Neocatechumenal Way

[myfathersson]

Lutheranism and Doctrinal error. (and the liturgy)

If you have been involved in the NCW for 22 years, you will recall when we didn’t say the creed, the orates fratres, no washing of the priests hands, no “lord I am not worthy”, no agnes dei etc.

Why was that?

On what basis did the founders eliminate any reference to the sacrifice of the Mass in the NCW liturgy? Thank goodness there have been some changes here - but I’ll get to that in a moment.

How does the altar become the table?
The Priest become the presbyter?
Why does the parish have a Holy Mass, but the community have a “Eucharist”? Yes I know that the Mass is the Eucharist, but that’s not what I’m getting at. There has been a distinction made by the NCW between the Mass of the church and the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. Why? Well, seeing as though you have read the Directory, you will reply that Kiko and Carmen have alleged that the Church lost its way at the Pax Constantino, and only recovered it during the Vat C II. The Directory alleges that the Mass became too obscured by “pagan accretions” including the idea of 'sacrifice", the theology of the Transubstantiation, etc.

Here’s a quote from Book 1 :

“today, the dogma of Redemption is no more spoken of, but rather, the mystery of the Pasch of Jesus”

. Really?

and another:

“The Holy Spirit doesn’t lead us to perfection, to good works”

Oh I see.

and again:

“Christianism doesn’t require anything from us…God forgives freely the sins of those who believe that Jesus is the Savior”

One more:

“when I commit thousands of sins I know that Jesus Christ does not reject me at all since my sins cannot separate me from God. Your sins do not have the power to separate you from God”

Is that what the Church teaches about sin?
Finally, get this:

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.”

compare that with the pronouncement of the COuncil of Trent: (22nd session)

(Canon 1) “If anyone say that in the Mass, a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, let him be anathema”

(Canon 3) “If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is that only of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the Cross but not a propitiatory one let him be anathema”

I could go on…

 

[myfathersson]

And I will…

Another quote from the Catechetical Directory:

“There’s no Eucharist without the assembly. It is the whole assembly who celebrates the feast and the Eucharist; because Eucharist is the exultance of human assembly in communion; because this created Church, this communion is exactly the place where God’s action is manifested. It is from this assembly that Eucharist springs"QUOTE]

Is this Catholic?

Again:

“The bread and the wine are not made to be exposed, because they rot. The bread and the wine are made to be eaten and drunk. I always tell to those who build huge tabernacles: If Jesus Christ wanted the Eucharist to stay there, He would have manifested Himself in the shape of a stone that doesn’t rot. The bread is necessary for the banquet, to lead us to Easter. The real presence is always a medium to lead us to a goal, Easter. It is not something absolute: Jesus Christ is present in function of Easter mystery.”

So what about adoration and reservation of the Blessed Sacrament? (Nor do the NCW kneel during the consecration.)

Hence the priest’s role is diminished. If there is no sacrifice, there is little reason for the priesthood other than as a functionary. Incidentally, it is interesting that Pope Francis recently told some newly ordained priests, including some from the Redemptoris Mater (NCW) seminary, not to accept being mere functionaries but to be pastors.

Similarly with forgiveness, as the only really grave sin is betraying the community:

“There was quite only a mortal sin for the primitive Church: apostasy, that is, the rejection of the Way or the escape from it, because people, when they are walking through the Way, are weak and fall, but they won’t abandon the Way… That’s why the primitive Church didn’t demand self-examination at the end of the day—it was introduced by the Jesuits only later—but in the morning, when the believer awakes, because to convert is to stand before God when you start walking.”

Hence, forgiveness has a primarily communitarian context - and the scrutinies take this on. So too the celebration of the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday. This has always been understood by the Church in the context of the institution of priesthood, but not so in the community. Here, instead, it takes on the function and meaning of reconciliation, rather than service. So the brothers are invited to wash the feet of those brothers who may have offended them in some way during the past year. You can imagine how that might turn out.

"With the Council of Trent and by the XVI to the XX century, all stands still. Confessionals appear, but this little houses are very recent. The need for confessionals arises when the form of private, medicinal and devotional confession introduced by the monks is generalized. … It is Saint Charles Borromeus who places confessionals everywhere, specifying even the details of the grille. … Now you will understand that many of the things Luther said were well founded

.”

Anyway, leaving the community is a ‘bad thing’ in this context. Obviously. You will often hear “You were called to this way” or “not everybody is called to be salt and light. The Lord has invited you.” etc. I know of members who have left the community, being told be their otherwise brothers, “your children will become murderers and prostitutes”, “you have embraced the devil, and are on the way to hell” etc.

