1. I did not say that you stole money.......meaning that it was someone else who said it.
2. I did not say that you stole money.......meaning that I said something different.
3. I did not say that you stole money........meaning that I said it was someone else who stole the money, not you.
4. I did not say that you stole money.......meaning that I said you borrowed the money, not steal it.
5. I did not say that you stole money.......meaning that you stole something else, not money.
If this one sentence can be interpreted in five different ways, how much more the Holy Bible? Only the teaching office of the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture. The Catholic laity does not have this authority. They can reflect, contemplate, and mediate on the word of God, but only the teaching Magisterium can correctly interpret the word of God. Having said this, this brings us to another point. If the Holy Bible can be interpreted in different ways, then so can documents. The jungle is full of deliberate misinterpretations.
Recently, KUAM news interviewed Father Adrian. One of the questions they asked him was: "Can you confirm that the Redemptoris Mater Seminary is for the Neocatechumenal Way and not a Diocesan Seminary?"
Father Adrian gave this response: This is absolutely false and wrong. The building hosts the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, from which have been ordained 16 diocesan priests for Guam. Twelve of these diocesan priests are working in this archdiocese ministering in the parish, and not for the neocatechmenal (sic) way.
The following is Tim Rohr's deliberate misinterpretation of Father Adrian's response. According to Tim:
It really doesn't matter where they are working. What matters is what they were trained to do. And they were trained specifically to serve the Neocatechumenal Way. It says so in Art. III of the RMS Articles of Incorporation:
The purpose of the Corporation shall be limited to the following: to establish and conduct a Seminary to prepare men for the priesthood, for the evangelization, following the life and itinerary of the Neocatechumenal Way as a way of formation in accordance with the precepts of the Roman Catholic faith. The Corporation may own, lease, or otherwise procure all such real and personal property as may be necessary to carry on any of the Corporation's business.
Notice that Tim tells his readers that it does not matter where they are working. He goes on to say that the RMS priests were specifically trained to serve the Neocatechumenal Way, and then have his readers focus on a document.
The REALITY is that twelve of those priests are ministering in the parishes, doing regular Mass. The TRUTH is that the RMS priests were also trained to do the regular Mass, and a few of them have also expressed to learn the Latin Mass. If they are truly serving ONLY the Way, then why are they conducting the regular Masses? Why ignore this important fact? If one is really interested in the truth, one should also look at what is actually being PRACTICED. After all, anyone can take a document and interpret it any way they like it to be especially if one has a hidden agenda.
Stale dumb Diana, we already now why the conduct mass. It just a front. We are not dumb. The run the parish and introduce the NCW and promote in within the parish. That one sentence can be correctly interpreted within context. We are not middle school children, but seems like you are.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 1:09 am,
DeleteJust as you have been brainwashed to ignore what you see in front of your eyes, you have also been brainwashed to believe that the NCW is NOT Catholic. Kiko Arguello (the Founder of the Way) is the Consultor for the Pontifical Council of the Laity.......and even with that you were brainwash to believe that that position is nothing. You were brainwashed not to see the word "Pontifical" and to ignore the FACT that it was Pope Francis who assigned Kiko Arguello this position.
It's catholic as long as you follow your statutes, but you don't.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:34 am,
DeleteAnd how do you know we do not follow the Statutes? Is it because Tim Rohr says so???
No, the Statutes do not allow for the peculiar method of communion, for example. IN fact the Statutes say standing. You regularly disobey your own statutes
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:44 am,
DeleteWe do stand when we receive Holy Communion. Your contention is consuming the Body of Christ sitting down. That is where your disagreement lies with us. There are two ways to receive - by tongue and by hand. We receive the Body of Christ by hand, standing.
And your post is about "interpretations"? On what basis do you separate the "receiving" part from the "consuming" part?
DeleteThis is not what the Holy See does. It has never been the practise of the Church to make this distinction. Don't you think, like the interpretation of scripture, that the only ones with the authority to make this distinction is the Holy See? Please provide just one iota of proof that the Holy See agrees with this distinction. If you can I'll give you my house.
Dear Anonymous at 1:01 pm,
DeletePope Benedict XVI privately met with Kiko regarding the way we are to receive Holy Communion. After the Statutes were approved, we were told by the Catechists how we were to receive Holy Communion, and that these instructions came from the Pope.
The NCW celebrates similar to the Early Christians. We celebrate in small communities just as the Early Christians did. In celebrating the Eucharist, the Early Christians sat down and ate together. Paintings of the first century found in catacombs showed the Early Christians seated around a table during the Eucharist. So, we stand to receive the Body of Christ, and we sit and consume His Body as though we were in a banquet similar to what the Early Christians did. I was told that this was approved by the Pope. I remember Father Pius said that these instructions came from Kiko who received the same instructions from the Pope. That was back in 2008 when the change was made.
As I said, these are pure assertions not supported in any way by the Church in any official sense. You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing - namely, usurping the lawful authority of the Church by accepting the hearsay assertions of others. You ought to be better than that.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:49 pm,
DeleteI will remind you that the oral tradition came first before any written word. So, when the Pope says something, we obey his oral instruction and do not need to wait until someone hands him a pen and paper to write it down as a letter. And that is exactly how the Church started and continues to do so today.
why the laity is not allowed to make any private interpretation of Sacred Scripture is because they would come up with many different interpretations...
ReplyDelete......and yet during admonitions and echos the laity in the NCW do exactly what you say the shouldn't be doing
Dear Anonymous at 8:54 am,
DeleteIt is very important that you ASK what an admonition is. An admonition is NOT an interpretation nor is it a homily. And for your information, the Vatican ALLOWED us to do admonitions. According to the APPROVED Statutes of the Way (Capitalization is mine):
§ 3. Each celebration of the Word is prepared with care, in turn, by a group of the community, with the help, whenever possible, of the presbyter. The group chooses the readings and the songs,38 prepares the MONITIONS and arranges the room and the liturgical signs for the celebration, caring with zeal for its dignity and beauty.39
As you can see from our approved Statutes that the laity is ALLOWED to do monitions (which is another name for admonitions), and this was granted by the Holy See. Why did the Holy See grant us this? Because unlike you, the Vatican knows that admonitions are NOT interpretations, but simply an introduction to the readings.
Why is it so hard to understand that a good monition is not even an interpretation of Holy Scripture at all. Why do you say so? We give a short key to the true meaning of each Bible verses. This is (ad)monition as some already know this new English expression. We give a key to the true meaning, because some folks need a guide to lead their mind and heart in the proper understanding. But we do not ever interpret! No! Because actually no human being can interpret the Bible, only the church. Is this so hard to accept already? Mmmm.
DeleteDear Diana at 9.34, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you quote that part of the Statutes that deals with the 'Weekly celebration of the word"? Not the Eucharist. The "monitions" occur in your Eucharist though don't they? Where is the discussion in the statutes for that?
DeleteAlso, again correct me if I am wrong, but aren't "monitions" the introduction to the readings - whereas the "resonances" or "echoes" are following the readings - and are the ones that are sometimes confused with the homily?
Dear Anonymous at 11:49 am,
DeleteAdmonitions are in both the celebration of the Word and the Eucharist. According to the Approved Statutes (capitalization is mine):
§ 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.
The Admonitions are the introductions to the reading just as I stated in my comment. while the echos are the sharings. Admonition introduce the readings. The catechists had to teach the communities how to make admonitions because some people were confusing admonitions with echoes. The homily is always done by the priest.
