they throw out a charge against their critics that they are under the grip of some emotion (in this case “hostility”) Excellent response.
I find Mr. Gennarini’s bravado interesting in light of the fact that the NW’s statutes were only given provisional approval in 2002, subject to a review after five years (the due date coincides with the time frame that Cardinal Arinze has given them to shape up).
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I’d be trying so hard to give B16 a reason to pull the plug.
With regards to LifeTeen, we are very active members of the LT program in St. Louis. Just for some perspective on these comments, the program has been going at our parish (Incarnate Word) for more than 10 years, and we consistently have betwee 100 and 200+ high school kids “vibrantly active”, are producing authentic vocations etc etc.
As Jimmy indicated, the liturgical changes that were required a year or so ago were indeed painful to the community. But the way it was handled within our community was just masterful.
On the day it was announced these changes became the subject of the homily by the pastor. A short (5 – minute) video outlining the changes (by a bishop whom I unfortunately don’t remember, representing the USCCB) was shown to all. The bishop was very charitable, clearly outlining the changes, indicating that it had the full cooperation of the national LT office, encouraging the LT outreach, and so on.
That day the church was particularly full, and I’m guessing there were probably 700 or 800 people total, with 200 to 250 teens. At the end of the video there was stunned silence.
The pastor then began speaking, and he was very honest in saying that 1) he didn’t like the specific changes, and 2) they might take awhile to get used to. And then he said that we would obviously implement them immediately, as these were authoratative pronouncements.
And immediately meant that very day, btw, even though we had a couple of months to implement the changes.
At any rate, he then told a story about a press conference a few years after Vatican II, in which a hostile press peppered an auxilliary bishop of St. Louis with questions about the novus ordo liturgy. He drew out the themes of disorientation, wondering what was true, etc. that must have been even far more prevalent back then (due to the far greater magnitude of the changes).
At this point everyone was starting to recover from the shock a little bit, and the audience was really hanging on every word.
He finished his homily by relaying one particularly key question from the press conference and the bishop’s answer.
When one particularly exasperated reporter asked the bishop something to the effect of “with all of these changes, just what do Catholics believe anymore?”, without missing a beat the bishop launched into the Nicene Creed.
And with that the homily was over, and within a few words everyone in attendance had joined in. And the Liturgy of the Eucharist that day was particularly meaningful (of course it always is the source and summit, but this day had additional emotional impact on us fallible human beings).
And from this simple, and completely necessary act of obedience we all learned a big lesson – obedience to the Magesterium really matters, since we’re obeying Christ’s will expressed here on earth. Even if we had grown emotionally attached to certain things, it was far more important to be obedient.
Btw, the national LT people were very explicit in whole-heartedly being obedient to the magesterium. This always has been an outreach that is FAITHFUL to the Church. So when the magesterium speaks, the outreach listens and obeys.
I am really appreciative that all involved – from the national LT office, to the USCCB folks, to our pastor, and so on – handled as they did. And it is bearing fruit.
The funny thing is that now, about a year after that change, nobody even mentions those things that we set aside. Our community has, if anything, grown even more active (this year’s group of kids seems more solid than last years, but some of that is just normal year to year variation).
And this comes despite the problems with Msgr. Dale (please keep him and all involved in that siutation in your prayers for a just and merciful outcome) at the national level.
So don’t lump LT in with NW in their response to directives from the Magesterium. While the style of music, energy level of high school kids, etc. might not be your preference, LT has always had the commitment to remaining an orthodox outreach, by definition within the Church. And this can be seen by the fruits …
Hopefully the NW folks (prior to this I personally had never even heard of them) will understand the importance of obedience and do as told.
God bless.
Bob-
The clear commitment of LT leaders (both nationally and in our parish) to submit to the authority of the Church leadership, was a comfort to me personally, because I am one of those who was UNcomfortable with some of the old liturgical practices of LT.
The gathering of teens around the altar, I thought, somewhat diminished the role of the priest (to whom belongs the ministry of the altar), and also unnecessarily divided the parish into disparate groups (“teens” and “non-teens”). I thought it obscured the truth that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”.
The return to kneeling during the Eucharistc prayer (at least in our parish) was also very welcome, and added a sense of reverence that was needed.
I think it set a very good example to the teens, showing them that we should all be open to correction and be willing to submit to those whom Jesus has called to lead His church.
It has made the LT Mass more meaningful for me and my family.
I hope the NW will learn from LifeTeen’s example of humility and obedience.
The Neocats will be fine. They are an authentic momvement in the Church, not a youth group organization like Lifeteen. The liturgical matters will be dealt with accordingly. Kiko and Carmen are probably saints, and in the end will be remembered among several saints given to our time for the salvation of the world . . . among them Msgr. Giussani, Josemaria Escriva, Jean Vanier, and Fr. Maciel.
The spin started with Sandro Magister’s reporting on the letter in the first place. The tone of his piece (i.e., “play time is over”) indicates a contempt for the Neocatechumenal Way and gives the reader the impression that the letter from the Vatican indicates the same attitude. Gennarini’s response to Zenit and here, it seems to me, is a counter to the negative tone of Magister’s reporting. It seems that Akin as well as other commentors are mistaking Gennarini’s reponse as spin, when really it looks like he is trying to counter the spin that was thrown out there by those doing the reporting.
One shouldn’t try to counter a false impression by creating the opposite false impression — especially when everyone can see that the latter false impression is false.
John Allen also received a letter from Giuseppe Gennarini, which is published at http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/#five
I don’t believe that Giuseppe Gennarini was attempting to counter one false impression with another false impression. I believe he was attempting to focus on the facts that are known, not the allegations that were printed. To me, Gennarini made the following points:
1. That Sandro Magister’s article contains falsehoods (i.e., the loaf of bread for Mass, the “secret” liturgies”, lay homilies)If Magister can’t get easily verified information correct, how could he be trusted with information that has not been verified, i.e., the “leaked” letter.
2. Initial reports were highly negative all but sneering at the NCW. (“Play time is over” for example) another factor weighing against Magister as an impartial recorder of the facts.