So, we have a sort of denial of the sacrifice of the Mass, the real presence, the priesthood (apart from the shared priesthood of the people), the individual confession. And yet we see in recent years, more acceptance of the practise of adoration, devotions such as the rosary, the promotion of indiviual confession etc. The reason is made clear by Kiko in Book 1, where he states that many in the Church are not yet ready to let go of these pagan accretions and so we ‘play along’ until the Church catches up with us and changes to conform to our theology.

This is very protestant - and all rather Lutheran.

 

[myfathersson]

In fact, many members have been told, and believe, that Kiko had a vision of OUr Blessed Mother wherein he was told that the NCW is the future model of the Church, and that eventually the entire Church will embrace this way. Many, many members actually believe this, and this becomes another reason for the elitist attitude that we often see. It is most often visible in the young members who have been thoroughly brain-washed in this manner.

Check this out:

The pope not only thinks, but also knows for sure, that the Neocatechumenate way is the only way that can transform the church as it was during the time of the apostles. This is the very reason why the statues of the Way have been approved. The Neocatechumenate way has not been classified or categorized as a movement. The WAY is known as the only Christian Initiation. The reason why it is not accepted in many of the Churches is because of the lack of interest on part of the Bishops. The Bishops are more interested in comfortable luxury life. If the Bishop accepts the WAY in his diocese, the Bishop himself would become full time busy serving the faithful. This is what the Bishops don?t want. Again they have their own traditional way of dealing with things. The maximum that they would support is the Charismatic movement. They don?t seem to have zeal for their own flock. They are interested whether a Catholic comes for a Sunday mass Eucharist. They expect the faithful to approach them. They don?t think of visiting those faithful who have left the Church or who don?t come to Church. And when life is simple and things are going well why waste energy on things that will only spoil ones happiness. But this is not the case with all the Bishops around the world. Some Bishops who are interested in starting the WAY, have very few priest / resources or people are more interested in some thing else. Some Bishops are really interested in changing the life of their faithful. They are the real figure of Jesus Christ. Like where I live, the Bishop of my diocese is a staunch supporter of the Charismatic movement. We are not allowed to start new communities in other parishes. Even after the approval of the Neocatechumenate statues the Bishop is not serious. But courage, I have known some worthy Bishops who have started the WAY in their parishes. The moment the statues were approved the Bishop called all the priests for a live-in together and ordered “Boys within a month I want to see all the faithful in these communities”. And the priests are carrying the order of the Bishop faithfully. Such Bishops are very few. The Vatican estimates that it will take around 275 to 300 years to change the entire Catholic Church into the Neocatechumenal Way. I pray that it happens soon. God Bless The Pope and the Catholic Church. Peace Xavier

And then this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=91153

 

[Igypop83]

I also have one question:
Does the neocatechumenal way believe that the holy eucharist is a “true and real sacrifice” as stated at the council of trient. Not only a sacrifice of worship and praise but an atonement for our sins where christ himself pays for our sins instead of us.
If so: is there any catechesis where exactly this is said. I never heard it in the few months since I have been in the community.

 

[nagyszakall]

I also have one question:
Does the neocatechumenal way believe that the holy eucharist is a “true and real sacrifice” as stated at the council of trient. Not only a sacrifice of worship and praise but an atonement for our sins where christ himself pays for our sins instead of us.
If so: is there any catechesis where exactly this is said. I never heard it in the few months since I have been in the community.

Please, of course we believe that.

 

[Igypop83]

Please, of course we believe that.

Fine and where would I hear that? Is there any catechesis or official document where this is stated? What about the quotes from the catechetical directory, myfathersson posted above. I actually remember both our priest AND a catechist saying that the early church didn’t have priests but presbyters and that the idea of sacrifice came into the church later.
My fiance told me (I wasn’t there) that a catechist said, that private masses which the priest celebrates (for the dead) without the faithful, were an error and that we shouldn’t be doing that. That statement would only make sence if the mass wasn’t a sacrifice that actually the priest (or Christ THROUGH the priest) is doing but a banquett for which also the faithful are needed which is definitely NOT what the church teaches.

 

[nagyszakall]

Goodness nagyszakall, you’re beginning to sound like a catechist!

My community does not have a bank account, and I don’t know of any other that has. If one does, that is plainly not in accordance with the nature and the statutes of the NCW. I don’t know who told you that we are encouraged to give alms only to recipients of the NCW. That is not true at all. Sometimes we pay some expenses together, e.g. a retreat: to me that’s like you go to a restaurant with your friends and at the end everyone pays something toward the bill. We don’t have a treasurer who keeps the “money of the community”. Such thing does not exist. My catechists never asked me for a farthing.
We also make collections for the parish, which is given to the parish and must be documented by the parish and I think they do it. As for certain expenses that you mentioned in regards international meetings, guess what? In accordance with the Statutes article 4 § 2.