"We give a short key to the true meaning of each Bible verses. ... We give a key to the true meaning, because some folks need a guide to lead their mind and heart in the proper understanding."
DeleteWell, is this not exactly the definition of interpreting a text?
Dear Anonymous at 1:11 am,
DeleteThis is why the Catechists have to train the communities especially the younger ones how to do proper admonitions. In my opinion, I think the older communities have the hang of it because they have been practicing longer and learning from their errors. Admonitions are supposed to be short or brief, but some people talk too long. Others make their admonitions similar to their sharings.
You mean all members have to learn properly interpret the Bible through admonition? "Give a short key to the true meaning of each Bible verses" is the exact meaning of interpreting the Bible verses! It is like a definition of interpreting from a theology book. As somebody said interpretation helps application and acculturation as well. Who decides in the neo if an admonition made ny any members is in-line or out-of-line with the magisterium's interpretation?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:09 pm,
DeleteNo, an admonition is an introduction to the reading, and the person usually admonishes members to attentively listen to the readings.
To Jolene,
ReplyDeleteThe reason I did not publish your comments is because it has nothing to do with the OP (original post). You believe that the Magisterium only deals with DISPUTED areas in the Bible. This is incorrect. The Catechism is very clear that ONLY the Magisterium ALONE interprets Scripture. The Catechism did not say that the Magisterium interprets only disputed areas of scripture.
Diana, it is not about Jolene, it is about your manner of managing this blog. Simply saying: you should publish any original comment if you try to debunk it. Don't you think it is strange that you dissect something we could not even read at the first place?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:54 pm,
DeleteI already debunked her comment in my last post, and she is bringing it again to this post. In my last post, I cited the Catechism which states that the teaching office of the Church ALONE is the one to interpret Scripture. She insists that that it is only scripture, which are in dispute with our Christian brothers that the Magisterium interprets such as the virginity of Mary while the Catholic laity can interpret scripture that are not in dispute. The Magisterium interprets all Scripture,
Dear Anonymous 8:54 AM,
ReplyDeleteWE DO NOT INTERPRET THE BIBLE AND CALL IT ADMONITIONS! Please. Just. Stop. LOL.
Once again, Tim Rohr is twisting the TRUTH!
It is very true what is said about social media, in particular the blog called JungleWatch and its author. You can recognize malfeasance immediately when you see that the blog allows so called 'anonymous' comments when the author comments incognito, hiding his or her identity.
ReplyDeleteThese blogs with the anonymous option deliberately turned on invite people of corrupted morality to make dubious comments and incite emotions. You cannot find any trait of good education in these anonymous bloggers. It is by no means accident that most comments on Junglewatch are made anonymously. This phenomena is the very essence of hate mongering.
You can find these people on hate blogs like JungleWatch who are never straight shooters. I ask all those who have a stake in the well-being of the Catholic faithful on the island, please, refrain from anonymous commenting and refrain from blogs with the anonymous option turned on. God bless you for doing so!
Dear Anonymous at 10:05 am,
DeleteThere are good reasons why many of us (including yourself) remain anonymous especially when posting in the jungle. I do not post in the jungle, and I have encouraged the brothers not to as well.
Hey, is this not Zoltan's comment from the PDN?
Deletehttp://www.guampdn.com/comments/article/20150115/OPINION02/301150014/Allow-all-Catholic-voices-heard
DeleteAnonymousJanuary 15, 2015 at 8:54 AM interpreting the Bible solely spells PROTESTANT.
ReplyDeleteI invite you to read a document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission called "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church".
DeleteThis is a link: http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp.htm
particularly, to read section IV, and here it is:
"...IV. INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH
Exegetes may have a distinctive role in the interpretation of the Bible but they do not exercise a monopoly. This activity within the church has aspects which go beyond the academic analysis of texts. The church, indeed, does not regard the Bible simply as a collection of historical documents dealing with its own origins; it receives the Bible as word of God, addressed both to itself and to the entire world at the present time. This conviction, stemming from the faith, leads in turn to the work of actualizing and inculturating the biblical message, as well as to various uses of the inspired text in liturgy, in "lectio divina," in pastoral ministry and in the ecumenical movement..."
Please check also section A. Actualization.
But of course, many dont even bother to read documents of the Church. Some consider what "the others say", the sole authority in the Church.
"Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia"
I agree with Anonymous 10:09 am, The interpretation of Sacred Scripture belongs to the teaching office of the Church just as it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Delete"Exegetes may have a distinctive role in the interpretation of the Bible but they do not exercise a monopoly. This activity within the church has aspects which go beyond the academic analysis of texts."
DeleteThanks for this very important Vatican document about interpreting the Bible. This is right! Interpreting Holy Scripture in the academic sense is the job of exegetes who have a specific education preparing them for this job. Exegetes are people who learn proper interpretation following the principles laid down by the magisterium. The magisterium does not interpret the Bible directly. It only accepts or rejects the works of particular exegetes. This is why interpretation is always a human endeavor, even if the result is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Some people forget that prophets, apostles and evangelists who wrote the Bible were also human beings.
It is also very important to understand that interpreting the Bible is not a monopoly of the exegetes! Beyond academic interpretation, there is an everyday interpretation of the daily reading in the offices, in individual or group lectio Divina sections, etc. This everyday interpretation is never an academic endeavor but an application and inculturation of Holy Scripture into our daily activities. It is part of what we are as Christians. Of course, this interpretation is often nothing more than pronouncing the Bible words with our own, this ensuring that we do not "worship" the text itself, but make it alive in our own lives.
But Kiko interprets scripture all the time! His catechesis is full of his own interpretations. A classic example is the "man born bind" catechesis which is entirely novel in the context of the teachings of the Church fathers.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:57 am,
DeleteFist of all, a catechesis is not biblical instruction. Catechesis is religious instruction....the same kind of religious instruction that CCD teachers give to their students or what the RCIA program give to adults to prepare them for baptism. So Kiko was never interpreting the Bible. He was giving a catechesis.
Secondly, Chuck White is using the unapproved catechetical directory to misinterpret the Way's teachings. The NCW have the Catechetical Directory that was approved by the Pope. And this is what the catechists use for their catechesis (religious instructions).
I have the "approved" version of the catechetical directory, volume 1 Diana ("approved for publication" that is). Why did you mention Chuck White? And how can you be so sure that Chuck White uses an "unapproved" version? He has said he uses the current "approved" version, hasn't he. And it is available to buy online.
DeleteI have personally attended the initial catechesis, and have recorded it for my own use. I note that the catechesis was virtually word for word from the copy of the directory that I have, including the teaching of Kiko in the "man born blind". Have you nothing to say about that interpretation of scripture. Can you find any evidence that the Church fathers, or the Magisteriun agrees with Kiko's interpretation, because I have looked, and I have found that Kiko's understanding is at odds with that of the Church Fathers.
By the way, I can provide you with an electronic copy of the first volume of the directory if you like, so you can see that it was published in 2012 by Hope Publishing company and that it contains Kiko's interpretation of this particular piece of scripture.
DeleteIts full of similar interpretations by the way.
Dear Anonymous at 1:06 pm,
DeleteYou stated that you have the approved Catechetical Directory and that Kiko follows it word for word. So, what is the problem? It was approved by the Vatican. It is right for Kiko to follow what the Vatican approves.
Dear Diana at 2.50pm. I did not say "Kiko follows it. (You may need to re-read your own post on misunderstanding the written word).
