Neocatechumenal Way

[tafan]

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

Article 13.3 on the Eucharist states:

and footnote 49 reads:

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):

It does seem like this letter from Cardinal Arinze is the specific thing that needs to be addressed. I do not go to NCW masses, but we do have them in our parish and I have heard them described. However, I don’t want to rely on hearsay, so I wonder if anyone in the NCW could describe how each of the points of Cardinal Arinse’s instructions have been implemented?

 

[nagyszakall]

The letter of December 1, 2005 of Francis Card. Arinze says:

Almeno una domenica al mese le comunità del Cammino Neocatecumenale devono perciò partecipare alla Santa Messa della comunitá parrocchiale.

My tr.: “At least one Sunday a month, the communities of the NCW must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community.” It doesn’t specify which Holy Mass, just that it is of the parish community. The words “once a month” make sense only if it is presumed that the Holy Mass celebrated by the communities of the NCW is not part of the Sunday liturgical pastoral work of the parish. That presumption could have been bona fide until the 2008 modifications to the Statute, which clarified this.
The definitively approved Statute of 2008 says:

The celebrations of the Eucharist of the neocatechumenal communities on Saturday evening are part of the Sunday liturgical pastoral work of the parish and are open also to other faithful.

This means, that everyone can participate in whichever Holy Mass/celebration of the Eucharist (for those with difficulty: they mean the exact same thing). No one is taking attendance, and no one is required to wear an identifying mark whether that person is “neocat” or not. In fact no person is neocatechumenal. Being a recipient of an itinerary of Christian initiation doesn’t imprint a character on the soul; baptism, confirmation and holy orders do.
If after this, someone who actually read these texts says that the “communities” and “not individuals” disobey this, it could be that this person is either ignorant of the nature of the sacraments and/or the nature of the NCW, or simply malevolent.

 

[tafan]

The letter of December 1, 2005 of Francis Card. Arinze says:

My tr.: “At least one Sunday a month, the communities of the NCW must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community.” It doesn’t specify which Holy Mass, just that it is of the parish community. The words “once a month” make sense only if it is presumed that the Holy Mass celebrated by the communities of the NCW is not part of the Sunday liturgical pastoral work of the parish. That presumption could have been bona fide until the 2008 modifications to the Statute, which clarified this.
The definitively approved Statute of 2008 says:
This means, that everyone can participate in whichever Holy Mass/celebration of the Eucharist (for those with difficulty: they mean the exact same thing). No one is taking attendance, and no one is required to wear an identifying mark whether that person is “neocat” or not. In fact no person is neocatechumenal. Being a recipient of an itinerary of Christian initiation doesn’t imprint a character on the soul; baptism, confirmation and holy orders do.
If after this, someone who actually read these texts says that the “communities” and “not individuals” disobey this, it could be that this person is either ignorant of the nature of the sacraments and/or the nature of the NCW, or simply malevolent.

Thanks for the reply, rather legalistic, but logical. I do wonder why, if the NCW mass is a mass of the parish community, why the instruction by the cardinal was even necessary. Perhaps this interpretation is not what he meant.

What about other specific points in his letter?

 

[myfathersson]

My tr.: “At least one Sunday a month, the communities of the NCW must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community.” It doesn’t specify which Holy Mass, just that it is of the parish community. The words “once a month” make sense only if it is presumed that the Holy Mass celebrated by the communities of the NCW is not part of the Sunday liturgical pastoral work of the parish. That presumption could have been bona fide until the 2008 modifications to the Statute, which clarified this.
The definitively approved Statute of 2008 says:

Quote:
The celebrations of the Eucharist of the neocatechumenal communities on Saturday evening are part of the Sunday liturgical pastoral work of the parish and are open also to other faithful.

Sorry, I don’t buy this.

There are three problems with this argument, as I see it.

Firstly, you are implying that somehow the relationship between the communinities and the parish has been altered by the promulgation of the Statutes. This is far fetched as there has been no practical difference that I can observe. I agree this is ambiguous though.

Secondly, the letter of Card. Arinze is actually referenced in the Statutes, and specifically in relation to the articles on the Eucharist. If what you say is correct, why should the Statutes include the reference to that letter?

Thirdly, as late as last year Pope Benedict is instructing the communities that their ‘separate’ Eucharists should be ‘public’ and not actually be separate, and that they should feed their members into the larger ‘parish masses’

…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

and again when the Holy Father states:

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

He is clearly speaking against the idea of separate masses for people at different levels of spiritual maturity - ie the communities; who divide themselves from the parish and each other according to the “step” or the degree to which they have progressed along the ‘way’.

 

[nagyszakall]

you are implying that somehow the relationship between the communinities and the parish has been altered by the promulgation of the Statutes.

