An anonymous poster made an excellent comment under my last post found here. The poster made an excellent point. There is much diversity in the Catholic Church, but all are one in Christ Jesus. Despite the variety and diversity found in the Body of Christ, all recognize that one same Holy Spirit. The poster also ask a very important question in the end.
AnonymousAugust 26, 2014 at 9:20 AM
There is no such thing as Kiko teachings or Kiko-catechism. Everything that Kiko has preached has been approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In particular, the tidbits that Mr. Rohr likes to quote come from the first book approved. This book was approved by Cardinal Raztinger himself when he was Prefect of the Congregation, and everything in it is referenced with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What Kiko says IS Catholic.
The Neocatechumenal Way is a tool for evangelization, and the Archbishop is using this tool. Maybe some do not like HIS style. but then that's a personal problem not a doctrinal one. As many have already said, the NCW is not for everyone! not everyone is comfortable with the style of Opus Dei but it IS Catholic: not everyone is comfortable with the style of the NCW, but the difference in style does not prevent collaboration and friendship between the two. The problem is not the style in which we live our Faith, it is the spirit. Oratorian priests and the Jesuits are externally completely different, yet St. Philip Neri and St. Ignatius Loyola were great friends because they had the same spirit. Don Giussani and Kiko had a great relationship, yet Communion and Liberation and the NCW are completely different. It speaks to the real catholicity of the Church that it allows for such variety.
If you do not like the NCW style, what is preventing you from collaboration and friendship like so many others in the world?
No Diana, Tim is the way the truth and light. Or at least that what people proclaim him to be. Its implied. Oh and I hope this cowardly post (since I'm anon) gets a shot on his page with my own post. He and his haters can keep hating. It only promotes the NCW.
ReplyDeleteI see nothing but truth in this.
ReplyDeleteAnon.good point, please.stay toich with blessed Diana. Out of love please we need your insight and view to show who don't understand us. We are Catholic in the way who wish no division. Please stay in touch with Diana? God bless you.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:11 am.,
DeletePlease do not call me "blessed Diana". Just call me "Diana."
Okay Diana :-D
Delete"There is no such thing as Kiko teachings or Kiko-catechism. Everything that Kiko has preached has been approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In particular, the tidbits that Mr. Rohr likes to quote come from the first book approved."
ReplyDeleteHmm, well I seem to remember reading that there were 20,000 corrections, amendments or additions made to the "kiko catechism" by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This surely implies that there were many errors in Kiko's teachings. And, pretty much every Neo on the face of the earth was formed by the pre-approved catechesis. At least we could say that the catechists, responsibles and anyone else that has been in the NCW for more than a few years was subject to those (unamended) teachings. What about the famous "If Christ wanted to be adored in the Eucharist he would have come as a stone not bread, because bread goes moldy"? Do you consider that to be a Catholic utterance?
And how are we to know if the NCW is actually using the amended books anyway? Can the author of this comment have any confidence that is the case? These books, despite the "approval for publication" given by the Vatican, remain secret.
This is not about "style" - its about Truth. And every good Catholic should be concerned that error is wiped out, and truth prevails.
Dear Anonymous at 11:36 a.m.,
DeleteThere are many styles in the Catholic Church, but these many different styles still comes from the same Holy Spirit......the same Truth.
Errors don't come from the Holy Spirit. You didn't actually respond in any way to the previous comment.
Delete@AnonymousAugust 26, 2014 at 11:36 AM
DeleteYou "seem to remember reading"? What you rather "seem" is very shy about where you read that. Don't you have the decency to include a reference or a citation before continuing that it "surely implies" your very serious accusation? Or should I say slander?
Dear Anonymous at 4:21 pm,
DeleteI did respond to the previous comment. The style of worship varies between the western and eastern rite church, but it still comes from the Same Holy Spirit. The problem is that you want others to conform only to the liturgy that you know, rather than accepting the various liturgies that came from the same Holy Spirit.
In the end...at the seat of judgement anonymous, a half lie counts as one. 20,000 corrections, amendments...additions? Are you sure you can account for all?
