Neocatechumenal Way

[nagyszakall]

not sure what you mean by “Zoffolista”.

A follower of the late Reverend Enrico Zoffoli (RIP). However, my suspicion is that they are mostly Italian.

 

[nagyszakall]

Speaking of web surfing, here is a link to a page worth ruminating over. I concur with most of the observations made by the author there. What do you think?

internetica.it/neocatecumenali/english/Eucarist.htm

You were asking about Zoffolista: I think, this website is managed by one of them. You would expect to find on a website interested in the truth about the NCW to present all documents of major importance. Instead on that website you find this list:

Neocatechumenal-Mass :
:: Letter from Bishops of the Holy Land, February 25, 2007
:: Letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze,prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments
:: Interview,Vatican Radio, December 1, 2005
:: Address Benedict XVI to members Neoatechumenal Way January 12, 2006
:: Address Benedict XVI to members Neoatechumenal Way January 20, 2012

A Theologian’s book :
:: Father Enrico Zoffoli, The Neocatechumenal Way A Fearful Danger to the Faith, 1995 (but still actual)

Magistery of the Church :

. Mane nobiscum Domine, October 7, 2004
. Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004
. Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003
. Misericordia Dei, April 7, 2002
. Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980
. Misterium Fidei, September 3, 1965

They seem to have forgotten the Statute and the decree of its definitive approval, to mention just the two most important ones (even though the website claims that it has been last updated in February 2013). Now that can’t be an unintentional mistake, unlike the misspelling of “Misterium Fidei” (which, of course should be spelled with a “y”). This fact makes me question whether the author of the site has acted in good faith, really seeking the truth, or just trying to prove a point, overlooking any evidence that goes against it.

By the way, the last address of BXVI among the listed documents contains a very interesting sentence:

Precisely to encourage people who have drifted away from the Church or have not received an appropriate formation to draw close to the riches of sacrament life, the Neocatechumens may celebrate the Sunday Eucharist in the small community

This should answer one point that many people don’t understand: “why should they have a separate Mass?”

To answer you question, I think that the author of the site is in opposition to some of the ordinary magisterium regarding the NCW. That’s what I think about it. You can’t pick and choose which part of the Church’s teaching you accept, just because you don’t like something, and then claim that you do that in defense of Church teaching.

 

[myfathersson]

This fact makes me question whether the author of the site has acted in good faith, really seeking the truth, or just trying to prove a point, overlooking any evidence that goes against it.

You raise a good point. The Statutes are rather important, giving the NCW a juridical character.

Article 13.3 on the Eucharist states:

§ 3. For the celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed, with the exception of the explicit concessions from the Holy See.49

and footnote 49 reads:

49 See Benedict XVI, Speech to the Neocatechumenal Communities on January 12, 2006, in Notitiae 41 (2005), 554–556;
CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter of December 1, 2005 in Notitiae 41 (2005), 563–565; “Notification of the
Congregation for Divine Worship on celebrations in groups of the Neocatechumenal Way,” L’Osservatore Romano, December
24, 1988: “The Congregation consents that among the adaptations foreseen by the instruction “Actio Pastoralis”, nn. 6-11, the
groups of the above-mentioned “Way” may receive communion under two species, always with unleavened bread, and transfer
“ad experimentum” the Rite of Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful.”

These are important documents too, particularly in regard to the specific allowances and instructions regarding the NCW Eucharistic liturgy. Most notably is “CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter of December 1, 2005” which is the aforementioned letter from Cardinal Arinze to the NCW.

The text of the that letter is as follows (my bolds):

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.

1. 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).

1. 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. **

1. On the exchange of peace, permission is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to continue using the indult already granted, pending further instructions.

1. 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.

1. 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

 

[myfathersson]

Conitnued from above.

For some reason, the letter of Cardinal Arinze is not on the official NCW website. My personal experience is that the communities downplay the importance of this letter. In fact most members of the NCW are not aware of it at all.

