Neocatechumenal Way

[Igypop83]

No, I most of the time sit down after having received the precious Body and consume seated, although there have been exceptions to this, especially when the priest gave us communion with intinction.
No, I don’t insist at any Mass about anything to the priest.
Yes, depending on the circumstances it could take half of a second to half a minute.
Overuse? Nope.
Oh, about that I do remind the community.
No, I don’t insist that “the communities attend” anything. If I speak about this with individuals, I do tell them about the Sunday precept. The problem is usually not with attending once a month the Holy Mass of the parish community. If they go to Mass regularly, they usually attend the Holy Mass of the parish community every week or almost every week. The big problem is with people who don’t go to Mass every week. Many times a serious initiation to adult faith, such as the NCW might help in that. I think you should keep that in mind the next time you talk to a lapsed Catholic.

Well all of these examples are liturgical abuses if the Holy Seat did not approve of it.

 

[Roguish]

This debate will never end; just as feuds within the church will never end

You’re quite mistaken about that. Over the course of the Church’s history there have been dozens of movements within the Church who attempted to develop their own variations on established doctrines, in much the same way that NCW has been doing. All of those movements were sooner or later either forced to mend their ways or condemned as heresies and consequently excommunicated, thus definitively ending any “feuds”.

Should you wish to read up on this, you can take a look at this list on Wikipedia. It doesn’t include the myriad forms of protestantism (with some of which NCW has things in common), which are also heresies and have been dealt with as such. (In the interest of ecumenism the Church no longer calls protestantism a heresy, but the excommunication of all protestant churches remains in force.)

You may wonder why, if condeming heresies and excommunicating adherents has been business as usual for the Church for centuries and NCW is a heresy as I say it is, why NCW is allowed to continue. One could argue that the fact that they haven’t been condemned is proof that they’re not a heresy – indeed that’s one very popular line of defense with NCW apologists, as I’ve pointed out before.

But I don’t think that holds up. As I see it, the reasons that NCW has been able to carry on its activities for decades without being condemned as heretical and/or schismatic are (1) that NCW tries pretty hard (and fairly succesfully) to keep its aberrant doctrines and internal activities hidden from non-members; (2) that NCW manages to present itself as “very Catholic” by appearing to adhere to Catholic symbolism and teachings while in fact subtly re-interpreting them; and (3) that for the past few decades the Church has been more worried about losing members (and – if I dare venture a guess – sources of income) than about things like sound doctrine, an adequate understanding thereof among its members, and practical obedience among laiety.

Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Church’s “tolerance” of misbehaving members or groups under its wing has been nothing but a mistake. That’s a tough assessment to make. But I will say again that NCW is misbehaving, and not a little, and it has harmed, not helped the unity, health, and strength of the Church, notwithstanding any positive effects it may have had in the lives of some (perhaps many) individuals.

–
R.

 

[Roguish]

and (3) that for the past few decades the Church has been more worried about losing members …] than about things like sound doctrine [etc.].

I didn’t really make my point there. I’ll add: …and therefore (the Church) has been reluctant to constrain movements that are bringing new members into the Church or preventing existing members from leaving, even if those movements use dubious methods or profess dubious teachings. NCW is one of the foremost among such movements, and has greatly profited from this reluctance.

–
R.

 

[Roguish]

This debate will never end; just as feuds within the church will never end

P.S. Congratulations on your engagement. I initially blocked it from my perception, thinking it was some sort of in-line advertisement, before I noticed it was actually part of your message

 

[Caanan]

No, I most of the time sit down after having received the precious Body and consume seated …depending on the circumstances it could take half of a second to half a minute.

Oh dear…
Your own statutes deny permission for receiving Holy Communion in this manner, not to mention other official verbal and written injunctions and instructions from Holy Mother Church. Neither does the GIRM allow for this practice.

You contradict your own claim that you have not had the experience of liturgical abuse in the NCW.

 

[Roguish]

The big problem is with people who don’t go to Mass every week. Many times a serious initiation to adult faith, such as the NCW might help in that. I think you should keep that in mind the next time you talk to a lapsed Catholic.

Funny you should say that. Because I know hordes of lapsed Catholics, and I would love to refer them to a way of re-initiation if I knew one that operated in openness, without sowing divisiveness and without exacting a high price from its members. You seem to not realize that for many that are already firm in the Faith, NCW’s idiosyncratic teachings and methods are the reason NOT to recommend it to lapsed friends and family. I think you should keep that in mind next time you talk to a non-lapsed Catholic.