DeleteI said that the catechists said exactly what was written in the book, virtually word for word, and that this includes the problematic scripture interpretation that I mentioned above.
I note that you haven't even attempted to justify or even look at that particular interpretation by Kiko, as compared to the teachings of the Church fathers on that same passage.
It also reminds me that the claim that the catechists are somehow channelling the Holy Spirit in the catechesis is contradicted by the fact that they simply regurgitate what is written in that book. Channelling Kiko is the more accurate description of what happens. If he is wrong then you're all wrong. You are standing uncertainly on the edge of the precipice and inviting everyone to take a look at the view. Danger
Dear Anonymous at 3:54 pm,
DeleteAre you saying that the Catechists should not follow word for word a book that the Vatican approved? A catechesis is not an interpretation of the Bible. Isn't Kiko's catechesis in that approved book or not?
yup. Kiko does quote scripture and makes his own songs out of it
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:42 pm,
DeleteYes, there is a difference between quoting scripture and interpreting it. Catholics quote scripture in the regular Mass all the time.
Some of you Anonymous posters are probably Protestants and don't know it. The reason for the Reformers is simply because of the mentality you Anonymous posters have.
ReplyDeleteC'mon.
This was brought to my attention by Anonymous 1:06 pm.
ReplyDeleteHe said that Chuck White has the APPROVED version of the Catechetical Directory. The Catechetical Directory of the Way was approved by the Vatican in 2012. If the approved version is being used by Chuck White, then the question is.......why is he criticizing the Vatican. It was not Kiko who approved the Catechetical Directory, but the Vatican. Chuck White's website cites the Catechetical Directory and then gives his criticism:
“What is the catechumenate? A time in which mud will be put in your eyes. It is Jesus Christ who does this. Because you do not know that you are blind. You don’t know that·· you–are dirty and therefore you don’t want to wash. Jesus will put mud in your eyes so that you may feel uncomfortable and have to go to wash in the waters of your Baptism, to wash yourself of your sins. This is a marvelous catechesis…Jesus will put mud in your eyes so that you will sense that you are a sinner, so that you may discover that you are dirty.” [0]
Chuck White cites this quote directly from the APPROVED Catechetical Directory. And then he gives his criticism below. According to Chuck White:
"Kiko is correct when he says that the early Church saw Baptism and the Catechumenate in this miracle from the Gospel of John. St. Augustine taught this very clearly. The scene of the blind man washing in the Pool of Siloam corresponds to baptism and Augustine even calls the blind man a “catechumen.”[1]
But from there Kiko deliberately twists the Gospel reading, the belief of the early Church, and especially the meaning of the catechumenate..........Secondly, a close reading of the passage shows that Jesus did not put “mud” into the eyes of the blind man at all, but rather, “clay”. The Greek word used in this passage is “pelon” (transliterated from the original Koine Greek), and its primary meaning is “clay”, as in that used by a potter."
http://thoughtfulcatholic.com/?page_id=42944
Here is the problem. Chuck White is criticizing something that was already APPROVED by the Vatican. If the Vatican used the word "mud" instead of "clay", then why blame Kiko for it? The word "mud" was used in the approved Catechetical Director. Why? Perhaps, because the Vatican realized that another word for "clay" is also "mud." Just look it up in Dictionary.com. Otherwise, Mr. White should fly to Rome and tell the Vatican officials that he knows better than they do.
This is not about Mr White. Nor is it about whether the Church has granted an "approval for publication" of these books. In its review of the directory, the Church added many thousands of references to the CCC which are footnoted in these books. Why did they not change the text itself? Because the books are a transcript of talks given by Kiko and Carmen. Therefore the Church couldn't really change the text of the books as it would not have been what Kiko actually said at the time. Instead of that, the Church added these references to the CCC so that any errors in the actual text would be clarified by the footnotes.
DeleteBut, I note that during the initial catechesis the Catechism of the Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. Not even once.
In any case, I asked you to find me a precedent in the Church for the interpretation of this passage as Kiko presents it. When you do find it I will retract my objection.
Dear Anonymous at 3:59 pm,
DeleteThe Catechism of the Catholic Church is not the Holy Bible. The two are different. The Catechetical Directory was approved by the Vatican. And as Catholics, we follow the Vatican and everything that she approves. If the Vatican did not change the texts itself, then they recognize that the catechesis is aligned with what the Church teaches and is a product of the Holy Spirit.
The Catechetical Directory had to be expanded and references inserted in order to avoid misleading interpretation of Biblical texts. Pope Benedict requested the approved Directory to be published. However, neos keep the Directory secret and unpublished, defying the Pope's request. Why is that, can anyone explain? Pope Benedict had several well publicized conflicts with the neos in Rome and he had to resign due to his health becoming poor. Borgias say his health became a concern in the middle ages fashion.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:05 pm,
DeleteIt took the Vatican many years to go over the Catechetical Directory. I imagine that there would be some minor changes in it. The fact that they were able to find references to Kiko's catechesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church only means that his catechesis (religious instruction) has been aligned with the teachings of the Church.
There are 13 volumes of the Catechetical Directory. You can get their first couple of volumes at Hope Publishing company. I suppose the rest of the volumes will be published soon at a later date.
Diana, what do you mean by the "first couple" of volumes? We heard that only Volume 1 has been published so far! Your claim here about the 13 volumes is not supported by the information we heard that after the resignation of Pope Benedict Kiko immediately halted and indefinitely postponed the publication of any further volumes of the neo Directory.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:47 pm,
DeleteWhere did you hear that Kiko halted and indefinitely postponed the publication of any further volumes of the Catechetical Directory? All 13 volumes were approved by the Pope. According to the Catholic News Agency:
"Cardinal Rylko said he was authorized to make that announcement to the audience hall this morning. He explained that "so as to give greater security to the actions of the Neo-Catechumenal Way and to offer doctrinal guarantees to all the pastors of the Church," the CDF revisited the 13 volumes of teachings and approved them as the "Catechetical Directory of the Way."
The Pontifical Council for Laity, of which the cardinal is head, authenticated the doctrinal approval and archived the decree on Dec. 26, 2010, he said.
"Your catecheses have thereby received an important seal from the Church," he told them. "It is a compass, a sure compass according to which you will be able to walk." "
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/neocatechumenal-way-receives-vatican-approval-for-its-teachings-instructions-from-pope/
"so as to give greater security to the actions of the Neo-Catechumenal Way and to offer doctrinal guarantees to all the pastors of the Church,"
DeleteAnd it does this by being kept hidden?
"The fact that they were able to find references to Kiko's catechesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church only means that his catechesis (religious instruction) has been aligned with the teachings of the Church. "
What does this even mean? Are you suggesting that they searched the CCC and found that Kiko was there before them or something? How absurd.
In the "Introductory Note" to the Catechetical Directory Volume 1 Kiko himself describes it as a "corrected version" - the corrections being "less felicitous expressions" that seemed "ambiguous". This is Kiko's description. We would say that the catechesis is doctrinally flawed, but Kiko has an answer to that too. He quotes a Fr Groppo who stated that the truth of the catechetical text is "not to be found in the individual phrase but in the general context"!!
This is an extraordinary admission as to suspect teaching of these catecheses.
In any case, many errors of the original, unreviewed text remain, and were only addressed by the Holy See through the references to the Catechism.