3. The tone of Magister’s piece implies that the Vatican itself is displeased with the Way, an implication not supported by the puported letter.
This indicates that Magister’s article was propaganda and if he, or the person feeding this information to him, was counting on the charity-challenged Faithful Conservative Catholics [TM] to pounce all over the story like starving jackals — well his calculations proved to be correct.
By the way, to those who are wondering whether the NCW will obey the Vatican. Of course, they will. They’ve been obeying for 40 years and they will continue to do so.
Look, Magister has his difficulties, but he’s one of the few reporters on Church matters who often distributes the text of documentation that he is relying on for his articles. You can throw Magister’s article away. Just read the Arinze letter itself. That anyone questions the huge gap between what Arinze said and what NW has suggested it said is beyond me. The differences are patently obvious. I expect NW will work out its issues in time. But I share Jimmy’s shock with regard to this incident.
Elmo-
If the liturgical practices of the NCW are all peachy, then whence the Arinze letter at all? If they have always conducted their rites according to the “liturgical books”, then why send them a blunt letter requiring them to do so?
It’s an awful lot of smoke, if there was never a fire.
Do you suggest that the letter is a fake, or that Arinze has simply misunderstood the NCW?
I have before now never heard of the NCW, but I was struck by Gennarini’s focus on tangential issues, like the Who’s Who of well-known clergy he claimed as supporters, or whether the host was unleavened or not… both red herrings that address none of the points that the Arinze letter raised.
The NCW liturgical practices were approved conditionally with the understanding that they would be subject to review, as I believe Gennarini stated in his Zenit interview. This letter would seem to be the results of the CDW’s review.
Tim, I am not implying that Arinze is ignorant of the Way. I have no doubt that Arinze is well informed about the Way’s liturgical practices. The misinformation comes from media reports that clearly had an agenda to discredit the Neocatechumenal Way and used this letter to do so.
Elmo-
“The NCW liturgical practices were approved conditionally with the understanding that they would be subject to review…”
How in the world do you find that in the text of Arinze’s letter?
NCW has been given two years to show that they have CHANGED their liturgical practices to conform with the “liturgical books”. That doesn’t sound like any conditional approval.
“The NCW liturgical practices were approved conditionally with the understanding that they would be subject to review…”
How in the world do you find that in the text of Arinze’s letter?”
Tim — I didn’t say that was in Arinze’s letter. I said that Gennarini stated this in his Zenit interview.
The review was supposed to be five years after their statutes were conditionally approved in 2002. That would make it 2007 when this is supposed to happen.
Arinze is giving them a heads-up two years in advance of the review to make sure everything is in order.
If the Arinze letter is genuine (and there is no reason to suppose that it is not), then to make it sound as if the NCW liturgical practices have been approved “as is” is misleading.
Judging from the text of the letter, the NCW liturgy *as a whole* has been conditionally approved, the condition (apparently) being that certain specific practices be brought into line with existing liturgical norms.
If they were already in line with the “liturgical books”, there would be no letter, and no story.
Rome clearly expects changes from the NCW.
Wanting changes to a liturgy of which the hierarchy has long been familiar and that had already had conditional approval from said hierarchy is one thing.
Spinning the story in the press as if the Neocatechumenate has been disobedient and is being rebuked is another.
The Vatican’s supposed letter to the Way and the media coverage of this letter are miles apart.
The NW folks say that the Eucharistic Celebrations have always be open to the public. That may be true from the sense that if a non-NW should happen to walk into a celebration, I doubt that they would be turned away. By their own accord they may feel awkward since the NW mass is quite different from a regular mass, but that should not reflect negatively on NW.
That said, however, if the NW masses have always been open to the public, why is it that when I look at a comprehensive listing of all parish masses in my diocese, none of these celebrations have ever been listed? That doesn’t seem to equate to “open to all”.
As mentioned previously, the NW celebrations are quite different…they are more lively with more assembly participation, the music is quite different, and the masses are substantially longer. My feeling is that if most of us not in the NW went to this type of mass we would not repeat attendance on a regular basis, but that should be each individual’s choice. All parish celebrations should be scheduled, the schedules should be made public, and then it is up to each of the faithful to decide which mass to attend.
And then, of course, the collection from each celebration should go to the parish to help defray its expenses, and then with the excess funds, provide for programs which reach and touch all members of our community.
I live in El Salvador and have been in the NCW for over 8 years now. My family and I have received a lot from the Church through the NCW. Our lives have been touched and changed in very special ways in these past years.
Just wanted to drop a couple of thoughts..
During this period I have experience a broad range of encountered opinions regarding the NCW…even from its own members. Outside opinions on the NCW, most of them generated out of pure ignorance and not anymosity, range from calling us narrow minded, old-fashioned to cultic, elitist, etc.( I have also found this attitude toward other ecclesial realities such as Opus Dei).
This saturday evening, Our Pastor read the letter and explained the pastoral reasons he sees behind the document. The changes will be implemented accordingly and in due time in our parrish.
Personally, I do not see any problem with the changes or their implemention…after all, they are comming from a legitimate Church authority and we must trust the wisdom the Holy Spirit excercises through the Magisterium. Our pastor and cathechist are very orthodox and have always taught us that obedience to the Church´s Magisterium in the NCW as in any ecclesial reality must always come first.
As it is the case with change in general, and more so with changes of this sort, there are people for whom these changes are (and will be) hard to “accept”. This is specially true for those who have been in the NCW for a long time, and those who have misunderstandings or prejudices against the NCW. It is in light of this, that I understand (for example) the 2 year period given by the congretation. Let us pray for those brothers who are having a hard time with this situation.
May this situation help us all (NCW, Opus Dei, charismatical movement,etc.) to always keep things in perspective, accept with great humility that no one is immune from criticism, and above all that obedience to Christ´s Church comes first.
May charity and understanding prevail…specialy from among us catholics.
God bless,
Miguel
Amen.