–
R.

 

[nagyszakall]

Well all of these examples are liturgical abuses if the Holy Seat did not approve of it.

My dear, these are not examples. They are answers to the sinister questions of Caanan. Since when it is a liturgical abuse if I don’t insist telling the priest what to do?

Just like your question (“Do you think, it’s a good thing to change the liturgy so far, that one can’t say which rite is being celebrated any more?”), they are composed in the style of the serpent in the garden. Should I answer yes or no? It is a trap. Who is the one that can’t say which rite is being celebrated? Maybe you misunderstood what your wife said?

I have participated in Masses with the NCW communities presided by various bishops, archbishops, cardinals, even with the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments who afterwords publicly said that “The celebration of the Eucharist, in the interior of the itinerary proper to these communities, is carried out in a very dignified and beautiful manner, with a great sense of faith, with an ecclesial spirit that is both festive and liturgical, with a deep ‘sense of mystery and the sacred.’” Nobody ever insisted to them about what to do; they simply celebrated the Roman Mass with the few changes described in the Statutes.

So, please excuse me if I don’t consider your wife’s authority binding in this matter.

 

[Caanan]

My dear, these are not examples. They are answers to the sinister questions of Caanan. Since when it is a liturgical abuse if I don’t insist telling the priest what to do?

Just like your question (“Do you think, it’s a good thing to change the liturgy so far, that one can’t say which rite is being celebrated any more?”), they are composed in the style of the serpent in the garden.

I suppose ‘sinister questions’ require ‘sinister answers’?
I wonder whether any question you find confronting becomes ‘sinister’ in your view (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

In any case, here’s an easy one for you. Can you provide one official Church document approving, in the Roman Rite, the practise of receiving Holy Communion in the manner you admit to usually adopting, namely:

Originally Posted by **nagyszakall **
No, I most of the time sit down after having received the precious Body and consume seated …depending on the circumstances it could take half of a second to half a minute.

Here is another easy one. In a previous post I provided a link to “An insider’s view” of the NCW ‘Eucharist’. The claim made therein is that the NCW believe themselves to be concelebrants in the Mass - and hence the relevant passages of the GIRM in regard to the NCW are claimed to be those that regulate the ‘concelebrated’ Mass.

You have not responded to that post. Shall I assume that this is in fact the teaching of the NCW, implicit or otherwise; that this is the understanding you, as an adherent and apologist of the NCW also share - or is the question merely too ‘sinister’ to answer?

 

[nagyszakall]

I suppose ‘sinister questions’ require ‘sinister answers’?
I wonder whether any question you find confronting becomes ‘sinister’ in your view (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

In any case, here’s an easy one for you. Can you provide one official Church document approving, in the Roman Rite, the practise of receiving Holy Communion in the manner you admit to usually adopting…

It is the definitive Statute of the NCW. Since the 60’s, with the help and directions of Fr. Farnes, and perhaps others that I don’t know of, on how to put into practice the liturgical renewal of Vatican II, communion was received seated. Most of the prelates who came in contact with the NCW is present approved of this, at least tacitly. The Congregation for Divine Worship deemed this “an excellent example” of the renewal of the liturgy (see Notitiae 95/96 (1974): 229). Blessed John Paul II presided a celebration like this on the Feast of the Holy Family in 1988. After the letter of Card. Arinze in 2005 and the subsequent definitive approval of the Statutes (which had changes in it from the earlier version exactly in the section of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist), the manner of receiving communion has changed from receiving seated to receiving standing. This was done according to the subsequent hands on directions and example of certain prelates, including the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Clearly, the manner of receiving communion in the NCW communities differs slightly from the rubrics and the norms of the GIRM, but I didn’t invent this, neither do I practice it out of rebelliousness. On the contrary, I am obeying what was told and shown us by the hierarchy.

Here is another easy one. In a previous post I provided a link to “An insider’s view” of the NCW ‘Eucharist’. The claim made therein is that the NCW believe themselves to be concelebrants in the Mass - and hence the relevant passages of the GIRM in regard to the NCW are claimed to be those that regulate the ‘concelebrated’ Mass.

You have not responded to that post. Shall I assume that this is in fact the teaching of the NCW, implicit or otherwise; that this is the understanding you, as an adherent and apologist of the NCW also share - or is the question merely too ‘sinister’ to answer?

You will assume whatever suits you. Where else have you heard of this concelebrating stuff beside Diana’s blog? I haven’t heard/read such thing anywhere else. To my best knowledge it is not the “teaching of the NCW”, nor do I adhere to it. I understand “concelebration” as referring to priests. I haven’t responded to it, because I did not deem it noteworthy.