The official line is worrying. Instead of carrying the letter on their website, the NCW include a Zenit interview with Giuseppe Gennarini, an offical spokesman of the NCW in America.

Here’s what he has to say about some elements of the letter:

The request for partaking once a month in the general celebrations of the parish is already a widespread practice, as for example in the context of such liturgical solemnities as Christmas, Epiphany, the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday, the patronal feast, the Assumption, All Saints’ Day, and the Immaculate Conception.

Is this what is intended in the Cardinal’s letter?

The letter also restates the article of the Roman Missal regarding [commentaries], but extends its use from an extraordinary practice to an ordinary one. The ‘echoes’ before the homily have also been accepted; this is something completely new in the Church and receives here some general guidelines.

Mr Gennarini seems to completely ignore the very clear instructions of the “Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani” (nn. 105 and 128) and to the Praenotanda of the “Ordo Lectionum Missae” (nn. 15, 19, 38, 42), as directed in the letter.

Finally, the 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.

Now this is entirely at odds with my reading of the Cardinal’s letter, particularly “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.”

It seems quite obvious that Cardinal Arinze, on behalf of the Holy Father is certainly not saying that the practise of receiving Holy Communion in the communities is “fully legitimate”. For why would there be a need to “pass from the widespread manner” (note the words), to the “normal way in which the entire Church receives”.

Mr Gennarini appears to be rather disingenuous, when at the the end of this interview, he states:

the next step has been the study of the liturgical adaptations present in this liturgical-catechetical reality, a process which has concluded with this letter.

Clearly, the study of the liturgical ‘adaptations’ has not conlcuded with this letter. A point he acknoweldges just a little earlier when he states:

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.

To date, of course, the liturgical adaptations have not been verified beyond the instructions of the Cardinal’s letter.

My questions include: are the communities (the “communities”, not “members of the communities”) actually attending at least one parish mass per month?
Are the echoes and resonances still occuring unchanged as before the letter?
Are the liturgical books being followed?
Have the communities discontinued the practise of sitting to consume the blessed sacrament?
Has the NCW discontinued the use of “a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary”
Are the NCW using the other Eucharistic prayers.
And if not, why not?

 

[nagyszakall]

The Mass is only “the memorial of the Pasch of Jesus, of his passage from death to life”, and again: “The notion of sacrifice is a condescension for the pagan mentality. At the beginning of the Church, in the theology of the Mass, there was no sacrifice of Jesus, no sacrifice of the Cross, no Calvary, but only a sacrifice of praise.”

Where is this quote from?

 

[myfathersson]

The first is a quote from the ‘Book’ - see Carmen’s monologue on the Eucharist, Convivence, Saturday.

The second is from an address given by Kiko in the early 80’s. I will post the source when I can. It is however, quite compatible with the content of Carmen’s (and Kiko’s) teaching on the Eucharist, particularly the discussion about the 4th to 8th century changes in the Mass. eg Page 345 (English), speaking on the Offertory procession: “For a certain time Israel too had this pagan sense of the sacrificial worship, but we have already seen how little by little God purified this, bringing them from an idolatrous way of living the sacrifices of the temple to a liturgy of praise - a “sacrifice of praise”.”

and again, page 348 “The Eucharist is above all a sacrifice of praise, “sacrificium laudis””

There’s about thirty pages of this. As you know, this section essentially states that the early church Eucharist was a sacrifice of praise only, and that once “pagans” had entered the church ("Remember that the churches are now full of people who aren’t Jews and haven’t lived the Passover from generation to generation. They come from pagan temples where they performed their worship.ect) the sacrifice of praise became a pagan sacrifice again. (“just see how far away from the Passoever we are by this time”).

Concords with what a NCW priest said to me once - that the “pre-vatican II” idea of the sacrifice of the Mass has now been superseded.