Hi. This is the first that I have heard of Jimmy Akin. You seem like a very thoughtful and logical person. All I have is my experience to relate regarding the NW. About 28 years ago, when I was a young adult, I was depressed and near suicide. Even though I had grown up in the Catholic Church, it didn’t seem to actually be “good for anything.” Going to Mass and receiving the sacraments was somehow lost on me. I thought that faith was sort of a pretense, because that is what I grew up with in my “normal Catholic family.” Out of desparation I attended a NW catechesis in my Parish, and there, for the first time, I really heard the Gospel. I don’t know why, but all my life up to that point, I had only heard “try harder” from the Church. I had never heard that we are all sinners but Jesus Christ loves us as we are. I’m sure that real faith was being preached, but I wasn’t hearing it.
Well, any way, through these years the NW has helped me to learn about how beautiful our Mother Church is. I have learned that the sacraments are actually efficacious for me in my every-day life. I have a devotion to the Virgin Mary and have begun to cary a rosary. I’ve also learned that there has to be obedience to the Pastor, the Bishops, and the Holy See if we are to be a part of the One True Holy Catholic Church. It is as though, at the lowest point of my life, God scooped me up into his hand and I have stayed there ever since. I, who have absolutely no courage or backbone on my own, am always renewed and strengthened by the Church through the help of the NW. I have been married for 24 years, and have 9 children who are all in the Church and also learning about their faith. I guess that is another testimony to the Strength of God, because we live in a very pagan society here in Southern California. I am so blessed and I never deserved a bit of it! Wow. I’m glad I wrote this. Well, what ever the Magisterium figures out, I’m ready to go along with it. Abigail
Abigail, Peace be with you! I’m in the NW too. May God bless you, your family and your beloved ones. Courage!
Glad to hear how the Lord is doing wonders over there as well. Look at my post under Jimmy’s original post on the NW.
Christos Vaskres! Jesus Christ rose from the death!
Mark
And peace with you as well Miguel! Sorry, didn’t see your post before :p
Mark
Thanks Mark.
By the way, I am also a long time CAL listener and have great appreciation for Mr. Akin and Catholic Answer´s Ministry … I´ve always thought this would make a very interesting topic for a CAL show. It´ll be nice to have someone explain the “basics” of the NCW…just as you had Ralph Martin explaining the basics of the Charismatic Movement a few years ago.
Shalom,
Miguel
Vatican, Jan. 12 (CWNews.com) – In a January 12 meeting with members of the Neocatechumenal Way, Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news) urged members of the lay movement to respect the authority of the Church.
The Pope’s message was delivered just after the public release of a Vatican letter to the group’s leaders, warning against irregularities in the liturgical practices of the Neocatechumenate. The Holy Father reminded members of the group that they should “attentively observe” the norms set down in the letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship.
I am a former member of the NW. I was married in a NW mass and my firstborn son was baptized in one as well. I dropped out not because of anything I considered particularly bad, but simply because my wife and I reached a point where they expected us to spend up to 4 nights a week on NW activities, and we felt that was too much time out of our schedule. Also we felt that they were inconsiderate in how they would schedule things (such as weekend retreats and “pilgrimages”), with no consideration for people’s schedules or finances and often with little advance notice, and imply to us that the only properly Christian response to such things was acceptance without comment.
Anyway, my experience was that the Precious Blood was not passed around from person to person, but was given to each person by an extraordinary minister of the eucharist. However, extraordinary ministers could be chosen at random from the community — no particular training was given, as I believe is required in diocesan masses.
“Admonitions” were given before each reading and could be, but were not always, quite lengthy (and rambling). This would just depend on the person giving the admonition, who would always be a layperson. Admonitions, as I recall, were not to be read, but were to be more or less spontaneous, although you would have reflected on it ahead of time.
The “echoes” could be very lengthy and were given by laypersons as well. These were not prepared or reflected on ahead of time, but were purely spontaneous, as a reaction to the readings. The priest would always give his “echo” last. I suppose the priest’s echo was technically the homily. Whether you could say that the laypersons’ echoes took the place of the homily is debatable. They certainly took place at the time designated for the homily. But the priest’s echo was consistently the last and typically the longest. In any case, I think the laypersons’ echoes (or “testimonies” as Cardinal Arinze called them) do violate the liturgical norms as quoted in Cardinal Arinze’s letter. They were not done on special occasions only, but during every NW mass.
The NW masses (always called “the Eucharist” rather than “mass”) were “separate” not only because of being on Saturday nights, but also by virtue of taking place in a separate building, not in the parish church. Ours always took place in the parish school auditorium. NW masses were also separate in that parishioners not acquainted with community members would have no way of knowing the time and place of the NW masses. Times of the NW masses varied throughout the year, depending, I believe, on what time it got dark. Also, special masses like the Easter vigil would start at odd times of which no one but a community member would be aware — they were never announced in the parish bulletin. So I think the criticisms of the “separateness” of NW masses are valid in these respects.
I read one article on http://www.chiesa that said that each community would have its own mass in a place separate from each other community. This was not the case in my experience. There were three communities in my parish, and all three would celebrate the Eucharist together on Saturday nights. Each community did have its own separate mid-week “liturgy” (I forget what this was called) which was something like a liturgy of the word — i.e. Bible readings, echoes and songs.
I am a former member of the NW. I was married in a NW mass and my firstborn son was baptized in one as well. I dropped out not because of anything I considered particularly bad, but simply because my wife and I reached a point where they expected us to spend up to 4 nights a week on NW activities, and we felt that was too much time out of our schedule. Also we felt that they were inconsiderate in how they would schedule things (such as weekend retreats and “pilgrimages”), with no consideration for people’s schedules or finances and often with little advance notice, and imply to us that the only properly Christian response to such things was acceptance without comment.
Anyway, my experience was that the Precious Blood was not passed around from person to person, but was given to each person by an extraordinary minister of the eucharist. However, extraordinary ministers could be chosen at random from the community — no particular training was given, as I believe is required in diocesan masses.
