Neocatechumenal Way

[myfathersson]

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.

The Eucharistic Liturgy has never been approved. There have been certain concessions and permissions given but the liturgical texts are being examined at the moment, and have not received any formal approval whatsoever.

The particular permissions are: The sign(kiss) of peace, the communion under both species, and the mention of receiving communion, “standing, remaining in their place”. These are the only concessions, and otherwise the books should be followed. Ie the Body of Christ should be given after the priest/deacons have consumed, and consumed immediately. This instruction has been given way after 1988 when JPII celebrated mass. Under your logic, Itari, the example of JPII would have been superseded.

Para 160 of the GIRM (see also 284-287)

As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it
entirely.

Its worth reading again this paragraph from the letter of Card Arinze:

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.

Also, perhaps Itari could point to some mention of the “resonances” in the Statutes. I’m not aware of this having been clarified since Card Arinze letter in which he refers to Paragraph 74 of Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[74.] If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a Church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily,[156] nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.

 

[myfathersson]

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.

The theory is different to the practice, unfortunately. I am aware of dozens of NCW parishes that do not advertise or promote the NCW masses in the parish bulletin or other ways. Very often they are held in private places, or at least in meeting rooms, halls rather than the Church building. Often they start late or the venue changes at short notice. If you’re not on the “mailing list” you very often couldn’t know what is happening. The very fact that the communities are separated from each other in terms of the gnostic spiritual levels, they exclude others from ordinary participation.

Perhaps they are considered the pastoral work, but so is the RCIA, which immediately encourages the insertion of new members into the larger parish community and worship.

The great irony is that there really is no need for the separate masses. If all other elements of the NCW were retained but that they attend the “normal” parish mass, very probably the parish would benefit enormously, and the communities would have a unifying effect rather than a divisive one, while providing an opportunity for other Catholics to deepen their faith. I suspect that some of the questionable theology would right itself too.

 

[myfathersson]

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

This is not a necessary contradiction. As they are meant to, the Statutes are making a definitional or imperative statement about the NCW Eucharist being “a part of the Sunday liturgical pastoral work of the parish”. The ‘how’ this is achieved is partially shown in Cardinal Arinze’s letter:

…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.

In any case, perhaps another question should be - why is the practice different to the statutes? Please show me a reference to the “resonances” in the Statutes

 

[Itari]

You misunderstand what I said. In order for something to be superseded it must be changed by the thing that follows it. So the most current document says the following .

§ 2. The neocatechumens celebrate the Sunday Eucharist in the small community after the
first Vespers of Sunday. This celebration takes place according to the dispositions of the diocesan bishop. 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.
§ 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] Regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species, the neocatechumens receive it standing, remaining at their place.
§ 4. The celebration of the Eucharist in the small community is prepared under the guidance of the presbyter, by a group of the neocatechumenal community, in turn, which prepares brief monitions to the readings, chooses the songs, provides the bread, the wine, the flowers, and takes care of the decorum and dignity of the liturgical signs.

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.

So this article clearly contradicts the provision outlined in the letter, as such it supercedes the what Arinze wrote. Now you may wish to maintain that Arinzes two years provision is still valid, but there is no justification for it. Now the things from the letter that have not been stated explicitly still hold true, such as the resonances given during the mass, admonitions etc. He mentions redeptoris sacramentum, but the truth is that there is nothing that really regulates the resonances that are given during the mass, apart for those that they be short and not take on the appearance of an homily, (ie. personal).

Also you are incorrect in saying that the liturgical texts are being looked at, primarily because there are no texts in existence and secondly because the changes are so simple that, having been written in the statutes and approved they have gone through enough scrutiny to be valid. So much so that the only book that has ever been used has been the roman missal in which the differences were adapted to the rite. The use of the missal, so the prayers that are done, is not regulated at all by the NCW but rather the priest who celebrates.