Far be it from me. I think those in the Holy See who made this addition did it because they recognize that, in accordance with the nature of the Sacred Liturgy (being public, a point that seems to be emphasized quite a bit) and the nature of the NCW (an itinerary of Christian initiation at the disposal of the bishop and implemented in the parish), the weekly Mass of the NCW is part of the regular Sunday pastoral work of the parish. What changed from the previous version is not that the Mass wasn’t part of the regular Sunday pastoral and now it will come to be part of it; not even the fact that this wasn’t recognized and now is being recognized; but rather that the conclusion was now drawn that this needs to be laid down in the Statute. Now why would someone want to enshrine such thing in the Statute? They must have noticed that somebody didn’t get it, somebody missed the obvious. That is, at least, my opinion of what must have happened, since the the nature of the Sacred Liturgy did not change, and there was no change introduced in the 2008 Satute regarding the nature of the NCW either.

 

[myfathersson]

They must have noticed that somebody didn’t get it, somebody missed the obvious

Ok, now seriously. Apply this same principle to the inclusion of the letter of Card Arinze in the Article of the Statutes regarding the Eucharist. What conclusions do you draw from that, pray tell?

 

[tafan]

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.

Did the NCW start following this part of the Cardinal’s instructions?

 

[Itari]

In a sense there are two competing factors between the letter and the statutes, and the key to understanding it is time. When a law is made that differs from the previous law it supercedes the old one. The same here. The letter states a number of things, but those that are referenced in the statutes that differ from the letter takes precedence in a juridical point of view. So the NCW did not revert to the generally prescribed manner of receiving communion because the statutes included the provision on its own on how to celebrate communion.

Also note that the in a legal way Arinze’s letter holds very little authority since it was written just by him and not approved by the different congregations as the Statuets are.

Now in the different parishes that I am aware of which had the NCW never closed off the masses to the public. However since the promulgation of the statutes there has been more so of an effort to publicize the masses. They are now announced in the parish bulletins and is considered the pastoral work.

I think that there was a significant change in meaning by the the statutes referencing it as the pastoral work of the parish. The thing it for years it seemed no knew where the masses fit in the great scheme of things. So the letter indicates an attitude of “sure you do your thing but come back once a month,” where in the statutes it states that this is the work of the parish and as such the requirement no longer exists.

 

[tafan]

In a sense there are two competing factors between the letter and the statutes, and the key to understanding it is time. When a law is made that differs from the previous law it supercedes the old one. The same here. The letter states a number of things, but those that are referenced in the statutes that differ from the letter takes precedence in a juridical point of view. So the NCW did not revert to the generally prescribed manner of receiving communion because the statutes included the provision on its own on how to celebrate communion.

Also note that the in a legal way Arinze’s letter holds very little authority since it was written just by him and not approved by the different congregations as the Statuets are.

Now in the different parishes that I am aware of which had the NCW never closed off the masses to the public. However since the promulgation of the statutes there has been more so of an effort to publicize the masses. They are now announced in the parish bulletins and is considered the pastoral work.

I think that there was a significant change in meaning by the the statutes referencing it as the pastoral work of the parish. The thing it for years it seemed no knew where the masses fit in the great scheme of things. So the letter indicates an attitude of “sure you do your thing but come back once a month,” where in the statutes it states that this is the work of the parish and as such the requirement no longer exists.

It seems that you bring up two significant points here, timing and authority.

As regards the latter, authority, how can you say that Arinze’s letter holds very little authority since it was written by him explicitly acting as the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Claiming that instructions from a prefect of a Vatican congregation holds little authority is extremely disturbing to me.

As regards the timing, I have a question about that. In December of 2005, the Prefect of the Congregation for Devine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments gave the NCW a maximum 2 year timeframe for transitioning the manner of receiving communion in their masses. You claim, and I am not arguing this point since I have not read the statutes, that the statutes approved in 2008 supersedes the 2005 letter. So, did the NCW start the transition of the manner of receiving the Eucharist in 2006 and it was finished by 2007? Then after approval of the statutes, did the NCW revert back to its former way, which was now approved?

Finally, can you please provide a reference in these approved statutes about the manner of receiving communion?

 

[Itari]

Its true that I made the divide in authority seem much larger than it is, but the letter is from the prefect of one congregation and the statues have been ratified by 7, if i remember correctly. Now in the statue it says in art 13:3
“Regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species, the neocatechumens receive it standing, remaining at their place.”
The implementation of the current method of was overseen by the current prefect Cañizares Llovera.

To your last point, the 2 years of change that were given was followed according to the diocesan bishops will. There are some diocese which required the change and others which made no fuss about it for that period of time, and to my knowledge it was never done widespread due to the incoming statutes which would have later corrected it.