DeleteWell obviously they r not secret as they r being quoted all over the Internet. All u have to do is compare the old version with the approved version. What u will find is that the only difference is in grammar, syntax and spelling. Let me assure u that when u have to transcribe Italian spoken by a Spaniard u will find way more than 20,000 mistakes. The versions approved by Cardinal Ratzinger are modified only in that every statement is cross-referenced with the Catechism is the Catholic Church.
ReplyDelete"Well obviously they r not secret as they r being quoted all over the Internet. All u have to do is compare the old version with the approved version."
DeleteSure. Please provide the links to the old version and the approved version so we can compare. I bet you can't. In fact I'll bet you anything you like you can't. And why should I take your assurance? you haven't even seen them yourself!
Again, let me ask you if the comment about the "bread going moldy" is in the old version, the new version or both. Thankyou
The enemies of the Way have just about split and dissected every GNAT and FLY they could find in the catechesis of Kiko. The issue of style is a valid argument because in the Catholic Church historically there has been a development of the way we celebrate the Eucharist. The first Christian communities 'broke bread' in the homes of the brothers and they and collected donations and laid them at the foot of the disciples. Now, would the Dept. of Revenue and Taxation want an audit on this collection? Even some of the early tabernacles which housed the Blessed Sacrament were fashioned like doves to symbolize the Spirit. My gosh, a graven image! The western church used unleavened bread while some in the east used leavened bread. Goodness, who's correct here? Battles between the east and west over this issue of the bread still happens today. Talk about STYLE! We don't need to resolve our differences about style by wagging a war among ourselves. Are we not of the same church? Do we not have ONE bishop given us, dare I say, by GOD? So, the essential heart of the Mass, the Eucharist, has remained the same since the time of the Apostles. In the neocatechumenal way the celebration of the Eucharist is according to the laws of the church. Perhaps the detractors have been in the JUNGLE too long, that they loose sight of the trees. Come out of the JUNGLE and come into the sunlight of truth!
Delete@AnonymousAugust 26, 2014 at 4:24 PM
DeleteThe comment about the bread going moldy is in this blog, my friend. Why not ask the commenter who put it where he/she took it from? I would be curious about it too. However, that same commenter claims to "seem to remember" reading stuff that we have no proof ever existed...
It is an excellent tactic to ask whether you consider the "bread going moldy" a Catholic utterance. But then, claiming that it is from Kiko's catechesis and also that the directory is secret is like figuratively shooting oneself in the leg.
Anin 4:24 PM is a mockery not question. I would not entertain it
DeleteAnon Aug 26 @ 11:11 pm.... "Kiko's Catechesis" ? Didn't Diana say there's no such thing? Hmmmm...
DeleteIt looks like the "moldy" bread comment was in the "old version" at least:
Deletehttp://www.cathud.com/RESOURCES_CATHOLIC/pages_MR/Neocatechumenal_Way_Kiko_Arguello.html
http://onlinecatholics.acu.edu.au/issue65/news2.html
Dear Anonymous at 11:18 a.m.,
DeleteThis is not from the "old version". It came from an anti-Catholic website. Do you have the old version?
@AnonymousAugust 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM
DeleteBoth of your shady references claim that the "moldy bread" comment was verbally stated by Carmen Hernandez. They cite no references. How does this make you draw the conclusion that it was in the catechesis, let alone in the "old version"? Either you are a sloppy reader or you want to cloud things intentionally...
In connection to their claim, they also state that the NCW is against preservation and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. How interesting that RM seminaries and communities that have passed to a certain point of the itinerary have regular adoration and I have been encouraged countless times by my catechists to attend adoration of the Blessed Sacrament... That just tells me how reliable those sources you cited are: not at all. But if you want to keep reading them, at least pay more attention.
Anon at 8.21. See the comment below for the quote from the "old version".
DeleteDo you kneel in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament?
"This is not from the "old version". "
ReplyDeleteWell, it was pre-2012.
"Do you have the old version?"
Don't you? Being an "insider" and all? Are you telling me its a secret from you too? If you do have it, look up the instruction given by Carmen on the Saturday of the Convivence (First Volume of the Catechetical Directory).
