Neocatechumenal Way

[nagyszakall]

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**

What I tried to argue was that you were incorrect in saying that the internal forum is not respected (which is anyway a generalization, a statement that makes it sound like it is happening everywhere and always, or at least most of the time, whereas you were saying it based on your particular experience).
I don’t see how the fact that the statutes mention internal forum makes you right in saying that it is being disrespected in the scrutinies. the footnote refers to canon 220 which is NOT about internal forum but reputation and privacy.
In fact, the moment you say something publicly (in the scrutiny or elsewhere), I don’t see how you can consider it a matter of internal forum any more.
I even heard some people say (totally confused) that you are not allowed to say anything that you said in your own confession previously. Whereas the reality is, that I can reveal whatever I want from my own confession; the seal is for the priest and whoever overhears a confession by accident.

 

[nagyszakall]

HI Nagyszakall,

**quote Originally Posted by nagyszakall View Post
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.

You quoted me out of context. I proposed that exercise in reference to voluntary alms giving, individual, or made in cooperation with others. It was a reply to hisfathersson’s post, to the effect that individuals have a right to decide what they do with their own money. And thank you for acknowledging that there are some people who are recipients of the NCW and not evil. However, those kind of statements are usually made as an excuse for saying bad things about a group of people collectively, which you have done when, for example, you said, ‘the group think of itself as “elite”.’ Those kind of statements make it harder to reason calmly about what we are commenting on (which is not about the question whether nice people in the NCW make all of its practices OK, as you stated). I am trying to argue through facts, documents and opinions informed by my own experiences that certain concerns mentioned in this thread are mistaken. In your case the weirdest ones were the “obligatory donation” and the problem with internal forum. I sincerely hope that no one ever obliged you in the NCW to make a donation, and that no one ever, ever revealed anything you said exclusively in confession. I do hope those statements were mistaken on your part. Therefore, I thought they needed clarification.

Thank you.

 

[nagyszakall]

What’s wrong with adoring the Blessed Sacrament from the beginning?

No one said it was wrong. Normally there are people (some or many) coming to the catechesis who haven’t been to sacraments in years. Perhaps you could understand that bringing them to adoration on day one is not the most effective approach. Besides, no one is forbidden to participate in adoration besides the meetings of the NCW. In my parish, for example, there is perpetual adoration. Anyone can grab a bulletin, be informed of it, and participate as they wish. The NCW attempts to reach those who don’t come, and brings them gradually. I don’t see why you should have a problem with that.

 

[Igypop83]

No one said it was wrong. Normally there are people (some or many) coming to the catechesis who haven’t been to sacraments in years. Perhaps you could understand that bringing them to adoration on day one is not the most effective approach. Besides, no one is forbidden to participate in adoration besides the meetings of the NCW. In my parish, for example, there is perpetual adoration. Anyone can grab a bulletin, be informed of it, and participate as they wish. The NCW attempts to reach those who don’t come, and brings them gradually. I don’t see why you should have a problem with that.

Well I think for someone who hasn’t been to sacraments in years, adoration would be far better than recieving Holy Communion. Especially for those, who might be in the state of mortal sin. I know of a woman in our community who said, she wasn’t to confession for a very long times and would like to go again. But nevertheless she is already recieving Holy Communion because noone told her that we should first go to confession. Actually I don’t remember ever being told that we should first confess our mortal sins BEFORE Communion. Shouldn’t that be said in the very beginning when you are dealing with people who are new to faith?

EDIT: I know that most people at first thought that me and my fiance were cohabitating but no one told us that we shouldn’t be recieving communion.

 

[Igypop83]

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.

That’s not an answer. So does that stand in the directory or is that a misquote? Is it true that at beginning “there was no sacrifice of Jesus, no sacrifice of the Cross, no Calvary, but only a sacrifice of praise.”? Or that “the bread and the wine are not made to be exposed, because they rot.”? Do you believe that? If not and the quotes are taken out of context, then it would be nice if you explained them. Because no one is giving me any answers. I was just talking to my fince’s uncles (who is a catechet) but all he is repeating is, how wonderful his experiences with god and the way are and that I should pray for the answers that I need. This is just not enough for me.

 

[Nadq]

Hi Nagyszakall.