It is interesting to note that the books were reviewed and prepared by a "Commission appointed by us (the leaders of the NCW)", and that the Commission were instructed by the CDF to insert the references to the CCC.
Dear Anonymous at 8:23 pm,
DeleteThat is the "corrected version" because the "original version" may have contained a few minor errors. It took years for the Vatican to give their approval because they were going over each writing. The Catechetical Directory was not approve in just one year, but several years.
The Way was founded in 1964 and the Catechetical Directory was approved in 2010. Two years before that, the Statutes of the Way was approved. If the "leaders of the NCW" who influenced the CDF to insert the references to the CCC, then it should have taken only one year to approve the Catechetical Directory.
Why is this 13 volume not made public? What is so secretive about it? The Cathechism book is available to all, why not yours? If it is the same teaching, why, why, why?
DeleteOnce again, you prove the point of your original post Diana. I did not say that the leaders of the NCW influenced the CDF to insert references to the CCC. I said rather that the review of the book was conducted by a commission that was appointed by the NCW, not the Holy See, and that the CDF independently insisted on the references to the CCC being inserted, presumably because up until that point, the "Commission appointed by us" had not done that.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:06 pm,
DeleteThe Catechetical Directory was reviewed by five dicasteries and the Pontifical Council for the Laity before its approval. The review of the book was not conducted by a commission that was appointed by the NCW. Where are you getting your information?
Dear Diana, please read the "Introductory Note" at the start of the Catechetical Directory, volume 1.
ReplyDeleteIt was written by Kiko, who states that the review was conducted by a "Commission appointed by us". Not much of an insider, are you? This is the problem in relying on the word of those that believe that truth "is not to be found in the individual phrase but in the general context". Or perhaps you don't even have a copy yourself - maybe you are using the "unapproved" version. or it might be that you haven't reached that step yet?
Dear Anonymous at 9:24 pm,
DeleteI am a Co-Responsible, not a catechist. I do not have the Directory; yet, I find it odd that what you say is written in the introductory note is contradictory to what is reported in the Vatican website. According to the Vatican website:
"The Pontifical Council for the Laity, by decree dated 8 January 2012, after consultation with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has given its approval to the ceremonies contained in the Neocatechumenal Way Catechetical Directory which, by nature, are not contained in the liturgical books of the Church."
http://www.laici.va/content/laici/en/media/notizie/comunicato-del-pontificio-consiglio-per-i-laici--approvazione-de.html
Are you certain that you are not taking Kiko's words out of context and misinterpreting it?
Dear Diana, here is the full context:
DeleteKiko Arguello, Introductory Note, Catechetical Directory Volume 1:
“In 1977, Father G Groppo SDB, gave them a very positive evaluation and said that the novelty of these catecheses and the fundamental criterion for their interpretation consisted in the fact that they are the oral expression of a lived experience of faith and conversion and that therefore what is involved here is an existential language, whose* truth is not to be found in the individual phrase but in the general context*.”
***Note that Fr Groppo was reviewing the “uncorrected” version without the biblical references or references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church that occur in the “approved for publication” version that nobody gets to see, including co-responsibles who become the mouthpiece for an insiders view of the NCW.
Kiko:
“In this volume is present, as the first part of the Catechetical Directory of the Neocatechumenal Way, which consists of the different stages of the Way, the corrected version of ‘Guidelines for teams of catechists for the stage of conversion’, which has been prepared by a Commission ***appointed by us***. The Commission has respected the original language , live and oral, of the text. It has corrected incomplete or less felicitous expressions – which might also have seemed ambiguous - , which were a characteristic of the spoken language or simply due to the not always accurate translation from the original Spanish. In addition, they have taken into account the observations made at the second examination of the Guidelines by the Congregation for the Clergy in 1990. Finally, they have added the biblical quotations to which the text refers or which are a help to a better understanding of its meaning.
It only needs to be added that in reviewing the text of the Guidelines for teams of catechists, in accordance with the suggestion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, appropriate references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church have been added. These are not illustrative but normative”
One wonders exactly to whom My Arguello is addressing? Perhaps the inside of a locked filing cabinet somewhere?
Only the new, corrected Directory was approved and not the original text that was full of suspect misinterpretations of Scripture. The fact is that Kiko interpreted Biblical texts in the Dictionary in a way that was opposed and rejected by Vatican. That is why it had to be corrected and references had to be added. The Magisterium had to interfere and say the final words.
DeleteWhat amazes me is that members of the Way are so prepared to accept that the catechetical texts ought to be kept secret. I am not a catechist, but I have the first volume. Is this sinful? For members, even "higher" members such as the host of this page, it appears that it would be sacrilege if they were to even desire to look at the thing. Why is that? Surely truth, even "general context" truth, should be given as freely as it is received.
DeleteThe real reasons, I suspect are, firstly, that the leaders at the top of the pyramid are afraid that the "existential language" might look heterodox. But secondly and perhaps more importantly in terms of the local "community", if the text was available, the catechists would appear to be simply parrots or mouthpieces of a single lay man, and their claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, to have the gift of "discernment" and all that rejoinder, would be proven to be fluff. Thats the reason, I believe, and you've all fallen for it. Moreover, you accept the idea, at least implicitly, that the more ignorant you are, the more you simply don't ask those sort of questions, the more you give in to the bullies - the further you have progressed along the path to true "adult faith". What balderdash!
Deaf Anonymous at 11:57 pm,
DeleteThank you for quoting the whole passage. It also says that the commission was following the guidelines of the Congregation of the Clergy. This commission did not give the final approval. The Vatican gave the final approval. Kiko's commission may have added the references to the CCC, but the Vatican has to verify these references.
Can you explain how you interpret the phrase "truth is not to be found in the individual phrases, but in the general context."
Dear Anonymous at 12:18 am,
DeleteThat is simply your own opinion. Is it not possible that the reason is because they want the members to have a true experience once they encounter the next step? If a person has not watched a good movie and someone told him about the movie, then he spoiled the opportunity of that person who have not yet watched the movie. It is the same when one goes through a series of steps of conversion.
Dear Diana at 7.18,
Delete"Can you explain how you interpret the phrase "truth is not to be found in the individual phrases, but in the general context.""
Well, it is first of all the very definition of relativism. If this principle is accepted, words no longer have the meaning they seem to have. This position is useful for those who practise the art of deception, as nothing can ever really be pinned down and understood. Everything is vague and as subjective as the context. It must be pointed out that the Church firmly rejects this form of relativism.
It is also a self-negating statement, because if truth is not found in the words themselves, what truth can be found in the statement itself, given that it too is "words"?
But the "Introductory Note" by Kiko is revealing in its entire argument, which seems to go a bit like this:
1. "Lived experience" is full of surprises, is contrasted with a "theoretical" approach, and is defined as chaotic, unpredictable etc.
2. The Holy Spirit is in these "lived experiences"
3. The Holy Spirit is therefore chaotic, unpredictable and "non-theoretical" in action
So,
4. Kiko's words, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are also sometimes chaotic and of an "existential" language, and are therefore not quite true except when heard in the acceptable context.
Now, words are not identical to the things they signify, And they are meaningless without a reality that accords with them, but this is not unique to the context of the NCW. Jesus Christ spoke in "existential" language, but the teachings of the Church are clear in every age.Words always fall short of the reality, of the experience, but that doesn't mean they need to be vague or confusing.
In fact, Jesus Christ himself is the truth, and though he is a sign of contradiction, no contradiction is found in truth.