When in a diocese it is considered useful to financially support initiatives and activities for the evangelization realized through the Neocatechumenal Way, the diocesan bishop, at the request of the International Responsible Team of the Way, will consider the suitability of erecting an autonomous diocesan foundation, with juridical personality, regulated by its own statutes, which will also be recognized by the civil authorities. This may also be supported by oblatory donations made by participants in the Neocatechumenal Way, as well as by foundations and other individuals.

and it is all transparent and documented. I know of one foundation like this, whose sole member is the Ordinary of that diocese.
So, could I please do with my money what I want?
Again you sound like a conspiracy theorist, thinking that we have off shore accounts and are secretly funding I don’t know what. Just try to suppose for a moment that participants of the NCW are ordinary human beings, individuals who haven’t been brainwashed and do what they please with their own money, individually. It will be an interesting exercise for you.

 

[nagyszakall]

Fine and where would I hear that? Is there any catechesis or official document where this is stated? What about the quotes from the catechetical directory, myfathersson posted above. I actually remember both our priest AND a catechist saying that the early church didn’t have priests but presbyters and that the idea of sacrifice came into the church later.
My fiance told me (I wasn’t there) that a catechist said, that private masses which the priest celebrates (for the dead) without the faithful, were an error and that we shouldn’t be doing that. That statement would only make sence if the mass wasn’t a sacrifice that actually the priest (or Christ THROUGH the priest) is doing but a banquett for which also the faithful are needed which is definitely NOT what the church teaches.

You just heard it (read it) from me. Sure you don’t have to believe it. I have been a recipient for 22 years and I tell you that there is a graduality. This is intended for people who would like to become Catholic Christians. Later on our textbook will be the CCC, we study the Fathers, we adore the Blessed Sacrament, etc. But again, if you don’t like it, no one is obliging you. Will you trust the Holy See when they tell you that this thing is from the Holy Spirit?
I haven’t read all the posts of hisfathersson… give me a minute.
By the way, do you know the etymological origin of the word priest? Check it out, because what you wrote does not make much sense.

 

[myfathersson]

When in a diocese it is considered useful to financially support initiatives and activities for the evangelization realized through the Neocatechumenal Way, the diocesan bishop, at the request of the International Responsible Team of the Way, will consider the suitability of erecting an autonomous diocesan foundation, with juridical personality, regulated by its own statutes, which will also be recognized by the civil authorities. This may also be supported by oblatory donations made by participants in the Neocatechumenal Way, as well as by foundations and other individuals.

Sounds like a great idea!! But how often is this happening? I have never seen it occur. As you know, the community does keep its own bag of money. Sometimes, as you say, it is in response to the costs of the convivence or some-such, but the tenth is quite different. As you know, it is collected, managed and distributed by the responsibles. You will have to do better than that.

We also make collections for the parish, which is given to the parish and must be documented by the parish and I think they do it.

I don’t doubt that collections can be made for the parish. This is what should always occur. You know and I know, however, that it is the exception.

and it is all transparent and documented.

No, it is not transparent and documented. This is the point where the word ‘disingenuous’ comes to mind. I know that in some cases cash is paid into a Diocese (no-one really knows where it comes from) then paid straight out again to the Mission families, who then return it from their account to a separate NCW account, and back around the money goes. The Auditors would have a field day, except they don’t see it.

I know of one foundation like this, whose sole member is the Ordinary of that diocese.

Can you give us the details of this foundation please? - the Diocese name will do. I can find further information about its detail.

 

[myfathersson]

By the way, I don’t mean to criticise the Mission families. They are awesome! And do lots of good things for the parish.

 

[Itari]

I would like to propose a simple logical argument. (1) The Holy see, specifically the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, are responsible for the saying what the Catholic faith is and what it is not.
(2) All the documents have been reviewed and approved by this congregation.
(3) Therefore the documents contain what the Catholic Faith is.

So perhaps it is a dimension to the faith which people are not familiar with, but regardless of personal opinions and views, whether or not I like it, catholic doctrine remains the same.