 

[myfathersson]

The following links might be useful for those interested in the liturgical aspects:

areluctantsinner.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/vatileaks-whats-all-fuss-about-though.html

catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/on-correcting-deviant-liturgical-customs/

 

[myfathersson]

By the way, the last address of BXVI among the listed documents contains a very interesting sentence:

Quote:
Precisely to encourage people who have drifted away from the Church or have not received an appropriate formation to draw close to the riches of sacrament life, the Neocatechumens may celebrate the Sunday Eucharist in the small community

This should answer one point that many people don’t understand: “why should they have a separate Mass?”

Perhaps we should continue the Holy Father’s words:

…may celebrate the Sunday Eucharist in the small community, after the first Vespers of Sunday, **according to the dispositions of the diocesan bishop **(cf. Statute, art. 13 § 2).

However, every Eucharistic celebration is an action of the one Christ together with his one Church and is therefore essentially open to all who belong to his Church.

This **public character of the Blessed Eucharist **is expressed in the fact that every celebration of Holy Mass is ultimately directed by the bishop as a member of the Episcopal College, responsible for a specific local Church (cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, n. 26).

It is the task of the celebration in the small communities — **regulated by the liturgical books that must be faithfully followed, with the details approved in the Statue of the Way **— to help all who follow the Neocatechumenal itinerary to perceive the grace of being inserted in the saving mystery of Christ which makes possible a Christian witness that can assume radical features.

At the same time, the gradual growth in faith of the individual and of the small community should foster their insertion in the life of the large ecclesial community, whose usual place is in the liturgical celebration of the parish, in which and for which it is implemented (cf. Statute, art. 6).

Nevertheless in this process it is also important not to be separate from the parish community, precisely in the celebration of the Eucharist which is the true place of the unity of all, where the Lord embraces us in the different states of our spiritual maturity and unites us in the one bread that makes us one body (cf. 1 Cor 10:16f.).

Sounds like a gentle reminder of all that has been said before, but unfortunately ignored or disobeyed. Hopefully, those presently in the NCW will take the responsibility themselves to ensure compliance with the enduring teaching of the Church, while preserving the many positive elements of the NCW.

 

[Itari]

Not entering into the liturgical debate, but on the dogmatic side of things. What it actually says is that you do not speak of simply a dogma of redemption, but that of the paschal mystery.
This is because the paschal mystery of Christ’s cross and resurrection are at the center of the Good News that the church proclaims to the world. Gods saving plan was accomplished by his Blessed Passion, Resurrection and Ascension whereby dying he destroyed our death and by rising he restores our life. So the Church celebrates in the liturgy above all the Paschal Mystery by which Christ accomplished the work of salvation.

That line you mentioned from the catechisis of penance may be difficult to understand but it simply states that left to our own devices there is a great potential to fall into sin. This is because human weakness and the inclination to sin is not abolished. So what he is saying that in order to convert there is an acknowledgment of sin that must take place, a realization that without God man is weak and sinful.

Now for anyone that wants a copy of the catechesis they are filed in the Consilium pro Laicis so you have to work through that office to get one.

 

[nagyszakall]

the “communities”, not “members of the communities”

Could you clarify what you mean by that, please?

 

[nagyszakall]

Perhaps we should continue the Holy Father’s words:

Sounds like a gentle reminder of all that has been said before, but unfortunately ignored or disobeyed. Hopefully, those presently in the NCW will take the responsibility themselves to ensure compliance with the enduring teaching of the Church, while preserving the many positive elements of the NCW.

I disagree.

 

[nagyszakall]

The first is a quote from the ‘Book’ - see Carmen’s monologue on the Eucharist, Convivence, Saturday.

The second is from an address given by Kiko in the early 80’s. I will post the source when I can. It is however, quite compatible with the content of Carmen’s (and Kiko’s) teaching on the Eucharist, particularly the discussion about the 4th to 8th century changes in the Mass. eg Page 345 (English), speaking on the Offertory procession: “For a certain time Israel too had this pagan sense of the sacrificial worship, but we have already seen how little by little God purified this, bringing them from an idolatrous way of living the sacrifices of the temple to a liturgy of praise - a “sacrifice of praise”.”

and again, page 348 “The Eucharist is above all a sacrifice of praise, “sacrificium laudis””

There’s about thirty pages of this. As you know, this section essentially states that the early church Eucharist was a sacrifice of praise only, and that once “pagans” had entered the church ("Remember that the churches are now full of people who aren’t Jews and haven’t lived the Passover from generation to generation. They come from pagan temples where they performed their worship.ect) the sacrifice of praise became a pagan sacrifice again. (“just see how far away from the Passoever we are by this time”).