No, Kiko advances this argument because he knows that what is being said is different to what has been said before. In other words, that some of Kiko's teachings contradict, or undermine the teaching of the Church.
Being an expert manipulator, Kiko has formulated a method to convince his followers that this is ok. That it is preferable to disarm their own reason, ultimately always falling back on the "we were told" or the "we are approved" defense. Rarely is it possible to have a decent conversation with a NCW member about these matters as either they have been kept ignorant (secret catechetical texts for example) or because they fear having to resort once agin to these irrational arguments.
The method of Kiko, is the "community at all costs" - where respect for the individual is lost to the preservation of the community, because it is the community that instils this false epistemology. And makes one feel better for it!
The Church, however has always and will always, seek truth in the expression as well as the experience.
Dear Anonymous at 2:37 pm,
DeleteI see it differently. Relativism is any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments. In other words, the individual is the one who decides what is right for him/her rather than adhering to what is generally taught.
Abortion, for example, is taught to be wrong in the Catholic Church. This is the general rule. But individuals decide what is right for them rather than follow the general rule. The Catholic Church does teach that the "community" (in this case the Church) matters. In fact, St Paul goes on to explain that the sin of one individual in the Church has an impact on the whole Church. God has always advocated for the family, the community, or the Church rather than individuals. He wants people to be in a relationship with one another. That means one must be in a Church or community.
As for the Holy Spirit, I do not think "chaotic" is the word Kiko meant by "lived experience." The Holy Spirit gives diverse gifts. There is diversity in the Church, but that does not mean chaotic. There is diversity in unity. St. Paul goes on to explain that each member of the Body of Christ are different, but all contribute to the one Body of Christ,...the Church.
I would also quote for you the closing remarks of Kiko in that "Note":
Delete"God has chosen to save the world through the "foolishness" of the preaching. St Paul himself says to the Romans that his preaching is not based on the persuasive discourse of human wisdom, but on the manisfestation of the Holy Spirit and his power, which accompanies the preaching and acts through signs and miracles of conversion in the people that listen."
Why does he emphasizer this point? Because by this argument and the logic that precedes it (see above), Kiko justifies, and dismisses all criticism in anything he ever says or writes.
This is not particularly surprising. What is surprising is that you all are prepared to accept this ideas, just because he says he is an angel.
The irony of all this, too, is that this is an introduction to a volume of work that is "approved for publication", and also that those catechists that deliver the catechesis, are not at all preaching through the "manifestation of the Holy Spirit and his power". They are in fact preaching the "persuasive discourse of human wisdom" - in this case the "wisdom" of Kiko, who is the sole author, and from whose transcript they dare not deviate one iota.
Well, Kiko uses the term "chaotic" himself when describing the language he claims is coming from the Holy Spirit.
DeleteIn any case, that statement concerns what truth is, and Kiko chooses to define truth in a certain way to protect againstg any criticsim of *what he actually teaches*.
This is borne out time and time again on this blog, not in the least by your own example of "concelebration" being defined in way that no-one defines it anymore. Thus the truth ius fluid and serves the human will. That is relativism and here it is in the introduction to your catechesis. Scary isn't it? It should make you doubt everything you think you know about the NCW
Some has the gift of speaking tongues and some has the gift of interpreting. The two must not be the same.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:08 pm,
DeleteHow do you know for certain that they are not preaching through the Holy Spirit? Kiko may be the author of the Catechetical Directory, but it was approved by the Vatican. Are you saying that the Holy See is not guided by the Holy Spirit, and that the Chair of the Apostle Peter made a mistake in approving Kiko's Catechesis. I will remind you that the Pope and the teaching Magisterium has infallibility in matters of faith and morals.
Dear Anonymous at 3:13 pm,
DeleteIf you go back and read what I said, you would have found that this is what I said about con celebration. I said that the word "con celebration" had a different meaning in Early Christianity and that all Christians con celebrated. Is this statement true or false? It is true. I got the information from the Sunday's Visitors Catholic Encyclopedia. I also said that sometime in the Middle Ages, the word "con celebration" changed and refers only to bishops and priests. Is that statement true or false? It is true. I got the information from the same source. I also said that the way we celebrate the Eucharist appears to follow the celebration of con celebration in the GIRM. That statement is a matter of perspective. Comparing the GIRM and the Eucharistic celebrations, I see some similarities. Is it possible to return to the ancient liturgies? The answer is yes...so long as we have the permission of the Pope.
Dear Diana at 9.02pm. Where did I suggest that the Holy See is not guided by the Holy Spirit? What I said is that the catechists merely spout what Kiko has written, and in that sense are just a mouthpiece for him. This is quite different to what Kiko suggests when he speaks of the "manisfestation of the Holy Spirit and his power, which accompanies the preaching". They are in fact "preaching the "persuasive discourse of human (Kiko) wisdom""
DeleteDear Diana at 9.17pm, I recall perfectly well what you said on concelebration, but lets go over it carefully. You said that concelebration had a different meaning two thousand years ago. Ok, for the sake of the argument let us accept that proposition. When it "changed its meaning" is irrelevant, given that we both agree that it now has meaning only in relation to clergy. At this point in history "concelebration" has a particular meaning given by the Church, and there are careful clear guidelines given by the Church, now, which relgulate "concelebration".
DeleteThe actual point is that the NCW do not follow the Church's meaning or regulation of concelebration, as is made clear by your previous posts. Instead, you choose an alternative meaning for the word, and suggest that it applies to you, despite that obvious fact that for the Church, now, it applies to clergy only.
This is semantic wordplay, designed to justify aberrant practises. Kiko would be proud.
Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[169.] Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St Thomas wrote, “the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed"
And as for the permission of the Pope - well again, this is a joke. If you honestly think that the "Pope's permission" is given informally, and without the explicit involvement of the relevant dicastries, you really are lost. The final proof for you should be the fact that Pope Benedict di not "approve the liturgy" of the NCW when he had the opportunity in early 2012, despite Kiko's best efforts, and the influence of the NCW sympathisers in the Vatican (I believe Cardinal Filoni has been identified as the one who slipped the draft announcement onto Cardinal Burke's desk).
Instead he gave approval only to those aspects that in his words, are not "strictly liturgical". Why did he do this? Because he had already said on a number of occasions, and had already put in writing, inyou own statutes, that the NCW was to follow faithfully the liturgical books of the Roman Rite. This "concelebration" issue is how you attempt to explain away your violation of those same books.
Dear Anonymous at 10:15 pm,
DeleteThe Vatican approved the Catechetical Directory, so the Catechists should be using that book. In the same way, the teaching office of the Church have already interpreted biblical scripture, so no priest should go outside of the Church interpretation.
Dear Anonymous at 10:30 pm,
DeleteAre you dictating to me how I should speak??? How is saying that the Eucharistic celebration of the Way looks similar to a concelebration? And how is it that you see that statement to be the same as claiming that it IS a concelebration.? You do not dictate to me how I should write or speak no more than you can dictate how the Way should conduct its celebration in which the Pope has granted us permission to do.
Dear Diana at 7.32 AM
DeleteThere is no need to get upset. the truth is knocking at your door and you are so close to letting it in.
Perhaps I need to remind you of why you mentioned concelebration in the first place.
It wasn't merely an observation "Gee wiz, doesn't that NCW Mass look a lot like concelebration?"
You were saying that in the early church the entire people "concelebrated", that the NCW is trying to do what the early church did, and therefore the current practise of simultaneious communion of priest and people in the NCW, a violation of liturgical law, is justified.