“Admonitions” were given before each reading and could be, but were not always, quite lengthy (and rambling). This would just depend on the person giving the admonition, who would always be a layperson. Admonitions, as I recall, were not to be read, but were to be more or less spontaneous, although you would have reflected on it ahead of time.
The “echoes” could be very lengthy and were given by laypersons as well. These were not prepared or reflected on ahead of time, but were purely spontaneous, as a reaction to the readings. The priest would always give his “echo” last. I suppose the priest’s echo was technically the homily. Whether you could say that the laypersons’ echoes took the place of the homily is debatable. They certainly took place at the time designated for the homily. But the priest’s echo was consistently the last and typically the longest. In any case, I think the laypersons’ echoes (or “testimonies” as Cardinal Arinze called them) do violate the liturgical norms as quoted in Cardinal Arinze’s letter. They were not done on special occasions only, but during every NW mass.
The NW masses (always called “the Eucharist” rather than “mass”) were “separate” not only because of being on Saturday nights, but also by virtue of taking place in a separate building, not in the parish church. Ours always took place in the parish school auditorium. NW masses were also separate in that parishioners not acquainted with community members would have no way of knowing the time and place of the NW masses. Times of the NW masses varied throughout the year, depending, I believe, on what time it got dark. Also, special masses like the Easter vigil would start at odd times of which no one but a community member would be aware — they were never announced in the parish bulletin. So I think the criticisms of the “separateness” of NW masses are valid in these respects.
I read one article on http://www.chiesa that said that each community would have its own mass in a place separate from each other community. This was not the case in my experience. There were three communities in my parish, and all three would celebrate the Eucharist together on Saturday nights. Each community did have its own separate mid-week “liturgy” (I forget what this was called) which was something like a liturgy of the word — i.e. Bible readings, echoes and songs.
Another interesting bit of information (I think): Years after my wife and I had dropped out of the NW, my brother-in-law tried to persuade us to come back. Fair enough, nothing wrong with persuasion. We talked on the phone and I told him I would consider it. About a week later, after mass at the parish church, my brother-in-law, a couple other men from the NW and the NW priest (former pastor of the parish) sort of confronted me en masse. (I don’t mean “confronted” in a hostile sense.) The upshot was that I declined to rejoin the NW and was told by the priest, with the agreement of the other men present, that my rejection of the community was tantamount to a rejection of God, or at least of God’s will for my life. This shocked me as I’m sure most of you can imagine. Taking into consideration that this was not an “official”, formal declaration of the NW, nevertheless I believe this says something about how the NW views itself.
Mark,
As a former member of the NW, how do you think the NW will respond publicly and privately to the letter? Is Mr. Gennarini response a typical response in your opinion?
Most responses so far have been very defensive and have ignored the actual text of the letter.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Inocencio:
I don’t know how the NW will respond officially to the letter. I assume they will be obedient, ultimately. Nothing I saw in the NW leads me to think otherwise. NWs are very sincere in believing that the community came about through God’s inspiration and grace, and that its growth and success are in accord with his will. There is also a great reverence for the pope – at least his office. I don’t think there is anything rebellious in their attitudes or in the spirit of the organization.
There may be a bit of pride in their own uniqueness, or a love of novelty. This may be hard for them to give up, since, again, they believed all along that everything they did was according to God’s inspiration. But they also believe strongly and preach obedience, submission and humility. So I would expect obedience ultimately.
Mark,
Thank you very much for your thoughts. I know Pope Benedict XVI sees great promise for them if they, as you would expect, are obedient to the norms and bishops.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
The Neocatechumenals Obey the Pope – But in Their Own Way
Communion continues to be given seated, as at a banquet. This is the upshot of a letter that the heads of the Way have written to Benedict XVI
by Sandro Magister
ROMA, March 6, 2006 – The founders and heads of the Neocatechumenal Way, Kiko Argüello (see photo), Carmen Hernández, and Father Mario Pezzi, have decided to obey the severe reprimand issued to them by Benedict XVI on January 12. But they did so with strong reservations over one point in particular: Eucharistic communion.
Their act of partial obedience is found in a letter that they wrote to the pope on January 17. The letter – reproduced here below – was made public on February 27 by the Catholic website http://www.korazym.org.
Benedict XVI’s reminder concerns the manner in which the Neocatechumenal groups celebrate the Mass. The pope wants them to conform to the prescriptions of the liturgical norms that are valid for the whole Church.
For example, the Neocatechumenals receive communion seated, around an altar that is shaped and decorated like a large, square dinner table. They divide and consume a large unleavened loaf, made with two-thirds white flour and one-third whole wheat flour, which is prepared and baked for a quarter of an hour, all according to detailed rules established by Kiko. They drink the wine from cups that are passed from hand to hand, always in a seated position.
But the pope wants them to “pass to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion,” within no more than two years’ time. The details of this request and others are set forth in a letter dated December 1, 2005, written in the name of the pope to the heads of the Way by cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican congregation for the liturgy: a letter made public by http://www.chiesa.
And so, in their reply to Benedict XVI, Kiko, Carmen, and Father Pezzi stated that they were willing to “follow in every way, with great respect and obedience, the rubrics of the Roman Missal.” They promised that they will make arrangements with the bishop of each diocese for their own members to participate in the Sunday Mass together with the rest of the faithful “at least one Sunday a month.” But on the crucial point of communion, they make it clear that they want to keep going their own way.
They stop, in fact, at thanking the pope for granting them two more years. And then they return to defending their manner of distributing communion. They give as the model for this the “eschatological banquet” at which Christ has the disciples “sit down,” as written in Luke 12:37: “He will have them recline at table, and will come to wait on them.” Furthermore, they emphasize that giving communion “in this way” is an essential instrument for converting those who are far removed from the Church, and that abandoning it would compromise their mission.
The letter to Benedict XVI from Kiko, Carmen, and Father Pezzi was also distributed by them to all the leaders of the Neocatechumenal Way, who received it as an official directive for their respective communities.