But since now you insisted, let me also insist and remind you that you haven’t responded to my post about your adherence to a much more noteworthy document. I stated my impression earlier about your opinion of the decree approving the Catechetical Directory of the NCW, namely, that you simply don’t like what it says. That is why you parrot that it doesn’t have an imprimatur (which is a diocesan level permission to publish something), while this decree states that it wants to “offer a doctrinal guarantee to all the pastors of the Church” (that is to all bishops, which is much much more serious than an imprimatur). What’s your answer to that?

 

[Roguish]

From your post on Feb 20:

No, I most of the time sit down after having received the precious Body and consume seated, …]

From your post on Feb 27:

After the letter of Card. Arinze in 2005 and the subsequent definitive approval of the Statutes …], the manner of receiving communion has changed from receiving seated to receiving standing.

Do you see how childishly obvious your deceptions are? One week you claim you consume seated, the next you “explain” that at an NCW mass the Eucharist is now received standing. There is no cogent argument here. There is you contradicting yourself with regard to simple, factual matters – a sure sign of a defensive personality speaking from an artificial assertiveness, not from the authenticity that grows from a true encounter with Christ. So whatever the past 23 years (the time you’ve claimed to have been with NCW – remember?) have done for you, apparently it’s done little in the way of grounding you in integrity.

–
R.

 

[nagyszakall]

From your post on Feb 20:

From your post on Feb 27:

Do you see how childishly obvious your deceptions are? One week you claim you consume seated, the next you “explain” that at an NCW mass the Eucharist is now received standing. There is no cogent argument here. There is you contradicting yourself with regard to simple, factual matters – a sure sign of a defensive personality speaking from an artificial assertiveness, not from the authenticity that grows from a true encounter with Christ. So whatever the past 23 years (the time you’ve claimed to have been with NCW – remember?) have done for you, apparently it’s done little in the way of grounding you in integrity.

–
R.

To clarify: receive standing, consume seated. I apologize if it wasn’t clear enough. I sincerely meant no deception. Like I said before: consume seated after having received (standing), and that refers to the Precious Body. I receive the Sacred Chalice and drink from the Precious Blood of Christ standing.

 

[Caanan]

You say “differs slightly from the rubrics and the norms of the GIRM”; I say “Liturgical abuse”

You say “the definitive Statute of the NCW”; I say “Article 13 Footnote 49 - Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter of December 1, 2005 in Notitiae 41 (2005), 563–565;”

I am to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions. In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the Neocatechumenal Way shall accept and follow the liturgical books approved by the Church, without omitting or adding anything.

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.

In short, the Neocatechumenal Way, in its celebration of the Holy Mass, should follow the approved liturgical books, keeping in mind what is laid out above under the numbers 1,2,3,4,5, and 6.

Acknowledging the favors that the Lord has bestowed upon the Church through the many activities of the Neocatechumenal Way, I take this occasion to extend to you my best regards.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitcatway.HTM

I ask for one official document and you give me what? A photo; some vague notion that some prelates didn’t object (I’m sure this is true, but it proves very little) and three words from a 1974 letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship.

And yet, the 2005 letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship, quoted above,.forms part of your own statute.

but I didn’t invent this, neither do I practice it out of rebelliousness

Who did invent it I wonder? If it were the “hierarchy” surely they would have left a documentary trail or trace? In relation to the clear instruction of the Holy Father in that letter of 2005 included in your own statute, what else can it be but rebelliousness or ignorance? I do hope you begin to see that.

You will assume whatever suits you. Where else have you heard of this concelebrating stuff beside Diana’s blog? I haven’t heard/read such thing anywhere else. To my best knowledge it is not the “teaching of the NCW”, nor do I adhere to it. I understand “concelebration” as referring to priests. I haven’t responded to it, because I did not deem it noteworthy.

I understand this quote is from a responsible or co-responsible of a NCW. Perhaps you should check with your catechist (if you want to know God’s will, ask your catechist!) on this point before you dismiss it.

But since now you insisted, let me also insist and remind you that you haven’t responded to my post about your adherence to a much more noteworthy document. I stated my impression earlier about your opinion of the decree approving the Catechetical Directory of the NCW, namely, that you simply don’t like what it says. That is why you parrot that it doesn’t have an imprimatur (which is a diocesan level permission to publish something), while this decree states that it wants to “offer a doctrinal guarantee to all the pastors of the Church” (that is to all bishops, which is much much more serious than an imprimatur). What’s your answer to that?