 

[tafan]

Its true that I made the divide in authority seem much larger than it is, but the letter is from the prefect of one congregation and the statues have been ratified by 7, if i remember correctly. Now in the statue it says in art 13:3
“Regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species, the neocatechumens receive it standing, remaining at their place.”
The implementation of the current method of was overseen by the current prefect Cañizares Llovera.

To your last point, the 2 years of change that were given was followed according to the diocesan bishops will. There are some diocese which required the change and others which made no fuss about it for that period of time, and to my knowledge it was never done widespread due to the incoming statutes which would have later corrected it.

So basically, it was felt by most in the NCW that the 2005 directives from the Vatican could be ignored/disobeyed, in anticipation of the Vatican changing their mind, unless a local Bishop put his foot down? It does seem rather presumptuous of the organization, does it not?

Also, I believe the Roman Missal states that the priest is to receive communion first, and then the faithful. I see that this point is not addressed in the statutes. How is this done at NCW masses? Other threads have indicated that the NCW distributes communion to everyone and then the priest receives communioin at that same time as the rest of the community.

 

[Itari]

The thing is the statutes should have been published prior to the two years being up, however there were some unknown delays, and so realistically it missed the mark by only 5 months. So at that point, the period between the end of the year and the statutes, it was known that the statutes were approved, and that they contained provisions different to those of the letter. As such it wasnt so much of a presumption since it was known that the statutes were going to be released in just a short period of time, so changing would have made no sense to have to change again so soon.

That I know of usually the priest receives first (read consume) although in terms of time frame it may be no more than a few seconds in distance between priest and assembly, for the host. For the wine he distinctly receives first and then it is distributed to the assembly.

 

[nagyszakall]

Ok, now seriously. Apply this same principle to the inclusion of the letter of Card Arinze in the Article of the Statutes regarding the Eucharist. What conclusions do you draw from that, pray tell?

Can’t do that. Arinze’s letter didn’t exist at the time of the “ad experimentum” approval of the Statute.

 

[tafan]

The thing is the statutes should have been published prior to the two years being up, however there were some unknown delays, and so realistically it missed the mark by only 5 months. So at that point, the period between the end of the year and the statutes, it was known that the statutes were approved, and that they contained provisions different to those of the letter. As such it wasnt so much of a presumption since it was known that the statutes were going to be released in just a short period of time, so changing would have made no sense to have to change again so soon.

That I know of usually the priest receives first (read consume) although in terms of time frame it may be no more than a few seconds in distance between priest and assembly, for the host. For the wine he distinctly receives first and then it is distributed to the assembly.

So they started the transition in 2006 and then stopped a few months short of completing it because they knew what was coming down the pike? Sorry, it is just hard for me not to see a certain degree of disobedience was going on at the time. Not to speak of the many years before the cardinal’s letter. And it seems the attitude is continuing in spirit, if not in letter by the legalistic ploy of saying the NCW mass is part of the parish now, just so NCW do not have to go to mass with us normal folk once a month. It seems that directive was obviously geared towards drawing the NCW community closer to other Catholics at the parish level. Just saying how it appears from the outside looking in.

 

[Itari]

Actually I never said anything about prior to the letter, at least that comes to mind. Before then there had been no official pronouncement regarding the liturgy.

The main issue with the letter, which results in the interpretation offered by Mr. Gennarini, is the conversation which took place with the holy father prior to the letter being released. The tone of the encounter was not at all the one in which Cardinal Arinze used in his letter. The discrepancy is immediately clear from the very fact that a transition period was given to change. This was not initiated from the Holy Father. Its like saying this, “Oh sure go ahead and celebrate the mass incorrectly for two years.” Why this and not an immediate change?The Holy See has never been gentle with regards to liturgical abuses and has always quickly curtailed them. So then the transition period can be seen as a two year extension of the liturgical practice until the public approval of the statutes.

And for your claims of a legalistic ploy it is a simple logical exercise. The letter states that the communities of the NCW must attend the mass in the parish. Since the NCW mass has been affirmed as part of the pastoral work of the church then they automatically fullfill that requirement. I would actually go so far as to say that the requirement no longer exists because of the classification of the NCW as a parish mass.

 

[nagyszakall]

Actually I never said anything about prior to the letter, at least that comes to mind. Before then there had been no official pronouncement regarding the liturgy

That is not correct. In 1974 there was the first written approval of the liturgy of the Neocatechumenal communities as being “an excellent example” of the renewal of the liturgy (see Notitiae 95/96 (1974): 229).
There was a note from the CDW in 1988 (see L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, January 9, 1989) granting permission for the transfer of the sign of peace to “after the Prayer of the Faithful” (which permission was later extended by Arinze’s letter).
Then (although you might not call this a “pronouncement”, yet it speaks very loud), Blessed Pope John Paul II celebrated the Eucharist with two thousand people from the Neocatechumenal communities on the Feast of the Holy Family 1988 in Porto San Giorgio, with communion in the “widespread manner” of having cloth on the altar and people not forming a queue and not consuming the precious Body of Christ while walking back to the pew.