At the end of the letter, the heads of the Way recall “the many bishops who have supported us.” In effect, at the synod on the Eucharist held in Rome last October there were bishops who asked for an extension of the method of taking communion while seated, as in use among the Neocatechumenals.
One of these was the bishop of Agana, on the island of Guam, Anthony Sablan Apuron, president of the bishops’ conference of the Pacific.
In a recent radio interview, Apuron again defended the practice of distributing communion as at a banquet, and downplayed the value of the letter from Cardinal Arinze.
It is, in fact, the widespread opinion among the Neocatechumenals that Arinze’s letter is something provisional, modifiable, a simple “instrumentum laboris,” and that in the end their practice will receive substantive approval.
This opinion remains current even after the reminder from Benedict XVI on January 12.
In any case, this is the thought of neither Arinze nor the pope. In a February 15 interview with Vatican Radio, the cardinal prefect of the congregation for the liturgy restated that the letter is “the conclusion of the whole affair.” And this is how he explained the process that led to the writing of the letter:
“The letter was occasioned by the results of the examination, conducted by this congregation, of how the Neocatechumenal Way has celebrated the Holy Mass for many years. […] For this examination we had a mixed commission of persons nominated by the Neocatechumenal Way and persons nominated by our congregation. The discussions brought up many of the practices that they employ during the Mass, […] and many of these were not in accordance with the approved books. This is the background. The entire situation was examined over many sessions of the mixed commission, for a period of two years or longer. And there was also, at the bidding of the Holy Father, a discussion among seven cardinals of the Roman curia, who examined everything. So this letter is the conclusion of the whole affair.”
What follows here is the letter written to the pope by the heads of the Neocatechumenal Way:
“We would like to thank You from the bottom of our hearts…”
Porto San Giorgio, January 17, 2006
Dearest Father,
The love of God the Father, the holy humility of Christ, and the consolation of the Holy Spirit be with You.
We would like to thank You from the bottom of our hearts for the Audience You granted to us, with the sending forth of 200 families, and for Your words, in which You emphasized “the importance… of the Holy Mass in evangelization” and that – as “your long experience can well attest” – “the centrality of the mystery of Christ celebrated in the liturgical rites is a privileged and indispensable way to build living and persevering Christian communities.”
After the Audience, all of the 700 itinerant catechists from all the nations met together, and we are very content with the “norms” that Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, imparted to us in Your name. In this regard, we wish to express our gratitude to You, to Cardinal Arinze, and to the Congregation for what is written in the letter.
We renewed together our willingness to follow in everything, with great respect and obedience, the rubrics of the Roman Missal (Gloria, Credo, Lavabo, Orate fratres, Agnus Dei…).
With respect to the first point of the letter (“at least one Sunday per month, the Communities of the Neocatechumenal Way must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community), each team of itinerant catechists will speak with the Bishop of each Diocese in order to arrange this participation, paying particular attention to the least brethren and those farthest away.
We also wish to thank you for the benevolence, mercy, and goodness You have shown to those farthest away in allowing the moving of the sign of peace and in granting a period of two years for the adaptation of the manner of distributing the Communion of the Body and the Blood of the Lord: we have always shown to the many brothers who have emerged from hell, full of wounds and of self-loathing, that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and not only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and comes to serve them: “He will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them” (Lk 12:37).
In this way, every time we celebrate the Eucharist we experience the power this sacrament has to draw them into the Passover of Christ, bringing them from sadness to joy, from darkness to light, from death to life…
The Lord is preparing a people to evangelize the pagans. There are millions of people today who do not know Christ. The reality is that the Lord is calling us to evangelize as Christian communities that make the life of heaven present in our midst.
Thank You, Your Holiness! Together with the Cardinals and the many Bishops who have supported us, and above all in the name of the many who were far away and today bless Christ, we thank You with our whole heart.
Asking for Your Apostolic Blessing,
Kiko Argüello, Carmen Hernández, Fr. Mario Pezzi
__________
And this is Cardinal Arinze’s letter of December 1, 2005, previously made public by http://www.chiesa:
”I am to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions…”
Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum
Prot. 2520/03/L
From Vatican City, December 1, 2005
To the esteemed Mr. Kiko Argüello, Ms. Carmen Hernandez, and Rev. Father Mario Pezzi,
Following the conversations with this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist in the communities of the Neocatechumenal Way, in keeping with the guidelines issued in the meeting with you on November 11 of this year, I am to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions.
In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the Neocatechumenal Way shall accept and follow the liturgical books approved by the Church, without omitting or adding anything. Furthermore, in regard to some elements the guidelines and clarifications are emphasized as follows:
1. Sunday is the “Dies Domini” as the Servant of God Pope John Paul II wished to illustrate in the Apostolic Letter on the Lord’s Day. Therefore the Neocatechumenal Way must enter into dialogue with the diocesan bishop in order to make it clear that the community of the Neocatechumenal Way is incorporated into the parish even in the context of the liturgical celebrations. At least one Sunday per month, the communities of the Neocatechumenal Way must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community.
2. As for any admonitions issued before the readings, these must be brief. Adherence must also be shown to what is set out in the “Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani” (nn. 105 and 128) and to the Praenotanda of the “Ordo Lectionum Missae” (nn. 15, 19, 38, 42).
3. The homily, because of its nature and importance, is reserved to the priest or deacon (cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 767 § 1). As for the occasional contribution of testimonies on the part of the lay faithful, the proper places and methods for these are indicated in the Interdicasterial Instruction “Ecclesiae de Mysterio,” which was approved “in specific form” by Pope John Paul II and published on August 15, 1997. In this document, sections 2 and 3 of article 3 read as follows:
§2 – “It is permitted to have a brief instruction that helps explain better the liturgy that is being celebrated, and even, in exceptional circumstances, a few testimonies, as long as these conform to the liturgical norms, are offered on the occasion of Eucharistic liturgies celebrated on particular days (for seminarians, the sick, etc.), and are thought truly helpful as an illustration of the regular homily delivered by the celebrating priest. These instructions and testimonies must not assume characteristics that might cause them to be confused with the homily.”