I’m quite sure the CDF does want to offer a doctrinal guarantee to all the pastors of the Church…that is their function after all.

The Pontifical Council for the Laity decree also makes mention of the texts being “opportunely corrected”. In fact over 20,000 “corrections” were made to the text including the addition of CCC references and footnotes. Do you know what they were? All communities and members formed prior to 2012 evidently were potentially exposed to the erroneous text. And its one thing to get approval for publication of a book (limited runs I suspect) but remember these volumes haven’t been published. How many of the 20,000 corrections have been passed on to devotees? Perhaps this is the motivation for keeping the books secret.

 

[nagyszakall]

I ask for one official document and you give me what? A photo; some vague notion that some prelates didn’t object (I’m sure this is true, but it proves very little) and three words from a 1974 letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship.

I did say that it is the definitive Statute, meaning the document you’re asking for. That’s the only one I know of. It says

Regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species, the neocatechumens receive it standing, remaining at their place.

This is what we do, and we do it as we have been instructed. The the faithful don’t pass around the chalice, as some claim; it is very orderly and respectful. Yes, it is different from what the GIRM says. That is why there is this new insertion in the Statute, which wasn’t there in the previous “ad experimentum” version. You may call it what you wish, that is not my problem, it is not an abuse.

And yet, the 2005 letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship, quoted above,.forms part of your own statute.

Yes, as a footnote reference, because certain details of it are conflicting with the Holy See’s subsequent decision which they inserted in the Statute (e.g. manner of receiving communion, and that the Eucharist celebrated in the NCW communities is “part of the Sunday liturgical pastoral work of the parish” of which Card. Arinze’s letter shows no understanding).

I understand this quote is from a responsible or co-responsible of a NCW. Perhaps you should check with your catechist (if you want to know God’s will, ask your catechist!) on this point before you dismiss it.

Ok. I will check with my catechists next time I see them, even though I find your sarcasm quite distasteful, but I am sure you follow the impulses of your conscience when you do that. But even if I didn’t ask them, I would not have to be a rocket scientist to understand what the GIRM means by the word “concelebration”, why it is in the text itself that it refers to priests. Even if my catechists told me otherwise, they’d be wrong. Consequently, as the weight of a Mariana Islander chick’s babbling on an internet blog is no grater than the stuff you and I scribble on this forum, so it won’t shake my firm conviction that this isn’t “the teaching of the NCW”, not surprisingly, I never heard such stuff before.

I’m quite sure the CDF does want to offer a doctrinal guarantee to all the pastors of the Church…that is their function after all.

offer a doctrinal guarantee …that the Catechetical Directory is a “valid and binding support” for the NCW catecheses. If it were, as you and Rougish claim, heretic, their job would be to declare it not valid and not binding, wouldn’t it? So how is it you’re so sure after all?

The Pontifical Council for the Laity decree also makes mention of the texts being “opportunely corrected”. In fact over 20,000 “corrections” were made to the text including the addition of CCC references and footnotes.

IN FACT, really? Please, reveal your sources. Also, once you are at it, using the same source, would you please count how many of those 20000 are CCC insertions in the 13 volumes?

Do you know what they were?

About the 1st volume I do have some idea. Now that you made available the English translation of vol. 1 of the new text (which btw has publication information, so it must have been published). I am pretty familiar with the prior-to-approval text, although I do not possess its English translation. I notice very minor and few corrections beside the CCC themes before each chapter and a number of footnotes.

All communities and members formed prior to 2012 evidently were potentially exposed to the erroneous text. And its one thing to get approval for publication of a book (limited runs I suspect) but remember these volumes haven’t been published. How many of the 20,000 corrections have been passed on to devotees? Perhaps this is the motivation for keeping the books secret.

Unless you show some facts, I must presume that the errors of the previous texts, evidently and potentially, constitute part of your imagination. If I were you, and my purpose would be to discredit the NCW in some way, I wouldn’t even try to go in that direction, because truth is a very stubborn thing, and soon someone will sit down with the two texts and expose which exact corrections were made, and this argument of yours will have to fall on its face as well.

 

[Itari]

I understand this quote is from a responsible or co-responsible of a NCW. Perhaps you should check with your catechist (if you want to know God’s will, ask your catechist!) on this point before you dismiss it.