Concords with what a NCW priest said to me once - that the “pre-vatican II” idea of the sacrifice of the Mass has now been superseded.

Look, I don’t listen to Kiko as much as apparently you do, so I can’t tell you what he said in the early 80s. Anyway, the Holy See approved the “itinerary” and not its initiators. The Pope said it was a gift of the Holy Spirit and I can verify that it really has been for me. After having lived this post-baptismal catechumenate for quite some time, I tell you sincerely, that the catecheses given (the ones I heard, which is quite a bit so I tend to presume the same about those I didn’t) do not and have not made me think that the Mass is not a sacrifice and that everything was lovely until the fourth century and then things went wrong and that the Church was doing things all wrong up till Vatican II (although she evidently needed that council, just as much as all the other councils). This would be a total misunderstanding. The problem with sacrifice is exactly the pagan idea of sacrifice, a sort of bargain with God, which is how many people live their religion. The sacrifice of Christ is the contrary of that: he offered Himself. That’s the reason why the Eucharist, in fact, is the perfect "sacrifice of praise."

 

[nagyszakall]

But they are full of bizarre and unorthodox statements …]So he sends you an illness, he allows you to fall in love with someone elses wife or allows you to fall

So, what’s bizarre and unorthodox about this? Sincerely, I don’t get it.

 

[myfathersson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by myfathersson
the “communities”, not “members of the communities”

Could you clarify what you mean by that, please?

It is the community, not individual members of the community, that are instructed to attend the parish Mass at least once a month.

This should answer one point that many people don’t understand: “why should they have a separate Mass?”

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by myfathersson
Perhaps we should continue the Holy Father’s words:

Sounds like a gentle reminder of all that has been said before, but unfortunately ignored or disobeyed. Hopefully, those presently in the NCW will take the responsibility themselves to ensure compliance with the enduring teaching of the Church, while preserving the many positive elements of the NCW.

I disagree.

You disagree with what? The speech in question was at the ‘sending out’ of mission families. Why would the Holy Father spend so much of his address on liturgical matters? It is quite clear that he is reiterating statements made before regarding the liturgical attitudes and practises of the ‘way’, most particularly through Card. Arinze, but at other times too. The Holy Father reiterates that the Eucharist should be public, and therefore not “a separate mass”, going on to explain that the community Eucharist should feed its members into the larger parish Masses. And importantly, again instructs the communities to use the “liturgical books”.

Obviously the Holy Father didnt believe this was occuring, because he brought it up. Has anything changed since then? The conclusion is that the NCW is either ignorant, or disobedient.

The problem with sacrifice is exactly the pagan idea of sacrifice, a sort of bargain with God, which is how many people live their religion. The sacrifice of Christ is the contrary of that: he offered Himself. That’s the reason why the Eucharist, in fact, is the perfect “sacrifice of praise.”

I’m not sure that because Christ offered himself, that offering becomes a sacrifice of praise.

What is a “sacrifice of praise” by the way? Can you give me an example?

Now, in an interview in the late 90’s, Kiko made the following statement: “Jesus Christ is the Lord, only in him can we find salvation. He died for our sins and rose again for our redemption”

On first glance this seems ok. But in fact the Church has always taught that Jesus Christ died for our redemption - ie our sins/debts were redeemed through His Suffering and Death, for only he could take on the sins of the world. By virtue of the infinite merit of this act and his obedience to the Father, He was raised to life and has restored to us the supernatural gifts of grace, and eternal life. (see Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm)

So coming to the liturgy then, we see the ‘memorial’ or the re-occurrence of that same act of God, namely the redemption through the Cross, and the consequent fruit of that same act, namely the resurrection. It is then quite “right and just” to give praise and thanksgiving to the Father through and in Christ for this act. But, is it an act of the people - ie our praise and thanksgiving, or is it the act of God - ie the continuation of the sacrifice of the cross?