You also assume that the masses are the same in its effect. The holy father does not seem to share in your opinion. “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.” Having the Eucharist in this way is an essential element in the life of the community. And not because it has been dictated so, but because a different grace is received by living the Eucharist with a community.

And perhaps the explanations I gave before to your points of questionable theology were not sufficient for you (page 6). If you wish to continue those discussions feel free to do so.

 

[nagyszakall]

the liturgical texts are being examined at the moment, and have not received any formal approval whatsoever.

The NCW has no liturgical texts for Holy Mass. The Mass is celebrated with the Roman Missal and, as you mentioned, following the directives of the Holy See regarding certain concessions.
To say that there has been no formal approval, because the “liturgical texts” have not been approved is incorrect, therefore.
There are texts for certain celebrations, which have also been called “non-liturgical”. They form part of the phases, steps, and passages and have been approved also as baptismal catechumenate (RCIA if you will). Liturgy, but not Mass. They have been examined and approved (see attachment).

 

[nagyszakall]

Also, perhaps Itari could point to some mention of the “resonances” in the Statutes. I’m not aware of this having been clarified since Card Arinze letter in which he refers to Paragraph 74 of Redemptionis Sacramentum:

Before mentioning Paragraph 74 of Redemptionis Sacramentum, Card. Arinze quoted from another document which was signed by 8 dicasteries

Ecclesiae de Mysterio Art. 3
§ 2. A form of instruction designed to promote a greater understanding of the liturgy, including personal testimonies, or the celebration of eucharistic liturgies on special occasions (e.g. day of the Seminary, day of the sick etc.) is lawful, of in harmony with liturgical norms, should such be considered objectively opportune as a means of explicating the regular homily preached by the celebrant priest. Nonetheless, these testimonies or explanations may not be such so as to assume a character which could be confused with the homily.

§ 3. As an expositional aide and providing it does not delegate the duty of preaching to others, the celebrant minister may make prudent use of “dialogue” in the homily, in accord with the liturgical norms.

The two paragraphs included in the body of the text of Arinze’s letter (not just a reference in the footnote) have two important points, which you seem to disregard:

1. including personal testimonies is lawful
2. the priest can use dialogue in the homily as an aide
   If you wonder why he quotes these texts in the letter, maybe you should refer back to its beginning: “I am to inform you the Holy Father’s decisions.”

 

[tafan]

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.

Itari, I appreciate your responses to my questions. However, you have gone from the letter lacked authority, to it was just a matter of timing and it was not obeyed because the NCW knew it would become obsolete, to now you see
To be saying the vatican never intended the letter to say what it clearly said.
As to your contention the vatican always takes a hardiness on liturgical issues, sorry, just the opposite is true. The vatican rarely gets involved in liturgical abuses, preferring to leave that to local bishops.

It is rather simple matter what the letter said. The statutes were not approved for 3 years after it. I fail to see any of your justifications for ignoring the letter’s instructions as valid,

 

[Igypop83]

In Arinze’s letter, he says

The Neocatechumenal Way must also make use of the other Eucharistic Prayers contained in the missal, and not only Eucharistic Prayer II.

So is there any reason, why in neocatechumenal masses still only the second one is used? I don’t remember us EVER using any other one. What is in the second Eucharistic Prayer different than in others besides that the word “sacrifice” doesn’t occur?

 

[nagyszakall]

So is there any reason, why in neocatechumenal masses still only the second one is used?

Last time I checked, the priest decided which EP he uses, not the NCW… ask him.

 

[myfathersson]

Last time I checked, the priest decided which EP he uses, not the NCW… ask him.

Unless he is formed in a NCW seminary - in which case it is the NCW who ultimately decides. (not to mention the often repeated “tell the priests” in the catechesis - eg in the Sacrament of Penance - “tell the priests to give absolution according to the new rite” etc; “tell the priests too that this is not the occasion for giving spiritual direction” and so on).