Dear Anonymous at 9:32 am,
DeleteSo, essentially what you are saying is that the Early Christians were wrong, and you know better. The word "concelebration" did not changed because the Early Christians were wrong. It changed with time just like the word "gay" no longer meant happy. It means something else today. Nevertheless, I have shown a document on my blog where a return to the ancient liturgies is okay so long as they receive permission from the Pope.
No that is clearly not what I'm saying.
DeleteI'm sure there are quite a few instances where the disciplines of the early Church have changed or have been adapted, always we trust, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; and cases where those disciplines remain.
However, in determining its disciplines, the Church is concerned about this moment in history, not centuries ago. I mean to say that the Church exercises its authority in the present not in the past, although there is an unbroken line between them.
It is not correct to argue that just because a certain practise was accepted in the past, it is lawful and proper to resume that practise, when in the meantime the lawful authority of the Church has instructed something else. In some cases, such as the liturgy, modifcations would require the explicit approval of the Church. I assume this is what you mean by "as long as they receive permission from the Pope"? The thing is, the Pope doesn't go around making changes to the Mass on his own, in secret or verbally. The relevant dicastries are always involved, and it is always a formal involvement.
This is why your "private permission of the Pope" just doesn't cut it. You've been sold a dud explanation on that one. You should ask your catechist to show you one other example of a change to the Mass where the pope gave sole, private and verbal approval only.
Dear Anonymous at 5:21 pm,
DeleteAccording to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12md.htm
The Catholic Church has various liturgies. But Pope Francis said that the Liturgy cannot save us. Only God can save us. It is also NOT the liturgy that unites all Catholics. It is our belief and faith in union with the Pope and her bishops that unites all Catholics. This is why I find it so amazing that those who oppose the Way are so bent on the liturgy.
You will find it is actually the Church which is "bent on the liturgy", as you put it. Anyway, the "Our Sunday Visitor Catholic Encyclopedia" (you know the one Diana) says this about Holy Communion:
Delete"The communion of the Mass is in a real sense the culmination of the whole celebration and the climax of the participation of the faithful. It is at this very moment that the intimate bond between Christ and his community is confirmed by their reception of His Body and Blood. This communion is itself the basis of the union of Christ with us and **of our unity with each other in him**"
There are two things to note about this statement. One, that in fact it is precisely in the liturgy, in Holy Communion, that our unity is acheived, and secondly, that "reception" of Holy Communion is synonymous with consumption.
Dear Anonymous at 9:27 pm,
DeleteThe first commandment of God is to love God with all your heart, with your mind, and with your strength. We are to worship God, not the liturgy. God is in the liturgy, but the liturgy is not God. God is the one to save you, not the liturgy. This is what Pope Francis said:
"............But I consider greatly important to go deep into things, because if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us.”
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2014/02/15/pope-francis-on-old-mass-just-a-kind-of-fashion/
As I said, in the Catholic Church, there are a variety of liturgies. In just the Latin-rite Church, there are 9 different kinds of liturgies. Among the Eastern Catholics, there are much more. It is not the liturgy that combines us together. It is our belief and faith in communion with God, Pope, and Bishops that make us one people of God.
See, Diana, this is why you get into logical problems. You read the Holy Father's comments and make a dichotomy between being saved by God and being saved by the "liturgy". Whatever that means. You say the "liturgy is not God". No, but the Eucharist is.
DeleteThe Holy Father says that we must go deep to benefit from the liturgy. That's a pretty orthodox and common idea in the Church. The Pope did not say "don't worry about the liturgy". He was warning against being shallow.
Then you refer to the "9 different kinds of liturgies" in the Latin-rite, as if that somehow excuses liturgical aberrations. It does not. Each of theses" kinds of liturgies" are strictly regulated and not left up to individuals or groups to customize as they will.
Finally, why do we call the Eucharist "Holy Communion" if is not our means of "communion"?
Dear Anonymous at 2:19 pm,
DeleteThe Pope said that the liturgy cannot save us. Only God can save us. Eating His Body and Drinking His Blood will give us eternal life just as Christ said. There are people who go to the Mass and cannot receive Holy Communion because they are in a state of mortal sin. However, for these people who did not receive Holy Communion, they can receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which will also give them eternal life.
The Vatican will be making an announcement as soon as the Popes visit to the Phillipines concludes. I'll give you heads up- it deals with the NCW. I wonder what you VIA Kiko will say after the announcment and letter? The Vatican and the Pope is wrong? but, but, but 5 popes, and he serves on a council, and we are called by, but the fruits. It will be clear, concise and leave no room for mis interpretation. Kiko will not like it and nor will the NCW. I figure they will play it down and ignore it till the hammer.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 8:33 am,
DeleteI hope that the Pope makes an announcement, but what makes you think he will rule in your favor?
And what makes you think it will be in your favor DIana? Apuron seems to be henpecking the Pope. he sees the Pope in Korea, travels to Rome, meets the delegation on island, bounces off to Manila just so he can put his two cents in.
DeleteLeave the Pope alone! A report will be made and a decision will be acted on. I believe that APURON is running scared!
Dear Anonymous at 8:56 pm,
DeleteChrist is the one who leads His Church. Christ called the Archbishop to do His will. If it is His will to see the Pope, then so be it. Who are we to tell God what to do. If it is not God's will for the Archbishop to see the Pope, then God will make it difficult that Archbishop Apuron will not be able to meet him at all. Bear in mind that Archbishop Apuron was not on the guest list in South Korea or in the Philippines. The fact that he was able to get past security to see the Pope is God's doing. It is God's will. And God has His reasons for allowing the Archbishop to get past security to see the Pope.
61 comments on Human Interpretations
ReplyDeletesort like the Jews who had 500-600 interpretations of their religion during the time of Christ.
And yet the fishers of men that Christ chose; the people who were the foundation of our Church were not the scholars, not the well known, not the rich but the exact opposite.
and yet were talk about "interpretations".
The Way is not for everyone.........it is not for everyone.
Come and listen.....and if its not for you.....GREAT.....have a nice life..
It is not a matter of secrecy that the Catechetical Directory is not readily available. As was mentioned when it was approved this directory outlines the various steps in the itinerary of the way. Thus it contains the detailed catechesis for each step. This is a tool for the catechist and a gift for the catechumen. Hence, if you knew what the gift box contained, would there still be authentic joy in opening it? If you knew the intricate details of a retreat, can you still say to yourself that you entered the retreat open minded?
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, go and listen to a catechesis, stop by a word celebration (doubt if any community will send you away) or start your Sunday celebration with a Mass with an NCW community on Saturday evening.
You didn't ask for these details but hey these are not secrets either.
Dear Anon at 2.47. Your analogy is imperfect. The gift of faith and the mysteries of the kingdom are never "unwrapped" in this life. Wherever we are, we can go deeper in God through Christ. What happens after thirty odd years of the catechesis? Is the gift unwrapped then? Is it acceptable to view the catechetical directories then?
DeleteThis is why we Catholics make freely available everything we have in faith. There is no fear that we might reveal it too soon!
By the way, if after thirty years, having reached the "second baptism" and the "election", a member, was to be injured and experience amnesia. Would they have to start all over again in order to be considered truly adult Christian?
Please don't talk about imperfect analogies when yours is so shallow.
Deletewho are we to say who is given the gift of faith or the kingdom of heaven.
you sound every bit like a catholic who says that...I believe in God but do not believe in the power of God.