I’ll go ahead and answer this one. Whatever the source for this was they are mistaken. I have never heard this at any level of the way. It’s actually quite an absurd proposition So if it was true that whoever wrote it heard this, then the person that said it was mistaken. Besides the relevance of anecdotal evidence may have it’s uses, but simply trying to establish what a fourth party said is quite irrelevant.

Apart for that I was just reading the linked blog and she makes a logical step which I don’t think is correct. She started with the premise that in the NCW communion is taking standing at ones place and then she finds that the only time that is written in the GRIM is in reference to the concelebrant. Therefore she assumes that in NCW the people must think themselves as concelebrants to the mass since they receive communion. (Concelebrant in the priestly way) but I don’t think this is a valid assertion.

 

[Caanan]

Originally Posted by **nagyszakall **
Yes, as a footnote reference, because certain details of it are conflicting with the Holy See’s subsequent decision which they inserted in the Statute (e.g. manner of receiving communion, and that the Eucharist celebrated in the NCW communities is “part of the Sunday liturgical pastoral work of the parish” of which Card. Arinze’s letter shows no understanding).

Surely you jest.

Let us read the Article (13.3) in question:

§ 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

Yet you happily announce that the approved liturgical books are not followed. Your statement that the footnote is sort of peripheral to the matter because of other statements does not wash. For example “that the Eucharist celebrated in the NCW communities is “part of the Sunday liturgical pastoral work of the parish”” is a red herring here - this matter is dealt with elsewhere in the Statutes, whereas the letter from Card Arinze footnoted at 49 is clearly intended to apply to the practises of the communities during their “Eucharists”

Quite clearly, the footnote is to explicate and describe those “explicit concessions”. Hence the letter of Card Arinze, which is “to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions” has not been superseded as you suggest but forms the basis of understanding those concessions. Are you going to argue that Card Arinze’s letter is ambiguous? Let me repost the relevant statements of that letter for your benefit:

I am to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions. In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the Neocatechumenal Way shall accept and follow the liturgical books approved by the Church, without omitting or adding anything.

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.

In short, the Neocatechumenal Way, in its celebration of the Holy Mass, should follow the approved liturgical books, keeping in mind what is laid out above under the numbers 1,2,3,4,5, and 6.

Acknowledging the favors that the Lord has bestowed upon the Church through the many activities of the Neocatechumenal Way, I take this occasion to extend to you my best regards.

Now you say that the documentary evidence of support for your (and other Neocats) manner of receiving communion is contained in this sentence from the statutes:

Regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species, the neocatechumens receive it standing, remaining at their place.

I do not believe for a moment that you are so ignorant as to understand “receive” in this context to refer to the way you are given a portion of the Blessed Sacrament. You know, as well as I, that in the Church’s liturgical books “receive” refers to the consumption of the sacrament - hence liturgically speaking, a communicant has not received until he/she consumes the host. It’s “Take and eat” not “Take, sit down, hold on to it for a while…wait for it…chat to your neighbour…wait for it…ok now eat”.

The concession to “receive it standing, remaining at their place” means simply that you do not form a procession to receive communion. That is all - and to claim any more than that is dishonest. But, hey, we’re talking about the NCW here

Nowhere in any of the ‘evidence’ you cite is there a mention of sitting down. And yet you say that that practise is perfectly in accordance with your own statues - and the instructions given to you. Evidently those instructions are not from the Holy See, but from your esteemed leaders through the neocat chain of command. And this is the crux - you and your NCW buddies continue to give undying allegiance to the directions of a layman and his posse, rather than the explicit instructions of the Church.

The interesting thing about that “Diana’s” post is that it is quite reasonable for her to mistakenly believe the Communities might regard themselves as concelebrants, because the manner of “receiving” communion as you have claimed is usual for you, reflects the practise of the concelebratory priests. They indeed hold the blessed sacrament until the presider concludes the communion rite and consumes himself - just as you do.

So, in fact, your reference from the Statutes proves nothing, and you are still unable to show even one document from the Church that approves what you and your friends do.

 

[Itari]

I guess its fair, but i have no interest in what she may perceive to be true. It may be true that perhaps, as she says, there is a ‘concelebratory’ element that is present in the people attending the mass in general, but i wouldn’t dare to say that anyone believes it is on the same degree as that of a concelebrating priest.