In addition to the Eucharistic Prayer, it is important to remember that for the better part of 40 years, and up until quite recently, the NCW Eucharist omitted the Gloria, the Creed, Lavabo, Orate fratres, Agnus Dei. What underlying theology would bring the NCW to that? This has not been addressed by our staunch NCW apologists here.

Finally, we have heard various reasons why the NCW didn’t abide by the instructions to participate once a month in the larger parish masses. Can I quote for you part of the letter of Kiko, Carmen and Fr Mario to the Holy Father, written on January 17 2006, in response to Card. Arinze’s letter?

…we are very content with the “norms” that Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, imparted to us in Your name. In this regard, we wish to express our gratitude to You, to Cardinal Arinze, and to the Congregation for what is written in the letter.

We renewed together our willingness to follow in everything, with great respect and obedience, the rubrics of the Roman Missal (Gloria, Credo, Lavabo, Orate fratres, Agnus Dei…).

With respect to the first point of the letter (“at least one Sunday per month, the Communities of the Neocatechumenal Way must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community), each team of itinerant catechists will speak with the Bishop of each Diocese in order to arrange this participation, paying particular attention to the least brethren and those farthest away.

The letter also states:

We also wish to thank you for the benevolence, mercy, and goodness You have shown to those farthest away in allowing the moving of the sign of peace and in granting a period of two years for the adaptation of the manner of distributing the Communion of the Body and the Blood of the Lord: we have always shown to the many brothers who have emerged from hell, full of wounds and of self-loathing, that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and not only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and comes to serve them: “He will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them” (Lk 12:37).

As Sandro Magister explained:

They stop, in fact, at thanking the pope for granting them two more years. And then they return to defending their manner of distributing communion. They give as the model for this the “eschatological banquet” at which Christ has the disciples “sit down,” as written in Luke 12:37: “He will have them recline at table, and will come to wait on them.” Furthermore, they emphasize that giving communion “in this way” is an essential instrument for converting those who are far removed from the Church, and that abandoning it would compromise their mission.

It is interesting to note that in Feb 2006, Card Arinze was interviewed in relation to the instructions about the NCW Eucharistic Liturgy. He said the following:

“The letter was occasioned by the results of the examination, conducted by this congregation, of how the Neocatechumenal Way has celebrated the Holy Mass for many years. …] For this examination we had a mixed commission of persons nominated by the Neocatechumenal Way and persons nominated by our congregation. The discussions brought up many of the practices that they employ during the Mass, …] and many of these were not in accordance with the approved books. This is the background. The entire situation was examined over many sessions of the mixed commission, for a period of two years or longer. And there was also, at the bidding of the Holy Father, a discussion among seven cardinals of the Roman curia, who examined everything. So this letter is the conclusion of the whole affair.”

 

[Itari]

The second EP is done because thats the one that is done almost exclusively in the majority o the masses, IE the short one. I have never heard outside of the larger feasts any other prayer being used in sunday mass. In the weekday mass there is more variety, but in the sunday mass it is very uncommon to hear another one.

But beyond all of this, what is the point you are trying to make? There tends to be no point in going over the same things over and over again if there is no development.

 

[myfathersson]

So, Itari, notwithstanding your many and varied explanations as to the non-compliance of the communities’ participation in the once-per-month parish masses, what is your response to the statement of Kiko et al that "each team of itinerant catechists will speak with the Bishop of each Diocese in order to arrange this participation, paying particular attention to the least brethren and those farthest away. "

Do you maintain that there was no need for this to occur, in which case you contradict Kiko, or do you now concede that there obviously was consent to this, but that the communities simply didn’t do it?

 

[Igypop83]

The second EP is done because thats the one that is done almost exclusively in the majority o the masses, IE the short one. I have never heard outside of the larger feasts any other prayer being used in sunday mass. In the weekday mass there is more variety, but in the sunday mass it is very uncommon to hear another one.

But beyond all of this, what is the point you are trying to make? There tends to be no point in going over the same things over and over again if there is no development.