§3 – “The possibility of ‘dialogue’ during the homily (cf. Directorium de Missis cum Pueris, no. 48) can be used occasionally and with prudence by the celebrating minister as a means of exposition, which does not transfer to others the duty of preaching.”
Careful attention must also be paid to the Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” no. 74.
4. On the exchange of peace, permission is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to continue using the indult already granted, pending further instructions.
5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.
6. The Neocatechumenal Way must also make use of the other Eucharistic Prayers contained in the missal, and not only Eucharistic Prayer II.
In short, the Neocatechumenal Way, in its celebration of the Holy Mass, should follow the approved liturgical books, keeping in mind what is laid out above under the numbers 1,2,3,4,5, and 6.
Acknowledging the favors that the Lord has bestowed upon the Church through the many activities of the Neocatechumenal Way, I take this occasion to extend to you my best regards.
+ Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect
__________
And these are the words of Benedict XVI relative to the rite of the Mass, in the address he gave to the Neocatechumenals on January 12, 2006:
“Recently the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments imparted to you, in my name, some norms concerning the Eucharistic celebration, after the trial period that had been granted by the servant of God John Paul II. I am certain that these norms, which draw upon the provisions of the liturgical books approved by the Church, will meet with attentive compliance from you.”
*Please do not take this message in a bad way.. that is not my intention*
Im a Catechumen as well and still going strong after 16 years of being in the Way since I was 2 years old till now that I am 18 (with my family). Well as for the EX-Neo Catechumen that mentioned how he was married in the Way, his first son born in the way… Etc… I read about why you left the NW because (to not sugar coat anything) The Neo catechumenal Way basically couldn’t work around “YOUR SCHEDULE?” …because as you said before and I quote. “…we felt that was too much time out of our schedule…” Don’t you think that’s a little selfish? And that’s how it always is. Everyone wants the World and its people to revolve around him or her, Do the things when “I” have time and some of us say No we cant have a retreat on that specific day because I have a family reunion, a meeting, I coach my kids soccer team, I have a wedding, I work and so forth. These are all needs, great! But the NW is NOT telling you LEAVE ALL OF THIS FOR GOOD! Where does your sacrifice come in? Is it too much to help save your familys life? Your marriage? Your kids religious future? You might of heard this before in the Catechesis (my parents being one I hear it all the time ) “When you are dying tell your family to save you, tell your work to cure you, your money is worthless at your time of death, the only one that can help you is GOD himself.” When do the soccer games come in to help you? The friends at work? The long hour meetings? This is not going to save you, yet you give all your time to it, so much that you don’t even have time to go prepare for an hour, sit at a convivience with God present and your family, your kids, your brothers and sisters, to attend something that’s going to take you out of darkness. All because it was “too much” for your schedule. It reminds me of the people in the desert we want bread this minute here and now without any dependency upon God, We try to insure our lives with money instead of trusting in God. And don’t get me wrong we are all like that. Your worried about finances… MONEY is always going to be a human problem…Don’t worry God will PROVIDE, COURAGE brother. believe me ive seen it in my family and other families of the Neo catechumenal way that have many many many more children such as 6,7,14 and 19. And God himself has never failed them. He will do the same for you.
Don’t worry brother you and your family will be in our prayers and remember God will provide! Do not be afraid to return to the Community (NW). You can make time for God if you really want to….God, your brother in law and your brother/sisters in Christ (community) will always be waiting for you and your family with open arms. God Bless
Shema Israel
LA PAZ
The neo-Cathecumenals talk about “the sperm of the Holy Ghost”. This is simply blasphemous! They also say that ‘their’ (sic) masses are superior to other Catholic ones.
This was stated by a neo-Cathecumenal priest on Maltese TV on Sunday 4th June 2006!
Ironically, some of the group attending Mass were scantily dressed! And the priest even had his mobile phone on! Some superiority!
Thank goodness that not all Catholics have been swept by the current following Vatican Council II.
The Liturgy ofthe neocatechumenate is approved!!!!!!!Yes!
The Liturgy ofthe neocatechumenate is approved!!!!!!!Yes!
Jonathon! Is this a joke??
Nothing is approved until EVERYTHING is complied with in this Arinze letter…especially the….
” period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.”
Furthermore, even Jimmy overlooked one essential sentence of this letter…of which is almost, if not, more important than the abuse of receiving the Eucharist seated..and that refers again to the famous ‘echoes’.
Jimmy completely skipped this part of the letter, which says, concerning lay testamonies:
_____________________________________________________
“Careful attention must also be paid to the Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” no. 74.”
_____________________________________________________
Let me again stress the first few words of this instruction….”CAREFUL ATTENTION ..” And I do this because I know that all the members of the NCW that I know…my wife included..do not pay almost any attention at all to the contents of this letter…much less the DETAILS and references noted!
Now here is the text of which CAREFUL ATTENTION NEEDS TO BE PAID…so listen-up, all you who love to give you’re personal points of view during the Mass:
Redemptionis Sacramentum[74.]
“If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a Church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily,[156] nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.”
There are also all of the other references listed, ie..:
“Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani” (nn. 105 and 128) and to the Praenotanda of the “Ordo Lectionum Missae” (nn. 15, 19, 38, 42).”
and
“cf. Directorium de Missis cum Pueris, no. 48)”
Which will add even more light to what the Pope is trying to teach the NCW!
And the irony of everything is that the members of the NCW need to study probably 4 to 5 times longer than a Jesuit studies in their theological formation…my wife being a good example in that she will finish “The Way” this Easter…after a mere 30+ years!
What I’m trying to get across is….
Why… if you are willing to study the catequises of Kiko and the NCW for 20-30 years, don’t you want to spend one or two hours reading the entire context of this letter?? Why do the leaders of the NCW only paraphrase the contents on their websites? ..and not openly proclaim it to their members?