And so the question for communion is actually complicated. So first we had the communion seated at place, that was ruled not such a great idea and cue two years of switch over time. it is known that the switch over never happened because everyone was waiting to see what would happen next given the delays in the statute approval. Once those came around we have now written that it is to be received standing at ones place. So now there is a very simple description of communion is to be received that does not shed light on any other elements that take place during the process. At which point there is a mass that is celebrated withCard. Cañizares Llovera who then celebrated in the way which was described. The host was distributed to all, who once receiving then sat and consumed together, followed by the consumption of the wine by the celebrant and then distribution to the people.

So the implementation was overseen by non other than the prefect of the cong for divine worship and sacraments. I too agree that it is confusing the way it is written, but the implementation was not done without any oversight. Perhaps there would have been someone more qualified than him to oversee the change but that’s not how it happened.

As a stray thought I wonder if anyone knows of any theological implications that are involved in the different manners of receiving communion? Im just trying to lay my finger on the problem so that perhaps I can be more constructive in my responses by addressing the underlying issue.

 

[Caanan]

A couple of final points:

Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.[176]

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

NCW stand for the prayer of the faithful? But sit for communion.

• During the NCW ‘Eucharist’, most commonly held in a meeting room or hall or somewhere other than a consecrated space, there is usually no provision for kneelers or other assistances for those people who would prefer to receive communion kneeling.
• The manner of receiving communion, specifically having the ‘presbyter’ come to the communicant rather than the communicants coming in procession lends itself to those awkward moments where someone in a state of grave sin may be pressured to receive communion rather than be shamed in front of the brothers.
• Despite nagyszakall’s claim that he/she has witnessed communion on the tongue in a NCW ‘Eucharist’ (once, in how many years? Twenty plus?) there has been no explanation as to how this occurs given that each member is usually given a portion of the Blessed Sacrament prior to the ‘presbyter’ communicating, and then they wait for a signal before consuming all at once. How can a member of such a congregation possibly receive on the tongue, other than by either consuming prior to the priest, or being singled out after everyone else consumes the host?
• Choosing to celebrate outside of a Church; furnishing so as to inhibit kneeling; using a table rather than an altar; - every action of the Eucharist appears to be designed to give the least possible honour to the presence of OUr Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
• Even sitting while communicating says something about what is believed regarding the sacrament - ie that communion is a symbol of unity (of the community) much more than a life-giving sacrament. Lex orandi, Lex credendi.

Wouldn’t it be a wonderful witness to the Real Presence, and an example of great virtue and courage, for a NCW member to fall on their knees, remain patiently waiting until all others had (illicitly) communicated, then receive the Blessed Sacrament on their tongue after the !!

 

[Caanan]

Here is the Holy Father Benedict XVI in January 2012 - some years after the “definitive Statute” was presented, speaking to the NCW about the liturgy:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Roguish]

To clarify: receive standing, consume seated…]

The distinction you introduce between receiving and consuming, has never existed, as Canaan already pointed out. It is either NCW’s invention or your own, and it serves no purpose other than to legitimize the sitting down part, which the admonitions of 2005 were meant to put an end to.

But never mind this legalistic wrangling. It isn’t the most important thing. The real question is whether the practices and teachings of NCW, especially where they differ from the teachings and practices of the rest of the Church, have any real merit. And what’s remarkable is that in all of your posts you haven’t even tried to address that. Your approach to addressing objections revolves entirely around building legal cases in NCW’s favor by adducing documents, approvals, “evidence”, and what have you. You don’t spend a word arguing why NCW’s practices are good in your opinion – just as good as (or better than) the practices of the rest of the Church.

Let’s take the sitting down at Communion as an example again. Why is it that your only defense of this is the “approval” (or your interpretation of it) that the NCW has been granted? Why don’t you just argue that consuming while seated is a “great thing”? Not that I would agree with you, but I would appreciate an argument based on the merits (or demerits) of the case. To me, your complete lack of interest in arguing for any such intrinsic merits suggests that you’re aware that won’t work with non-lapsed Catholics such as the critics in this thread.

And that brings me to my last point (for today). What do you think it means that it’s just about impossible (as NCW people know) to sell non-lapsed Catholics on the NCW? What do you think it means that by and large, only spiritually disappointed, disinterested, or confused people feel drawn to the NCW and “believe” in it?

Regards​

R.

 

[Roguish]

If [the Catechetical Directory] were, as you and Rougish claim, heretic, their job would be to declare it not valid and not binding, wouldn’t it?

No, what I claimed was that *NCW *(not the Catechetical Directory) is heretical in nature, while pretending not to be. Of course there is no heretical content in the approved version of the Catechetical Directory, since it is exactly the document that the NCW has proffered as part of this pretense.

–
R.