Who cares what happens in 30 years?....or 30 seconds from now.....we might be dead. What is God saying to you NOW......and what are you doing....NOW.
This is funny. I don't like to learn about what I believe in from secret books in luxurious hotels. What I believe in is fully included in the Gospels. The Gospels are free to read for everyone at any time. You say the secret books written by Kiko are "gifts" for the faithful that should not be spoiled. Well, for me the gift is the Bible! I'd rather rejoice in God's message than in any human words. What is more, I would never ever elevate the "gift" of Kiko above Holy Scripture! The author of Holy Scripture as we all know is divine. Thanks, but I don't need any gift overriding that divine message in my life.
DeleteDear Anon at 10.47am, would you mind pointing out the "shallow" analogy, as I'm not sure to what you refer> i don't recall making an analogy in my previous post.
DeleteI did ask some questions though. And, like most members of the NCW, you weren't able to answer a single one.
Well said Whisper @ 6:21 pm. I totally agree with you!! Don't know why anyone would follow the teaching of Kiko and think of it as a gift. Shaking my head.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:27 pm,
DeleteIf you believe the Bible, it DOES say that the Holy Spirit give gifts. How do you know that the Holy Spirit did not give Kiko the gift of wisdom and understanding to write a catechesis?? I think the fact that Kiko's catechesis was approved by the Vatican showed that it came from the Holy Spirit.
I am the anonymous poster at 2:47.
ReplyDeleteSome seem to be having a problem with what is a gift. Also, I was the one talking about "unwrapped " gifts and anon at. 6:53 decides to counter my analogy with the same analogy. Shucks! But thank you.
Anyways, I never mentioned or made an imposition that the Directory is a gift from kiko, and I never implied that the Directory is much greater than the bible. Please review my comments again and realize that I was only countering the idea that opposers think that the directory is a secret document. But since we've now moved on to the topic of gifts, lets go there instead.
I doubt if kiki arguello will ever take credit for the directory. First, he claims that he was inspired when he was ministering in the slums. And what /who inspired him? God. So if it is a gift from God then yes we should feel blessed. The Directory now contains references to the CCC which secures it as in line with catholic teaching, not that it never was in the first place. You do not need to complete the itinerary in order to obtain a copy.
To whisper : You should get a copy of the catechism of the catholic church and learn that the church is not
"Scola Scriptura " or in "word alone". We hold on to two truths, Sacred scripture and Sacred tradition, and I wonder who plays an important role in the latter? Man perhaps. Even God had to send his son, born of a woman, JESUS, truly human, truly Divine to this world. The bible does speak to us but God loves so much that to this day he continues to send us angels and prophets with good news to help us gain the kingdom. You dont realize that with your comments you have much disregard for the authors of the many books of the bible. It is obvious you have been reading too many free books in luxurious hotels. Try overriding that, come back to the catholic church my brother.
-Antoine Tajalle
Antoine, yes sacred tradition is part of our faith. But what am I hearing? Is the neo Dictionary part of the Catholic tradition now? This is what you are saying? Wow! Sola (and not "scola") scriptura is practiced by the Protestants only. We Catholics do not accept any kind of sola scriptura even if it is based on some secret dictionaries of Kiko Arguello and Carmen Hernandez. You say God keeps sending angels and prophets. So I guess your angel is Carmen and your prophet is Kiko. Is this so?
DeleteDear whisper,
DeleteWhat you are criticizing has been approved by the Vatican. If you are Catholic, you would also approve the things the Vatican approves rather than criticize it.
Diana, I am not criticizing Kiko and Carmen's book. I am asking why does it have to be secret? You like to refer to St Jose Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei. All his writings are available in published books. Many of them are available online. Perhaps you did not know...
DeleteAntoine said the book of Carmen and Kiko is part of the Catholic tradition. How is that? He also made some surprising theological statement about angels and prophets. The catechism teaches that the revelation of God by Jesus is complete, so we do not need angels and prophets as messengers of God after the death and resurrection of our Lord. Do you accept this, Diana?
You are not arguing with me, Diana. You are arguing with Christ who said no one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light.
Dear whisper,
DeleteSomeone already answered that question. We even gave an example. If someone watched a good movie and told it to people who did not watch the movie, it would only spoil the opportunity for those who did not watch it. If the movie was really good, I would not want anyone to tell me about it. It is the same way with those books. That was the example that I and another poster gave.
And its a bad example, because the Gospel is not just a movie or something to entertain us. Whisper is right, this secrecy and gnosticism is not found anywhere in the Catholic Church. By defending it you step outside the Church. By adhering to it and asking others to do so, you endanger your own soul, and the souls of others.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:57 pm,
DeleteHow is it a secret when the first volume of the book is made available for anyone to buy? The songs of the Way are also on the Internet. How we celebrate is also on the Internet. Our catechesis are not secret because they are proclaimed out in public. So, how is it secret?
Wow, Diana! Once you defend secrecy by referring to your movie analogy, then you claim the opposite of publishing each volume. Don't you sense contradiction here? You cannot have it both ways. Which stand point is the truth?!
DeleteDear whisper,
DeleteThat is not a contradiction. There are people who have not read the book; therefore, we do not tell them so we do not spoil the surprise for them. In the same way, you do not tell anyone the plot of a good movie so you do not spoil it for them. On the other hand, the book is available on the Internet if they want to purchase it. Why is that analogy so difficult to understand?
Diana, please make an effort to read the Letter of the Bishops. Not the article about it. You got a primary, direct source with no distortion. Chiesa or not, Sandro Magister or not, the Letter of the Bishops speaks for itself. I give another place to read from:
Deletehttp://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/124623?eng=y
http://www.internetica.it/neocatecumenali/english/Bishops-HolyLand.htm
Dear Whisper : I never mentioned that the catholic church is sola scriptura I said the actual opposite in defense to the anon who was claiming that they are enough with sacred scripture alone. I also never mentioned that the directory is catholic tradition in the context of your understanding. I am guessing that this is why you find it hard to believe in modern day angels and prophets. When an anonymous person pays your power bill? What do you call this person? When someone has all the right words and seems to make sense of all that is happening to you? What do you call this person? An Angel? A prophet? Of course not in the exact context of the bible, but to do so in terms of modern day experience, would not go against catholic theology. In deed no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel basket. If kiko wanted to do this he never would have visited the slums of madrid, he never would have agreed with the bishops who encouraged him to continue. If the catechists of the NCW wanted to hide the light, they would not agree to go to the parks on Guam every year to announce the gospel during the great missions, they would not want to have the catechesis in the parishes. If members of the NCW did not want to share the light then they wouldn't be visiting homes every week to share the gospel, they wouldn't be volunteering to go to foreign lands to do this also.
DeleteTry to find another scripture passage. There is nothing in the directory that goes against catholic teaching, proof of this is knowing that the vatican has approved it with references to the CCC. What more do you need?
The directory is not a neo dictionary, if this was so then we wouldn't be purchasing catholic bibles or using dufours book on biblical theology. This is where the problem lies, you have placed the directory on a pedestal where it was never intended to be. Define "directory " and this should ease your worries. Peace! And please try not to twist my words or place words in my mouth again. And excuse me if there any typos like "kiki " and "scola ".