Well, I understand that the Church teaches us that the Eucharist is God’s action, not ours, and yet we are invited to witness it, offer praise in response and benefit from the merits of this same action. Indeed the mass is actually the sacrifice of Calvary.

The NCW might teach a quite different theology of the Mass, namely that it is 1. a “sacrifice of praise” and 2. a banquet. Yet these things are 1. the response of the people, and 2. the symbolic representation of the fruit of God’s action respectively, not the action itself. Jesus truly is the sacrificial lamb, also the sacrifical altar and the high priest. This is the act of God we witness when we assist at mass. Through this we are saved, and through this we can give thanks for the restoration of grace.

 

[myfathersson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by myfathersson
But they are full of bizarre and unorthodox statements …]So he sends you an illness, he allows you to fall in love with someone elses wife or allows you to fall

So, what’s bizarre and unorthodox about this? Sincerely, I don’t get it.

God is suprememly good. No evil (illness) comes from him, but rather from our sins.He gives us as many chances to convert as we need (and a little more). I know it is common to hear (“God sends me this suffering” etc) from the first step. But it is not true - it is through original sin that we have these problems. God only gives us good things.

 

[Itari]

This is true, but what what is meant by God sending an illness is supposed to be God allows., IE story of Job. The same way that illness is mysteriously linked to sin and evil, so is the faithfulness of God, according to his law, whom restores life. So those that are away from the spirit of God experience fall back into the slavery of sin. If God is the master of life then he, in granting human freedom, has allowed man to sin and fall away from him, so that man may repent and turn to him with the same freedom that he has used to betray him.

 

[nagyszakall]

It is the community, not individual members of the community, that are instructed to attend the parish Mass at least once a month.

They have to wear an NCW shirt for Mass according to you? How do you envisage going as community and not as individual?

You disagree with what?

The bold type set part. That is what you say (not the Pope) and I disagree.

I’m not sure that because Christ offered himself, that offering becomes a sacrifice of praise.

No, that is why it is perfect.

What is a “sacrifice of praise” by the way? Can you give me an example?

Mass I went to this morning.

The NCW might teach a quite different theology of the Mass, namely that it is 1. a “sacrifice of praise”

Is it the NCW really?
CCC 1330 “The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.”

and 2. a banquet.

Again, the NCW invented that?
CCC 1382
“VI. THE PASCHAL BANQUET
The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred **banquet **of communion with the Lord’s body and blood.”

 

[nagyszakall]

God is suprememly good. No evil (illness) comes from him, but rather from our sins.He gives us as many chances to convert as we need (and a little more). I know it is common to hear (“God sends me this suffering” etc) from the first step. But it is not true - it is through original sin that we have these problems. God only gives us good things.

Yes, but Satan asks permission to sift, and guess what, if you need it, God will give him permission… If you find this bizarre, it is because you’d find Scripture and the Fathers bizarre, too, if you read them. But you seem to read a lot of Kiko instead.

 

[myfathersson]

Quote:
You disagree with what?

The bold type set part. That is what you say (not the Pope) and I disagree.

You disagree that the NCW is being either ignorant or disobedient? Ok, then please explain the comments of the Holy Father, and answer whether the liturgical issues have been adequately addressed.

 

[myfathersson]

Now for anyone that wants a copy of the catechesis they are filed in the Consilium pro Laicis so you have to work through that office to get one

Great in theory. Of course, you will find that if you request a copy of the Directory through the Pontifical Council for the Laity, you will get the reply that you should contact your nearest Neocatechumenal Way community.

I recall Kiko in an interview in 2008 stating that he was looking forward to the examination of the texts of the Catecheses, so that they could be “published and made public”. Perhaps he changed his mind about that?