In most parishes, where I go to mass, the other ones are also used quite often.
The Point I am trying to make is that the second EP is the only one that is not containing the word “sacrifice”. So if you only use the second EP and also leave out the “orate fratres” then the sacrificial character of the mass is missing completely.
When I asked you guys, you couldn’t tell me in which catechesis the people are told about the sacrifice of the mass. So what I suspect is, that the NCW believes, the mass is only a banquett. That’s why also the altar is replaces by a table and the word “priest” is not used. For a sacrifice you naturally need an altar and a priest

 

[Nadq]

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.

Sorry, Itary, but I stronly distagree here. I have been to NCW mass in several countries and definitely the body of Christ is consumed simultaneously with the priest. Do you suggest, that in your community everybody waits until the priest consumes it fully? That would be quite surprising for me.

 

[Nadq]

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.

Again, this is not the case in my parish. And altough in theory the NCW masses are now open for all parishioners, in a number of years I remember only one case a doctor joined, who could not join other mass because of his shifts and his father has been a follower of the NCW for a number of years.

And let me ask a more cardinal question - what is the underlying need of a separate NCW mass at all? There are certain celabrations during the week, which allow for resonances, so this need is met. If it is introduction to the faith, then why don’t people who are in the NCW for 10 years not invited to go to the normal parish mass instead? And just another thought - it is stated in the Statutes that the foundation of the NCW is the Tripod (one part of it being the Eucharist celebration). Now, if all masses are equal and NCW mass is just one of them, why would not be for me as a member of the NCW not equally valid if I attend the other Sunday masses and I should be obliged to attend the NCW one? My logic is the following - every Sunday mass fulfulls my Sunday obligation, and if they are all equal I could well be attending another Sunday mass ONLY and still be a part of the NCW, do you think that would work in practice?

 

[Nadq]

I’ve just read my post again, apologies for my spelling mistakes, I am quite exhausted today…

 

[Itari]

Well the thing is that you assume that celebrating it in small communities is exactly the same as attending normal mass. And experience shows that it is not, and this has been noted by Benedict XVI. it has been quoted in this discussion how the celebration in this manner “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.” So no it would not be the same because those three elements of the tripod are meant to be fulfilled within the small community.

Regarding the changes in receiving communion, I initially stated that the implementation of this was moderated by the local bishop. Tafan insinuated that unless the bishop made noise this was ignored, while myfatherson says that we were supposed to communicate with the bishop about doing this. From what I know (from direct experience in a number of american diocese) a conversation was had with the local bishop and then a decision was taken by them on the manner to receive. This resulted in some diocese reverting to the normal manner of receiving and other being left alone. So it was not blatantly disregarded as is purported, but it was implemented on the diocesan level according to the bishops wishes.

In the Eucharistic the second one is used because it has been the one that has been put to song. If you have a question on sacrifice I made a post on pg 6 you may choose to read. Others may be used, but in my experience this has been limited to bishops or more prominent feasts in the parish. However the choice of prayer remains with the priests. I have no interest in entering into a discussion on freewill but unless I am mistaken even priests still have that. For the things that were omitted I am positive that the glory was not among them and that the lavabo was neither. For the other two I dont quite recall off the top of my head why they were omitted, I may need to look it up to see if there is a particular reason or not.

From what I have seen the assembly receives after the priest has placed the host in his mouth. (For those that do not know the host needs to be chewed as it is a piece of bread.)

 

[PHSshamrock]

I stumbled upon this thread, and was struck by what a wonderful opportunity this is for me to clear up some of the confusion I have with The Way in an anonymous setting. However, skimming through the thread it seems that every time someone presents an opinion they are viciously criticized (note I only skimmed through the thread, but this is the sense that I’ve gotten of it). Anyways, I am going to take a risk and present my experience/ ask questions anyway, and I ask that you all respect what I say. I will speak of my experience with The Way, as I have nothing but my experience to base my opinion in this matter on, but I don’t mean to insinuate that this is how all Neocatechumanal Way communities are.