I will explain this further - according to what is stated in the statutes and in the CCC I don’t believe it is right to push people to reveal in the scrutinies publicly something, which they believe is a private and sensitive matter. And yes, I am quite convinced this is not the exception, but the way it functions (you must reveal everything in order to be fully intergrated in the group), and the catechist are not acting on their own, but receiving instructions on how to do it. Plus it happen to me, that the seal of this secrecy was broken and things I said became public, even a member of my family was mocked at… but I would like to assume that this is an exception.

the footnote refers to canon 220 which is NOT about internal forum but reputation and privacy.
QUOTE]

 

[Nadq]

Yes, I agree, but I note the tendency of becoming defiant, and none of us - neither me nor myfathersson generalized, that people in NCW are evil (I remember him saying that some families in mission are awesome . I am rather struggling with some of the statements of the catechist, as using as a motivational tool a sense of superiority or superstitious concerns of what may happen to you if you drop out, I don’t believe this is a justified method of convincing others.

Also the lack of accountablity is raising red flags - it is a common practice for people to donate money for a certain cause, were they even non-believers, but to delegate the right to decide exclusively and not accoutably to the responsible - that sounds suspicious. So does also the fact, that the money is funding exclusively the NCW and I was even told that this can count as absolution from the obligation to donate to the church, as understably your resources are not limitless.

You quoted me out of context.

 

[nagyszakall]

Well I think for someone who hasn’t been to sacraments in years, adoration would be far better than recieving Holy Communion.

I agree, but let’s make it clear, the NCW does not start with Holy Communion either.

Especially for those, who might be in the state of mortal sin. I know of a woman in our community who said, she wasn’t to confession for a very long times and would like to go again. But nevertheless she is already recieving Holy Communion because noone told her that we should first go to confession.

Did you tell her? We do have confession in the NCW before we ever celebrate Mass together. I’m sure your fiance told you that also, 'cause apparently you weren’t around for that either.

Actually I don’t remember ever being told that we should first confess our mortal sins BEFORE Communion. Shouldn’t that be said in the very beginning when you are dealing with people who are new to faith?

Perhaps you weren’t around? But you do know that, don’t you? And if you find out about someone that they don’t, you do tell them, don’t you? And if you find yourself with a group that deliberately is trying to bring people in mortal sin to Holy Communion, you never go back there again, right? I wouldn’t.

 

[nagyszakall]

That’s not an answer. So does that stand in the directory or is that a misquote? Is it true that at beginning “there was no sacrifice of Jesus, no sacrifice of the Cross, no Calvary, but only a sacrifice of praise.”? Or that “the bread and the wine are not made to be exposed, because they rot.”?

I can’t verify that, because I do not have a copy of the text. However, I know that the directory originates from transcripts of audio tapes. I have listened to live catechesis (of course not the ones that were recorded and transcribed but others based on them) and I also know that the CDF studied the material for six years and the Holy See ended up approving it. The decree from the Pontifical Council for the Laity is clearly stating that. I attached a photocopy for you. It is in Italian; if you don’t understand Italian, I suggest Google Translate or something of the sort. I presumed those quotes to be out of context, because the only other option would be that they are either false (and my father taught me to give people the benefit of the doubt: hisfathersson claims that they are quoted from the directory), or that the CDF (with Ratzinger heading it) has gone totally coocoo.

Do you believe that?

The first one is half a sentence. If that half sentence is referring to the Mass, of course, I don’t believe it. The second sentence is actually true. Bread and wine are made by human hands to be eaten and drunk. That, however, does not mean that exposing the Blessed Sacrament is wrong. If that is your question, then, no, I don’t believe that exposing the Blessed Sacrament is wrong.

If not and the quotes are taken out of context, then it would be nice if you explained them. Because no one is giving me any answers. I was just talking to my fince’s uncles (who is a catechet) but all he is repeating is, how wonderful his experiences with god and the way are and that I should pray for the answers that I need. This is just not enough for me.

Exactly. I think you shouldn’t be going there if it only upsets you.

 

[nagyszakall]

Hi Nagyszakall.