Anon at 12:06. What about you? Are you "curious" enough to find out whether the statement about "moldy bread" is true or not? According to Anon at 3:44pm its "quoted all over the internet" (referring to the catechetical directory). Have you seen it?
I suppose we could always ask Chuck or Tim. they seem to know far more about the NCW than the "insiders" do.
@AnonymousAugust 27, 2014 at 1:43 PM
DeleteThanks, I am doing fine (my reply to your first question). (Second:)Well, I said I would be curious as from where the commenter took the statement. Then my curiosity was satisfied. See my comments above (if and once they will be approved).
As for your third question: yes, I have seen it. I downloaded the first volume of the directory from the Internet.
A question for you in return, if I may: What do you think the CDF usually does if they come across some literature containing serious errors? Do they insert a bunch of references to the CCC and Vatican II? Or do they rather make a statement saying that it contains errors, it should be revoked, should not be published, etc?
Anonymous at August 27, 2014 at 9:03 PM
DeleteI did try to post another comment but it didn't make it past the censor. Anyway, to satisfy your curiosity, here is a quote from the "old version" of Volume 1 of the Catechetical Directory. (Saturday of the convivence - Carmen):
“The bread and the wine are not made to be exposed, because they rot. The bread and the wine are made to be eaten and drunk. I always tell to those who build huge tabernacles: If Jesus Christ wanted the Eucharist to stay there, He would have manifested Himself in the shape of a stone that doesn’t rot. The bread is necessary for the banquet, to lead us to Easter. The real presence is always a medium to lead us to a goal, Easter. It is not something absolute: Jesus Christ is present in function of Easter mystery.”"
If you have the current version (please post the link) you will find that this has been altered.
I'm not sure what the CDF's normal practise is. In this case, perhaps because the Catechetical Directory is a transcript of Kiko and Carmen speaking, I don't suppose the words can be changed to any great extent - perhaps omitted if they are too concerning. In most cases there are as you say a "bunch of references to the CCC", usually as footnotes, and sometimes giving quite a different meaning to the body of the text.
Remember that, as with the Statutes, the NCW (Kiko et al) submit their version to the Vatican, who look at it and either send it back for review, or accept it. This is why the Statutes took some time to approve, and why the catechetical directory took many years to "approve for publication" (that's ironic, by the way)
My curiosity, as I said earlier, had been already satisfied but now you aroused it again: where did you get what you are quoting from?
DeleteRegarding posting the link to the directory: I have made that download over a year ago and I don't remember the url. But it has the publisher: Hope Publishing House, Pasadena, California. I guess you can contact them and buy one.
My question to you was rather simple. I didn't really get the point of your answer. The answer I expected would have been along the line, "They do the latter." Then I would have pointed out the obvious fact that this is not at all what happened to the directory.
The two links you posted were to texts, both of which claiming that the NCW does not believe in the preservation and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (one of them even claimed that there is no tabernacle in the RM seminary of Perth, which is like saying that the Pope isn't Catholic) and both supported that claim with the "moldy bread" comment. Let me assure you that those claims are absolutely false, even if the "moldy bread" comment contains a great truth: Christ didn't choose stone to be the matter of the sacrament of His Sacred Body and Blood, he chose bread and wine, and the sacramental species indeed should be consumed, even the host we place in the monstrance, it should be consumed before it could go stale.
Anon at 6:48.
DeleteAre we to understand that you support the statement made by Carmen in the original catechetical directory or not?
As far as I can determine (only having access to the first volume), the CDF did in fact insert a great many references to the CCC and there are some alterations to the text from the pre-approval catechetical directory to the one "approved for publication" (ironic again) in 2012. And I understand that the NCW submitted the books to the CDF a number of times until the approval was granted. So I'm not sure what you were asking. They certainly did not "do the latter" in the case of the NCW.