Now for a simple extension of this logic. Why would the CDF approve the doctrine of a group that does not believe that the “holy eucharist is a “true and real sacrifice””? Or all the concerns expressed by myfathersson? Its seems like the CDF must have lost its mind to approve a heretical group such as this! But given my minimal theological understanding, and all of the bishops that reviewed these documents have a significantly greater understanding than I on matters of the faith, I am keen to trust the judgment of the church on outlining the faith, and they have said that the catechesis is in line with it. There is a reason that they have gone through all of the documents and placed CCC references without changing much of the content. (A note on chronology, the catechesis were published prior to the CCC) It means that they must have seen and understood what was written in a different context than what you have read and seen that it was good and correct.

If they went through it, and changed practically nothing and approved it it means that what was written before the approval is just as true as what was after the approval.

On the question of the tithing, you are extremely incorrect in saying that it is used for the seminaries and the like. As it is written in the statutes the NCW does not own property. Now what is done with that money? Well the first sum is brought to the bishop to dispose of according to how he sees fit. The following is given to the pastor. If this is done any other way it is done incorrectly. Seminaries are on diocesan property and are funded by donations/the diocese.

 

[Igypop83]

You just heard it (read it) from me. Sure you don’t have to believe it. I have been a recipient for 22 years and I tell you that there is a graduality. This is intended for people who would like to become Catholic Christians. Later on our textbook will be the CCC, we study the Fathers, we adore the Blessed Sacrament, etc. But again, if you don’t like it, no one is obliging you.

No that’s not enough for me. What use is it if the catechists “believe” in it but do not TEACH the people. As I said, I never heard it in the few months, I’ve been in our community.
What’s wrong with adoring the Blessed Sacrament from the beginning? And things like the sacrificial character of the mass are “basics” for catholics. They should be taught in the very beginning.

Will you trust the Holy See when they tell you that this thing is from the Holy Spirit?

The church also approves of private masses. Why then did our catechist tell us, they were a “maldevelopment”? Obviously not everything that the church allows is automatically ok…

I haven’t read all the posts of hisfathersson… give me a minute.
By the way, do you know the etymological origin of the word priest? Check it out, because what you wrote does not make much sense.

 

[nagyszakall]

Lutheranism and Doctrinal error. (and the liturgy)

If you have been involved in the NCW for 22 years, you will recall when we didn’t say the creed, the orates fratres, no washing of the priests hands, no “lord I am not worthy”, no agnes dei etc.

Why was that?

On what basis did the founders eliminate any reference to the sacrifice of the Mass in the NCW liturgy? Thank goodness there have been some changes here - but I’ll get to that in a moment.

How does the altar become the table?
The Priest become the presbyter?
Why does the parish have a Holy Mass, but the community have a “Eucharist”? Yes I know that the Mass is the Eucharist, but that’s not what I’m getting at. There has been a distinction made by the NCW between the Mass of the church and the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. Why? Well, seeing as though you have read the Directory, you will reply that Kiko and Carmen have alleged that the Church lost its way at the Pax Constantino, and only recovered it during the Vat C II. The Directory alleges that the Mass became too obscured by “pagan accretions” including the idea of 'sacrifice", the theology of the Transubstantiation, etc.

Here’s a quote from Book 1 : . Really?

and another: Oh I see.

and again:

One more:
Is that what the Church teaches about sin?
Finally, get this:

compare that with the pronouncement of the COuncil of Trent: (22nd session)

I could go on…

Goodness gracious! You are taking stuff out of context totally. If this were true, today I would be a Lutheran, and surely wouldn’t bother to reply to your posts. The fact is though that I am Catholic and feel very much loved and accepted by the Church, the views of which you do not represent.

 

[Itari]

The support that the Mission families receive are either from the parish in which they are situated, in which case under the discretion of the pastor, or they are in the form of individual donations. There are many that receive nothing from the parish and rely on employment.

As you have noted retreats are paid by those who attend, and often collections are done for parochial needs. The community sometimes has a small amount of money for when liturgical elements need to be bought, or for eucharistic expenses, of which I hope there are no objections.

Regarding the tithe, the bishop knows where the money is coming from, there is always a meeting the first time it happens outlining that the source of the money is from the brothers that have done second step. Once it is in the parish coffers what is done with it is out of the hands of the NCW. I dont think you imagine that they have control of what is done with diocesan/parochial funds. That would be impressive!

For Igypop83, Well the church hasent said automatically that the NCW was OK. Its taken 40 years of scrutiny, being analysed piece by piece to get to the approval of statues, the directory, the different passages and the liturgical aspects performed therin.

 

[myfathersson]

I would like to propose a simple logical argument. (1) The Holy see, specifically the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, are responsible for the saying what the Catholic faith is and what it is not.
(2) All the documents have been reviewed and approved by this congregation.
(3) Therefore the documents contain what the Catholic Faith is.