I will explain this further - according to what is stated in the statutes and in the CCC I don’t believe it is right to push people to reveal in the scrutinies publicly something, which they believe is a private and sensitive matter. And yes, I am quite convinced this is not the exception, but the way it functions (you must reveal everything in order to be fully intergrated in the group),

Well, if you are convinced, what can I tell you? I am convinced otherwise, but that won’t help. We will just have to agree to disagree on this point. If I get your point correctly, you believe that the catechists in the NCW are trained to systematically coerce private and sensitive information from the recipients, or else, if those refuse to give out such information, to exclude them from the NCW. This conviction of yours is based on your first-hand experience (which I can’t dispute, 'cause I wasn’t there), which however for some reason (which you didn’t explain) you believe to be a universal practice.
I can only tell you that my first-hand experience (which is somewhat much more extensive than yours, I gather) does not warrant me such conviction. In fact, I never, ever seen or heard of any coercion of private information by the catechists from recipients of the NCW.
I imagine this won’t convince you, since we are only repeating ourselves, but there is another concern which I have: namely, that these accusations of yours are published on the www, so I deem it necessary to balance them with my opinions.

Thank you.

 

[nagyszakall]

Yes, I agree, but I note the tendency of becoming defiant, and none of us - neither me nor myfathersson generalized, that people in NCW are evil

Not in that, but in other things: the last one, for example, is your belief of coercion of private sensitive information by the catechists. According to your own testimony, this is something you have seen in one place, but you believe it to be widespread, intentional and systematic

(I remember him saying that some families in mission are awesome .

And I remember him saying that the mission families are practically laundering money, which is a serious accusation to say about someone you think so awesome. I would actually be scandalized by such statement, had I not known many mission families and know very well that they work their a** off to feed their 7, 10 or even 15 children, and nothing could be farther from them than mismanaging money.

I am rather struggling with some of the statements of the catechist, as using as a motivational tool a sense of superiority or superstitious concerns of what may happen to you if you drop out, I don’t believe this is a justified method of convincing others.

I agree, it is not justified. Then again, I never heard such thing.

Also the lack of accountablity is raising red flags - it is a common practice for people to donate money for a certain cause, were they even non-believers, but to delegate the right to decide exclusively and not accoutably to the responsible - that sounds suspicious. So does also the fact, that the money is funding exclusively the NCW and I was even told that this can count as absolution from the obligation to donate to the church, as understably your resources are not limitless.

These things you write about money sound totally screwed up. None of this happens where I participate. Some of what you write, though, does not even make sense, so I must presume that you misunderstood some stuff.

 

[nagyszakall]

Here is my English translation of the above attached decree:

PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM
PRO LAICIS
1436/10/AIC-110

DECREE

By decree of May 11, 2008, the Pontifical Council for the Laity approved definitively the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way.
The Neocatechumenal Way is implemented along the lines proposed by its initiators, which are contained in the Statutes and in the thirteen volumes bearing the title of the Catechetical Directory of the Neocatechumenal Way (cf. Statute, article 2, 2). They are:

Vol 1: Conversion step or initial catechesis.
Vol 2: First scrutiny.
Vol 3: “Shema” convivence.
Vol 4: Second scrutiny.
Vol 5: Initiation to prayer.
Vol 6: “Traditio”.
Vol 7: “Re-Traditio.”
Vol 8: “Redditio.”
Vol 9: “Our Father - part 1”.
Vol 10: “Our Father - part 2”.
Vol 11: “Our Father - Conclusion.”
Vol 12: “Election - part 1”.
Vol 13: “Election - intermediate and final part.”

These volumes of the Catechetical Directory have been revised by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1997 until 2003 and duly accompanied with references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the material covered in each catechesis.

Recently, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after further examining the results of this study, in order to give greater security to the implementation of the Neocatechumenal Way, as well as to offer doctrinal guarantees to all the pastors of the Church, has decided to hand over to the Pontifical Council for the Laity - as a ministry that follows this ecclesial reality - the task to give specific approval to the volumes of the Catechetical Directory of the Neocatechumenal Way (cf. Letter of November 20, 2010, Prot No 36/75 - 33843).

Therefore:

Having regard to Articles 131 and 133, § 1 and § 2 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus on the Roman Curia and art. 2, 2 of the Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way, the Pontifical Council for the Laity, after due consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approves the publication of the Catechetical Directory as a valid and binding aid of the Neocatechumenal Way catechesis. The volumes of the* Catechetical Directory* are duly authenticated by the Pontifical Council for the Laity and deposited a copy in its acrchives.