And do you know when the tabernacle was first installed in the RMS chapel in Perth? The "first chapel" which opened in 1995 did not have a tabernacle. (http://www.rmsperth.org.au/page55.html)
The first tabernacle was placed in the "Sanctuary of the Word" in 1998 (http://www.rmsperth.org.au/page42.html - note that the article incorrectly says 1988) some three years later. You will also note the "double-decker" tabernacle, which you can see here more clearly, with the disturbing caption: http://www.rmsperth.org.au/page17.html
You will also no doubt note that there is no way to kneel before the tabernacle, as the seats are all side on (and don't have kneelers anyway). The same goes for the so-called "Blessed Sacrament chapel" - the same double decker; side on seats and no kneelers. Is this all ok in your opinion?
Put it all together. The NCW believe very different things about the Real Presence.
"even the host we place in the monstrance, it should be consumed before it could go stale."
DeleteTell that to God. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
@AnonymousAugust 28, 2014 at 12:21 PM
DeleteI think God knows:
CIC 939: "Consecrated hosts, in a quantity sufficient for the needs of the faithful, are to be kept in a pyx or ciborium and are to be renewed frequently, the older hosts having been duly consumed."
Redemptoris Sacramentum 140: "It is fitting that the host to be exposed for adoration should be consecrated in the Mass immediately preceding the time of adoration, and that it should be placed in the monstrance upon the altar after Communion"
@AnonymousAugust 28, 2014 at 12:16 PM
DeleteYou are asking me about a statement that you wrote (if you are the same commenter) and it allegedly comes from Carmen Hernandez to which you failed to provide reliable source and failed to pay attention what the unreliable source actually said. Along with the 20000 corrections which you seem to remember reading about, which, according to you, surely implies that there were many errors, to which the CDF didn't do "the latter". So now you are asking me wether I agree with what you think Carmen allegedly said or with what Carmen allegedly said or what the directory actually says? I can't give you an either or reply, because you fail to make an intelligible point and therefore fail to ask an intelligible question.
I have never been to Perth, but I can tell you that I helped install one of those tabernacles in a different seminary, and guess what, they had a temporary tabernacle before they installed the new one. News of installation of a tabernacle does not mean that there was no tabernacle before.
Also, I have knelt quite a bit in the chapel of an RM seminary, so I won't believe you that it didn't happen because you see something on the web about the chapel in Perth. My knees can testify.
The NCW doesn't believe in anything. It is an itinerary of Catholic formation, an instrument that helps people get to know, appreciate, and live the deposit of faith of Holy Mother Church, including what it has to say about the Real Presence.
Dear Mr. Anonymous of 11:18. I have gone to the links. The same answer for the author of those articles is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has approved all the catechetical directories of the NCW. Either the congregation has become Lutheran, or the author of the article is wrong. I have heard that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is fond of receiving letters. Please write him telling him he has made a mistake in approving the directories.
ReplyDeleteBTW the article states that the moldy bread comment is not taken from directories but is supposedly a comment made by Carmen Hernandez. When did she say that? To who? Who else heard? I know that as a devout Catholic you will not judge by hearsay.
I do very much understand your concern about Our Lord not being revered in the Sacrament. I remember feeling the same sense of shock and horror when I was on vacation and went to Mass in a monastery where the priest said prayers to the 4 winds before the offertory and then let all the faithful serve themselves from a ceramic bowl filled with slices of whole wheat pita bread. I was offended and horrified, and only hoped that my reverence would somehow atone for the disrespect shown to the Holy One.
The NCW on the contrary tries to show as much reverence and compunction as possibly. We truly believe in the Real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the host. I would like to invite you to a Sunday afternoon where young people of the communities meet to spend time studying the scriptures and then in adoration in front of the monstrance. I am sure that you will find that it is not only most solemn and beautiful, but also filled with reverence and prayer.
I've tried to post this once already, but I think Diana is afraid or something.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 1:58, Thankyou for the invitation.
"and then in adoration in front of the monstrance."
Do the young people kneel in adoration? Why?
"The NCW on the contrary tries to show as much reverence and compunction as possibly."
Do you kneel during the consecration? Do you sit to consume the Blessed Sacrament? Do these actions concord with "adoration in front of the monstrance"? (By the way, its the Blessed Sacrament that matters, not the monstrance)
Thanks for finally talking about >"The Diversity In The Catholic Church" <Loved it!
ReplyDelete