If you read the Catechetical Directory, you will note that the additions of references to the CCC are not always consistent to the body of the text (ie what Kiko is saying). The additions of the CCC references are corrections to the text. But I admit to being somewhat confused as to why they were not more direct about that. I suppose the fact that the Directory is secret might be a factor.

Why would the CDF approve the doctrine of a group that does not believe that the "holy eucharist is a “true and real sacrifice”

That is a good question. Perhaps they believed the gentle admonitions (eg Cardinal Arinze’s letter of Dec 2005) would suffice. Perhaps the influence of supportive Cardinals (eg Filoni?) trumped those that might have been worried. In any case, we are obliged to resist anything that does not accord with the enduring teachings of the Church. Ever heard of the Aryan heresy?

 

[Nadq]

Hi Nagyszakall,

About the internal forum, which in your opinion does not apply to the scrutinies:

**Approved Statutes of the NCW:

Art. 19
§ 2. The scrutinies, inspired by the catechumenal itinerary of the RCIA, help the
neocatechumens in their way of conversion, respecting the conscience and the internal forum, in accordance with canonical norms.79

79 See c. 220 CIC and c. 23 CCEO**

We can agrue forever if what I have seen is the general practice or the exception, nevertheless I have read about numerous similar examples on the net (happening in various countries). Yes, many people stay, but often pressed to feel guilty as if they have betrayed the community (as the catechists say, “there is always a Juda among us” and one does not want to be labelled as one). And many leave disillusioned as well, those who leave are more than the ones, who stay, although it is difficult to swallow the bitter pill of being deprived of many years of one’s life for something, that is not worth the sacrifice.

Come on, somebody asking you to declare your income will be explicitly illegal, NCW will be carefull not to cross this threshold. Why is everything so different, separated from the rest of the church and in competition with it - separate donations, eucharists, icons, songs? Is not NCW meant to be a part of it or there are other hidden agendas? BTW. I was praying the rosary before joining the NCW, why do I need to wait for stage XYG to be enlighted to do that?

In what I saw personally and read from other catholic posts as well - the approved statutes are only the top of the iceberg, the otherneath covered ideas, attitudes and behaviours are what makes the difference.

 

[Itari]

Unless the words have been changed the CCC are not corrections. Footnotes =/= change in text.

Also it is not a logical conclusion to assume that arinze’s letter and others bishops concerns would suffice as a ‘correction’ for the CDF without changing the content of the text. Well primarily arinze’s letter was liturgically based, not doctrinally. And i dont think it makes sense that they would allow such ‘blatant lutheran theology’ to escape with their seal of approval. And yes I have read of the aryan heresy, and they were denounced at different councils, exonerated at some point only to get booted again. Also the heresy dealt with an issue of Jesus’ divinity, which had an limited theological background at the time leading to the confusion which led to the exoneration and following denunciation of hereticism. There are no such confusions anymore. Given that that the documents were reviewed during the period of Ratzinger as prefect of CDF, the approval cites 97-03 as the years of review, and he is very familiar with the theology of the church. I think it would discredit his name to say that he, the one who was considered as being super strict and ‘old school’, would have made such a grievous blunder in allowing a heretical group to carry the churches seal of approval.

But perhaps its true that the CDF, and all the other congregations involved in the approval of the neocatechumenal way, made a mistake and allowed a heretical group to slip past its fingers and the only the staunch resistors have the right.

For Nadq. what you have posted means that those that are present in the scrutinies are bound to the internal forum. So to break it means to have broken the same seal to which a priest is bound to. And you are free to pray what you will. For those that are far away things are done in stages to get them to a level of faith where they understand what they are doing. No wise catechechist would have told you not to pray whatever you wish to.

also zeal =/= elitism

 

[Nadq]

Whereas the followers of the neocatechumenal way are the zealous ones and not lukewarm like the others … yes, I have heard that as well

 

[Nadq]

HI Nagyszakall,

Just try to suppose for a moment that participants of the NCW are ordinary human beings.

Not only that, there are people with very good intentions and deeds in the NCW, that is what kept me there for so long in spite of my resentment to many other things. However this fact does not make all practices of the NCW OK and that is what we are here commenting on.

 

[Allamanda]

I know that in some cases cash is paid into a Diocese (no-one really knows where it comes from) then paid straight out again to the Mission families, who then return it from their account to a separate NCW account, and back around the money goes. The Auditors would have a field day, except they don’t see it.

Speaking as a member of a mission family who has never heard of anything remotely like that (we are very rarely helped by collections from communities), please, please tell me where these “some cases” are, and I’ll try to get my family sent on mission there.

Or don’t the mission families get the money at all? That would be disappointing.