Given at the Vatican, December 26, 2010, Feast of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

• Josef Clemens
  Secretary

Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko
President

This wording is extremely strong. This is not just an imprimatur. This claims that the Directory is “valid and binding”. If you will, we have no authority to “improve” on it.

 

[Itari]

That’s not an answer. So does that stand in the directory or is that a misquote? Is it true that at beginning “there was no sacrifice of Jesus, no sacrifice of the Cross, no Calvary, but only a sacrifice of praise.”?

I will challenge anyone to actually find out where this is written. I have scoured the catechesis of the Eucharistic at length searching for this line and I do not find it.

 

[nagyszakall]

I will challenge anyone to actually find out where this is written. I have scoured the catechesis of the Eucharistic at length searching for this line and I do not find it.

Perhaps hisfathersson has a different text?

 

[Itari]

Not possible. I have the originals that were written as well. Most likely its a lie that has been told once and through the magic of the internet has spread unchecked.

 

[nagyszakall]

Not possible. I have the originals that were written as well. Most likely its a lie that has been told once and through the magic of the internet has spread unchecked.

All the more strange. Hisfathersson seems to know stuff about the NCW that you wouldn’t pick up just by surfing the web. He also clearly stated that he came about the book (I presumed printed material) and it had “catechetical directory of the NCW” written on it. Could he be a Zoffolista in disguise? No, wait a minute. He mentioned a cantor saying something in Spanish…
Yourfathersson, reveal yourself, please. Tell us plainly what you were quoting from.

 

[myfathersson]

Hi nagyszakall,

not sure what you mean by “Zoffolista”. But in any case, the quote in question is from the third day under the heading The Second Vatican Council. (page 61 in the English translation and page 62 in the Spanish) The Spanish translates roughly as “the renewal of the Council has replaced theology and no longer do we speak of the redemption, but rather the pasch of Jesus”.

The English is more benign: “The Second Vatican Council has renewed the theological approach to the dogma of the Redemption, starting from a consideration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ”.

The entire passages should be read, though. Perhaps some misunderstandings could be addressed if the catecheses were published.

But they are full of bizarre and unorthodox statements. Kiko, speaking on penance, page 197 in the English:

“So I explain this a little by talking about the primitive Church. When a brother sinned seriously and publicly, he wounded not only himself, but also the whole community, because the community is a sign before the whole world. So the community would exclude him for a certain period of time to call him to conversion…For God always calls you to conversion. But there is a certain measure of sin win which you have put yourself in a situation where you are on the verge of dying eternally. So he sends you an illness, he allows you to fall in love with someone elses wife or allows you to fall…because he wants to take you out of the situation you have gotten yourself into…”

 

[myfathersson]

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

 

[Nadq]

Hi Nagyszakall,

You seem to discredit my first-hand experience under the assumption, that it is an exception (btw. just to mention our catechists are Italian and their communities were founded by Kiko himself), however your private experience seems to be the general practice. If we follow the same logic, then your observerations are not trustworthy likewise. However I agree we are going into a deadlock here and it does not make sense to continue the argument.

Just to finish my point: I never meant to totally reject anything or call others insulting names as you suggest, but only to highlight some practices, which go to extremes - and from here anyone reading this forum can make one’s own judgement if that would be acceptable for him/ her. And my own conviction is that there will be further corrections to the NCW, as there were to the practice of receiving communion sitting, of not allowing the NCW mass to be open to all faithful and others - there is no need to agrue about that either, the future will show.

This conviction of yours is based on your first-hand experience (which I can’t dispute, 'cause I wasn’t there), which however for some reason (which you didn’t explain) you believe to be a universal practice.
I can only tell you that my first-hand experience (which is somewhat much more extensive than yours, I gather) does not warrant me such conviction.

 

[nagyszakall]

But in any case, the quote in question is from the third day under the heading The Second Vatican Council. (page 61 in the English translation and page 62 in the Spanish) The Spanish translates roughly as “the renewal of the Council has replaced theology and no longer do we speak of the redemption, but rather the pasch of Jesus”.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The quote we are talking about is this one you posted earlier:

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 one from?