Do you know that I am the first to show this letter to the Pastor of a highly NCW influenced parish that I regularly attend with my NCW wife? And this after more than 1 year of being openly published on the internet!(NOT TO MENTION THAT THEY ONLY HAVE ABOUT 10 MONTHS LEFT TO COMPLY WITH ITS CONTENTS BEFORE BEING INTENTIONALLY DISOBEDIENT)
I even gave it to the lead Catequist at this same parish, who thought it was fake because it didn’t have a papal seal attached to it. Really, he refused to see it at first, until he interrupted my meeting with the pastor.
Oh, and the old pastor..maybe 75+ years old, was very happy with this letter and told me…”let me correct them”. He also said that he has been telling them these things for years, but they never listen to him! Unfortunatly he wasn’t more attentive or forceful in the past with all of these abuse, of which he is also subject to participate in during their masses.
And the NCW Catequist, who has eaten with me at my house many times over the last 3 years, and I occasionally at his house too, considered me an enemy for giving the Pastor the Letter!
Yes. And I told him, “look, I’m not an ENEMY by making known this highly important letter from Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, to the leaders of the NeoCatechumenal Way!. His response…”With these kinds of friends, who needs enemies?”
So, as of last Sunday I am now an enemy, in their eyes, of the NCW in my wife’s community and Parish!
But I can only recall the providence of last Sundays readings:
“Matthew 5
11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:”
So, at least this gives me comfort in all my sorrowful dealings with this highly secretive, liturgically abusive and psychologically manipulative group!
And what they will probably never come to understand, having their free will so damaged by the liturgically and catequetically errant teachings of Kiko’s NCW is
“The Truth shall set you free”!
And I, who support and love EVERY norm and every canon law of the Holy Catholic Church, and who love Jesus, Mary and all the Saints with my whole heart….am now in the eyes of this NCW group…and probably with my wife also, because of the incredibly stong influence of the NCW over her spirituality…am considered a ‘JUDAS’…and ENEMY!!
All to the praise of my loving Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, and His loving, humble and faithful Mother.. and my mother too, Mary Most Holy!
Thanks, A. Williams.
I was thinking the same thing, but figured I would leave it to someone with more knowledge of the situation.
It seems there is no end to self-delusion of all kinds.
PS….and some people don’t think the NCW disrupts parishes??
…..or can destroy marraiges??
Think again! I’m LIVING PROOF of how much evil can be caused by such groups, and it will probably be a miracle if my 3 year marraige indeed survives! …Given such opposition from both my wife and the local NCW to my defending both the dignity and sanctity of the Eucharistic Liturgy and also all of the Church ‘norms’ and canon laws!
And thanks to you Tim J. and all others at Jimmy Akins Blog…because you don’t know how hard it is to resist all of these evils alone?? and in a foreign country of which I can hardly speak the language! At least I have the spiritual and theological comfort derived from all of you here! ..which is really a great treasure and help indeed! Amen.
A new letter has been sent to the NeoCatechumenal Way by the leading bishops of the various rites in the Holy Land. I think many might be interested in reading this letter so I am including an ‘ad hoc’ translation, until someone can aquire an official or authoritative english version. Sorry, but its the best I can do!
ENTIRE NeoCat Letter from Holy Land Bishops
[Text of the Entire Letter from the Bishops of the Holy Land to the NeoCatechumental Way translated from the SPANISH TO ENGLISH using Google, and minor translation clarifications made by A. Williams. Obviously this is not a perfect translation, due to it being based primarily on the Google program, and then with some overlays from the Zenit translation’quotes’ above, and then some additional ‘un-professional’ clarifications from myself. Again, it’s not perfect but it is still intelligable and better than the deficient ENGLISH ‘summary’ of the letter given by ZENIT on Feb.27, 2007. Maybe this will ‘help’ until an authentic translation can be made in the Engish of this important letter.
Code: ZS07022703
Date publication: 2007-02-27
* * *
Welcome and indications of the catholic bishops of Holy Land to the Neocatecumenal Way
Letter to the Neocatecumenal Way in the Holy Land
Brothers and sisters of the Neocatecumenal Way:
1. The peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be always with you.
We, Ordinaries of the Holy Land, directed this letter to you at the beginning of Lent, within the framework of the common Pastoral Plan for this year, whose subject is catechesis and religious education in the parish.
Brothers and sisters of the Way: you are welcome in our dioceses. We give thanks to God for the grace that the Lord has given you and for the charisma that the Holy Spirit has instilled in the Church through your ministry of the post-baptismal formation. We are grateful for your presence in some of our parishes, for the preaching of the Word of God, for the help given to our faithful in deepening their faith and in rooting them into their own local church, in “a synthesis of kerigmatic preaching, change of life and liturgy” (Statutes, art. 8).
Following the Letter that Pope Benedict XVI directed to you the 12th of January of 2006 [v. Zenith, 12 January 2006. Ndr], and the one of the Congregation for the Divine Cult of 1st of December of 2005 [v. Zenith, 1 January 2006. Ndr], we request to you that you occupy a place in the heart of the parish in that you announce the Word of God, avoiding to make a group aside. We would wish that you could say with St. Paul: “For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more. ” (I Co 9, 19).
The principle to that we must all together remain faithful and to inform our pastoral action would have to be “a parish and a Eucaristía”. Your first duty, therefore, is to root (the faithful) in the parishes and in their own liturgical traditions in which they have grown for generations
In the East, our liturgy and our traditions are very important to us. It is the liturgy that has contributed much to conserve the Christian faith in our towns throughout history. The rite is like an identity card and not only a way among others to pray. We request that you have the charity to include, understand and to respect the attachment of our faithful to their own liturgies.
2. The Eucharist is the sacrament of unity in the parish and not of division. We request therefore that in the eucarístic celebrations, in all the Eastern rites, and in addition in the Latin rite, they are always presided over by the parish priest, or, in the case of the Latin rite, in the heat of agreement with him. You celebrate the Eucharist with the parish and according to the way of the local Church. “There where is the bishop, is the church”, wrote St. Ignatius of Antioch. You teach to the faithful the love by its liturgical traditions and put your charisma to the service of the unit.