 

[Itari]

Ah yes you are correct. Off the top of my head I had forgotten that.

 

[myfathersson]

So they started the transition in 2006 and then stopped a few months short of completing it because they knew what was coming down the pike? Sorry, it is just hard for me not to see a certain degree of disobedience was going on at the time. Not to speak of the many years before the cardinal’s letter. And it seems the attitude is continuing in spirit, if not in letter by the legalistic ploy of saying the NCW mass is part of the parish now, just so NCW do not have to go to mass with us normal folk once a month. It seems that directive was obviously geared towards drawing the NCW community closer to other Catholics at the parish level. Just saying how it appears from the outside looking in

Well said.

Also, the statutes do not imply that the letter of Card Arinze was being superseded by any specific article. On the contrary, the letter is referenced clearly in relation to the Eucharistic practices. Why include that letter if it no longer had any import?

What about article 6:

…promote relations of profound communion and collaboration with all the faithful and with the other elements of the parish community

What is the “profound communion” if not the Eucharistic celebration?

Itari’s explanation is poor, but is the classic rendition of the most common justification offered by the NCW for its separate masses. The biggest problem is the clear difference in opinion between what Itari et al might say with the words of the Holy Father in January 2012:

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 …

It is the task of the celebration in the small communities — regulated by the liturgical books that **must **be faithfully followed

… 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).

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.).

Now, these words are contradictory to the opinion of Itari and other NCWs. Clearly the Holy Father is intending that the community should be celebrating the “liturgical celebration” of the parish" in “large ecclesial community”.

Moreover, the Holy Father again directs (“must”) that the community should follow the liturgical books. The manner of receiving communion in the NCW has been given approval only to the extent that members may “receive standing in their place” There is no permission given to taking a seat, waiting until all have a piece, and consuming simultaneously with the priest.

Clearly the Holy Father disagrees that the Statutes have superseded those instructions he issued through Cardinal Arinze.

Note the Holy Father’s comments during the address to the NCW in Jan 2006:

Precisely to help the Neocatechumenal Way to render even more effective its evangelizing action in communion with all the People of God, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments recently imparted to you in my name certain norms concerning the Eucharistic Celebration, after the trial period that the Servant of God John Paul II conceded. I am sure you will attentively observe these norms that reflect what is provided for in the liturgical books approved by the Church.

By faithfully keeping to every Church directive, you will make your apostolate even more effective, in tune and in full communion with the Pope and the Pastors of every Diocese. And in so doing, the Lord will continue to bless you with abundant pastoral fruits.

The willful blindness of the NCW in these matters is most easily seen in the comment of Itari:

Also note that the in a legal way Arinze’s letter holds very little authority…

But the letter is on a letterhead, Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum, and clearly states :

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.

The decisions of the Holy Father, made formally in and through the Congregation. Pope Benedict, later in Jan 2006 says these were “imparted in my name”.

the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments recently imparted to you in my name certain norms concerning the Eucharistic Celebration

At no stage did the Holy Father rescind this, or refer in any sense to those instructions having been replaced. IN fact , as the above quote from 2012 shows, he is only reinforcing those decisions

 

[Itari]

So perhaps an important question to ask is why is that the statues say different from that of the letter?

 

[nagyszakall]

And it seems the attitude is continuing in spirit, if not in letter by the legalistic ploy of saying the NCW mass is part of the parish now, just so NCW do not have to go to mass with us normal folk once a month. It seems that directive was obviously geared towards drawing the NCW community closer to other Catholics at the parish level. Just saying how it appears from the outside looking in.

Well, first of all, the recipients of the NCW do go to other celebrations of the Holy Mass. Perhaps there are some who do that quite seldom, but then there is a colossal number of Catholics who go even less to ANY celebration of the Mass. I think, that the majority of the recipients of the NCW do attend other parish Masses to various degrees. I’d say, given the tragic situation of millions and millions who don’t go to anything, it should be quite a positive thing if you get people to attend on Sundays and holy days of obligation on a regular basis. The second problem with the idea is that while no one is taking the attendance of super practicing, moderately practicing, non-practicing or half a** Catholics, some people seem to have a thing on taking attendance when it comes to the NCW. The problem is embedded in what you wrote: “us normal folk”. If by that you mean every Catholic who is not recipient of the NCW, you should realize that neocatechumens go to other parish Masses by far greater percentage than the “normal folk”.