I attended The Way with my family this past fall. We couldn’t make it to every meeting, but at the ones we could attend the teachings seemed sound. One thing that did surprise me was how the catechists asked questions but seemed to only consider one answer correct. For example, in the comparison with Moses’s life and asking of where you were my grandpa answered that he’s in the promised land. Now my grandpa is a very holy man. He’s relied on Christ and he has been blessed abundantly. His answer made complete sense to me. I was also very proud of him for answering the question: he tends to be more shy. Anyways, the catechists didn’t seem to like his answer. As if, because he hadn’t walked their way yet, it wasn’t possible for my grandpa to be in the promised land.
At the time, I mostly ignored this irritation, however, because I did enjoy the catechesis.

Then we had our first “convivence”. I didn’t much mind that they celebrated the Mass differently (as long as the Pope says it’s ok, right). What did bother me was the explanation of why they made the changes that they did. Claims were made such as “the church made a large number of changes after constantine converted because a large number of pagans entered the Church and influenced her”. Now I have always been taught (by very reliable sources) that the Church changed some practices after Constantine’s conversion because with the end of the persecution, Bishops were more free to compare how their churches said the Mass, etc. with each other. It was also said that kneeling entered the Church because the pagans brought their mindset of an angry God into the Church at this time. This was used to explain why Neocats don’t kneel after receiving communion/ during the Mass. Now correct me if I’m wrong but I though Luke 22:41-42
said Jesus knelt and prayed during the agony in the garden. The list of things like this goes on… but you get the point.

At first, I wanted to judge the tree by it’s fruit, and continue with the way because the catechists constantly talked about how good it was for them. However, I could never feel at peace with it. After much prayer, I decided to continue to strengthen my faith through other means (that’s one of the benefits of being Catholic, eh? Lots of charisms, one church.)

Still, the Way continues to interrupt my life. For example, my aunts stopped going to Sunday Mass with my family, preferring to go to Mass with the Way. It kind of upsets me, as I had always enjoyed the fact that my whole family comes together for Mass each week… Also, they are starting another community at my Church. To promote the meetings catechists get up after Mass and make announcements like “if I were offering you a million dollars I know you would all come. Instead I’m offering you something better, salvation”. This are a) annoying guilt trips and b) seem to ignore the fact that Christ offers me salvation through the Catholic Church not through the Neocatechuminal Way. The Way is only once charism… They seem to consider themselves to much like a separate church… Honestly though, these last few complaints are petty things. I think I could easily ignore them, if I knew the Way was indeed helping the Church and not spreading heresy. Perhaps someone who knows the group well could address the complaints I have? Thanks!

 

[myfathersson]

Well the thing is that you assume that celebrating it in small communities is exactly the same as attending normal mass. And experience shows that it is not, and this has been noted by Benedict XVI. it has been quoted in this discussion how the celebration in this manner “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.” So no it would not be the same because those three elements of the tripod are meant to be fulfilled within the small community.

Itari, I point out once again the words of the Holy Father that immediately follow those in your quote above:

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

Seems clear that the Holy Father, whom you quote, is saying that the worship in small communities should lead to the worship in larger church community (the parish), does it not? It is also interesting that the Holy Father appears to be making a distinction between the Eucharist of the NCW and the “liturgical celebration of the parish”

 

[Earthen_Vessel]

Itari, I point out once again the words of the Holy Father that immediately follow those in your quote above:

Seems clear that the Holy Father, whom you quote, is saying that the worship in small communities should lead to the worship in larger church community (the parish), does it not? It is also interesting that the Holy Father appears to be making a distinction between the Eucharist of the NCW and the “liturgical celebration of the parish”

What exactly does that mean? It’s pretty vague the way you ask it. Vatican II speaks of a parish being a community of communities, so I’m not sure I get the question.