3. We request in addition that you seriously study the language and the culture of the people, in a sign of respect towards them …understanding its soul and its history, in the context of the Holy Land: religious, cultural and national pluralism. In addition, in our countries, Palestine, Israel, Jordan, all are in the search of peace and justice, a search that integrally comprises our lives as Christians. All preaching would have to orient to the faithful the concrete attitudes that there are in the diverse contexts of life and in their own situation of conflicts that continue in Palestine: attitudes of pardon and love towards the enemy, on the one hand, and by another one, exigency of their own rights, especially dignity, freedom and justice.
We request that you preach a Gospel incarnated in the life, a Gospel that illuminates all aspects of life and roots itself to the faithful in Jesus Christ Revived and all his human atmosphere, cultural and eclesial.
We request that God overwhelms your hearts with His strength and His love, and that He grants grace to you so that you can overwhelm the hearts of the faithful with its love and its strength.
Jerusalem, 25 of February of 2007
+ Michel Sabbah, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
+ Elias Shakour, catholic greco-melquita archbishop of Acri, Haifa, Nazaret and of all Galilea
+ George El-Murr, catholic greco-melquita archbishop of Filadelfia, Petra and of Jordan
+ Paul Sayyah, maronita archbishop of Haifa and Earth Santa, and exarca patriarcal maronita of Jerusalem, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan
+ Fouad Twal, Latin coassistant bishop, Jerusalem
+ Kamal Bathish, Latin auxiliary bishop, Jerusalem
+ Selim Sayegh, Latin patriarcal vicar for Jordan
+ Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo, Latin patriarcal vicar for Israel
+ Pierre Melki, exarca patriarcal siro-catholic of Jerusaén, Earth Santa and Jordan
+ George Bakar, exarca patriarcal catholic greco-melquita of Jerusalem
Rafael Minassian, exarca patriarcal Armenian catholic of Jerusalem, Earth Santa and Jordan
[Original Translation of the Italian made by Zenith]
The accusations are terrible… the neocats speak of sperm??? 30+ years studying? Is Kiko the new Messiah after all? return to the Catholic Faith.
As Pope Pius XIII says “Meet deer ajnem unt der its”. (Encyclical “Perversus in Adversaeum”)
It is true that since Vatican II, a lot of abuses have taken place. Unfortunately, we have extremists on both sides stretching from Palmar de Troya followers to Neocatechumenals. All the extremists are doing a disservice to the Catholic Church. Moderates like FSSP and SSPX are the solution to this crisis. The Church must be once again entrenched in Tradtion, something that Pope Benedict XVI is trying to do, albeit facing a lot of pressure from certain Bishops (we all know some of them).
Let us pray for the Catholic Church.
Interesting to see neocaths at each other’s throats — that is what the obsession with “orthodoxy” leads to.
Wow! Profound!
“…obsession with ‘orthodoxy’…”
“Orthodoxy”: y’know…Truth.
Truth as such heals obsession; but obsession with partial truths out of their wider context is the vice known in Buddhism as “attachment to views”. The warriors for what they call “orthodoxy” are giving an ersatz for the authentic quest for truth. Orthodoxy properly understood means a broad and integral biblical vision, something not to be found in the limbo of neocath ideology. Love of truth brings people together in dialogue. Obsession with orthodoxy sets people at one another’s throats.
Care to back any of that up?
There is some truth in what “Spirit of Vatican II” is saying. See for example Fr. Paul Scalia’s excellent article “The Church Militant or the Church Belligerent?” (subtitled “How Fighting for the Faith Can Destroy Charity”) in last year’s This Rock.
Among the potential pitfalls listed by Fr. Scalia of zealous orthodoxy severed from charity are “prizing principles over persons,” “losing the supernatural outlook,” “making our preferences mandatory for others, or requiring more than the Church requires,” and “giving free rein to the critical faculty.”
All of that said, the issue is not “obsession with orthodoxy,” but failure of charity. You can’t have too much truth, but you can very easily have too little love — and I don’t believe this in itself is the special pitfall of those who are particularly concerned about truth. I suspect those less concerned with truth are equally prone to failures of charity; they are just different failures, and show themselves differently.
A few other thoughts:
Truth by itself doesn’t “heal obsession.” On the contrary, “knowledge puffs up, but charity builds up.”
“Obsession with partial truths out of their wider context” is the error known in Catholic thought as heresy.
“Neocath” appears to be a pet term, perhaps a pet bugbear, of our present commenter; Google the term and his name (i.e., the name connected with his blog, not “Spirit of Vatican II”) comes up in most of the top matches.
I appreciate “SV2″‘s concern for charity. May I suggest that all parties in the present discussion demonstrate their commitment to charity in action and not only in criticism.
Yes, charity is an important factor, but I want to suggest that we need to be more critical of the dogma-centered regime of truth. Its golden moment was the period from Nicea to Chalcedon, 325 to 451, but its dangers were already lurking then, and came out virulently in later ages. So even this glorious moment, the inculturation of Christianity in the theoretical rationality of the Greek world — that did not fear to ask and to answer questions about the what and why of God and Christ — needs to be revisited with critical consciousness. I wrote this up in the last two entries of my Journal theologique (at josephsoleary.typepad.com). There is an awful lot to be thought about once we begin to weigh and assess the meaning of “orthodoxy” in a critical way.
“…weigh and assess the meaning of ‘orthodoxy’ in a critical way.”
That sounds an awful lot like: “What is truth?”
That sounds to me like saying “God is an important factor.”
If I’m offered a choice between a “dogma-centered regime” (whatever that is) and a Christ-centered kingdom of God, I know which one I’ll take. That said, inasmuch as Jesus is Truth, I want a regime of Truth as well as of love, with dogma not at the center but clearly describing the kingdom’s topography and borders.
Like I said, it is pointless to resist the Steven…
😉
“we need to be more critical of the dogma-centered regime of truth”
Outright blasphemous. We need to be critical of the revealed teachings of Christ (the definition of dogma) and the truth derived thereof? That which we, as faithful Catholics, are required to believe? If the Spirit is a-movin’ that way, I’d watch out.