Dear Diana at 1.15. If the content of the Catechetical Directory is "Catholic" and is identical to that which the Catholic Church teaches, how could you argue that revealing the content of those books would be "spoiling the ending", because the teaching of the Catholic Church has been public, available and well-known for many centuries. So, your argument would only work if the content of the Catechetical Directory was different to that which the Church teaches. Do you follow me?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:05 pm,
DeleteIt is Catholic because it was approved by the Vatican. It would be "spoiling the ending" because the person already knows what to expect. It is the same with the movie. If someone already told you about a good movie and you went to see it, you already know what to expect and the surprise is lost. But when someone told you to go see a great movie, but won't reveal anything about it, and simply said, "You just have to see it. It's really good." When the person sees the movie, he becomes surprise and then goes off to tell the other person how great the movie was, and he just have to see it. That is how the Catechesis works. It is a step by step process. Conversation is always a step by step.
Dear Whisper : stop taking our comments over to junglewatch and using it out of context, also when copying be sure to take the entirety of the comments. Im not sure if I have to whisper in order for you to understand but just so you know.
DeleteWhen we speak of angels it is more than likely of the heavenly form of angels. However it is very possible as in the book of malachi that there exists the earthly form of angels. The definition of angel is described as a messenger. Messenger of what? God created angels to be messengers of his glory., to point us in his direction. Have you experienced this,? Then you were in the presence of an angel. This shouldn't be hard to grasp. If you do not agree then you might want to freshen up by reading the big green book, aka the CCC. Sorry if I assumed you were catholic, I still love my protestant brothers much. Come home Catholics. I want to thank you also for exposing the reality of our church, we are being persecuted (junglewatch will have fun with this). Ill leave it to you to decide what is persecuting the church but it ain't the NCW.
WHISPER YOU BROOD OF VIPER! STOP, You ought to got to confession, Diana - be Leary these folks intent not to dialogue but continue to make fun of people in the WAY. I can't wait for POPE Francis response. Seriously.
DeletewhisperJanuary 22, 2015 at 7:07 PM
Diana admitted that neo things are like Hollywoodian movies. Lol!
----------------------------------------------
Diana January 22, 2015 at 12:20 PM
If someone already told you about a good movie and you went to see it, you already know what to expect and the surprise is lost. But when someone told you to go see a great movie, but won't reveal anything about it, and simply said, "You just have to see it. It's really good." When the person sees the movie, he becomes surprise and then goes off to tell the other person how great the movie was, and he just have to see it. That is how the Catechesis works.
-----------------------------------------
Simply, this is how Kiko-catechism works! Goodness...! Just look at their strange practices. They turn church life into episodes of a never ending Hollywoodian soap opera. They stole their immersion baptism from the Protestant Baptists. They turn it into a spectacle by holding the little naked baby high up like a puppy in triumphant procession. Lol! These kids will watch these videos as adults one day. They will ask what the hell their parents were doing at their baptism. Gosh!
The same goes with their open space Hollywoodian confessionals when anyone can hear the ugly sins of all others. It is just show, a spectacle to attract the weak and feeble minded. They tie them up into an addictive submission of their silly Hollywoodian ideology.
Just look at their
- monitions
- echo-reflections
- guitar performances
- kissing sessions
- insane dancing, etc.
during official mass.
These are just another Hollywoodian tricks to entice the naive. These poor folks enjoy their "mass" because they are allowed to behave like Hollywoodian actors and actresses. They are allowed to disrupt the Sunday service. But these performances inserted into sacred liturgy corrupt their sense of right and wrong and their adherence to decent doctrines. Then they become mindless Hollywoodian puppets of the cult.
Wow, wow, wow! Wait a minute January 23. Who are you to call me brood of viper? Is this your civilized manner? I have never promised not to write to Junglewatch. Why would I promise anything like that? At this point I was forced to publish there, because I was censured here. You have to face the questions one way or the other.
DeleteDear whisper,
DeleteYou missed the point. You took the words I (myself) wrote, copied and pasted it on the jungle so it would be mocked. If you wish to write in the jungle, go ahead. But why copy and paste my comments???
Do not say that you were FORCED to write in the jungle. No one put a gun to your head and told you to write there. It was your choice to write in the jungle for the sole purpose of mocking my comments.
Wow Whisper! Witnessing how unclassy mockery that you do in the Jungle. Do you do that to your own family too? The Anonymous is right, go to confession. I can't imagine going to church riding a "HATE" parade.
DeleteGod cannot be contained in a box of doctrines or teachings. God is more than what we can ever ask or imagine.
ReplyDeleteGod continues to speak to us. There is no generic interpretation that is eternal for all time. Reading the Bible and understanding it is always contextual.. location, location, location.
Dear Antoine, with all due respect, what the heck are you talking about? You make very little sense at all. But you did say:
ReplyDelete"You do not need to complete the itinerary in order to obtain a copy."
Ok, please direct me to where I might obtain a copy of the thirteen volumes. I will expect no answer, or a non-answer, to this, as you know as well as I do that to say we can "obtain a copy" is an outright lie.
Prove me wrong Dear Antoine, and I will gladly withdraw my comments.
Anon 11:15 AM - why is it so important for you to obtain a copy of 13 Volumes. 200,000 pages to read? Just go to the Cathechisist and find out.
DeleteReading it will be a lil dull than experiencing it.
Dear El Camino, I have been to the initial catechesis. And I have read the first volume - the only one I have found to be available. There is no difference. The "Cathechisist"(sic) during the initial catechesis gave it almost word for word, although there were bits and pieces that were left out, probably due to a lack of time.
DeleteIn any case, I ventured to ask a question during the third session, and was "invited" to shut up. I was told that I would have the opportunity to ask questions afterwards, but that turned out to be a lie too, as they all left in a hurry, and would simply not enter into conversation about anything to do with the catechesis. So much for that idea, huh?
And actually, I enjoy reading so it won't be dull for me. Also, the catechists and friends were really not very good at it. At one point I looked around the room and everyone looked totally disengaged. Perhaps due to the fact that much of what was said was suggesting that the Church was "useless" to them until they found the NCW.
Anyway, thanks for your input, but its not really necessary. Was Antoine correct in suggesting that we can "obtain" a copy without completing the itinerary? Or was that a "mis-statement". You tell me.
And while you're at it, how about answering the question I put to Antoine. It may appear like a frivolous statement, but I ask it in all sincerity since it goes to what the "itinerary" actually is. Here is the question again. Do you think you can answer it?
"if after thirty years, having reached the "second baptism" and the "election", a member was to be injured and experience amnesia. Would they have to start all over again in order to be considered truly adult Christian?"
Dear Anonymous at 2:13 pm,
DeleteSince you have been to the initial catechesis and found it to be boring, then it is not for you. You can move on, and you do not need to return. You can continue attending the regular Mass where you can also read the Roman Missal, which is also proclaimed word for word.
Diana, we do not attend the regular Mass. We attend THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
DeleteT H E Mass.
Dear Anonymous at 6:43 am,
DeleteDo you see how silly this is???? I say we attend the regular Mass, and you act as though you have no idea what that means. Do people here on Guam actually say "Oh, my family and I are going to attend the holy sacrifice of the Mass." Please get real. Everyone here says they're going to Mass. Most people do not tend to get too wordy in their speech. Let us not be so semantic here. This kind of argument is so silly.
AnonymousJanuary 21, 2015 at 6:43 AM - you hang out way to much in the Jungle. the PERSON who has his/her hearth set on the LAW. You might as well speak LATIN if you would to feel a lil more SUPER CATHOLIC.
Delete