An anonymous commenter wrote the following (spacing and bold is mine), which I feels summarizes some of the things in the Neocatehcumenal Way. It is true that there are people out there who are not interested in an open and honest dialogue. To be open to communication means to "listen" to what the other side is saying. If one comes with their biases and prejudices, it only closes up the communication, and eventually all civil dialogue would break down. In other words, if a person comes in believing that everything we say is a lie, then their motive for open dialogue is suspect.
AnonymousFebruary 5, 2015 at 3:10 AM
So many misconceptions, so many misunderstandings. This battle will never end because even when we share the truth, they tell us we're liars.
Truth 1: The Initial Catechesis is given to all those in the church. It is not until the initial sessions are complete that those who have attended are given the choice to continue the itinerary, form a community. They are not asked to leave the church, but are encouraged to continue celebration at a time.
Truth 2: Elitists exist in all walks of life. There are radicals that feel they represent the majority. There are those who have received many graces from their experiences/involvement, lives have been saved through the NCW, it is not wrong for them to present/share/encourage this grace onto others.
Truth 3: We are all called to be Salt and Light. It is an ongoing process. Imagine if we were all simultaneously salted, there would be no need for this salt. Imagine if we all lived in the light, there would be no sense/meaning of darkness.
Truth 4: Although we all have a chance to be saved, there is this "free will" that has also been given to us. I remember my college professor, at the start of the semester he gave us all a 100%, he then told us, the hard part is keeping this 100%. Do the work, complete it, you will be fine.
Truth 5: Although the Catechetical Directory has been composed by Kiko Arguello. It belongs to the church. This directory is only an instruction guide to help outline the steps of the NCW, which is done so in a manner similar to the RCIA. If you want to know what is in this Directory, just get a copy of the CCC and also be familiar with most of encyclicals and exhortations of the Popes.
Truth 6: Our Baptism is not disregarded in the NCW. The Statutes of the NCW also include an opppurtunity for the non-baptized. The Trinitarian Formula of Baptism is what is recognized by the church. As long as the prescriptions are followed, there is no need for a New Baptism.
Truth 7: Natural Religiosity is not condemned. Catechumens are encouraged to go beyond this Religious Man who runs to God ONLY in times of suffering and petition. Is God not only our Father but also our friend, is Jesus not only master and savior but Brother? Is it not right to begin a dialogue with our God?
WHO IS GOD FOR YOU? WHAT ARE YOU LIVING FOR?
Dear Diana, please accept the following comments in the spirit in which they are given, namely in an attempt to have a meaningful dialogue about these questions:
ReplyDeleteTruth (assertion) 1: While it is true that the NCW invites everyone to the initial catechesis, the basis for this catechesis, namely the Catechetical Directory, is kept hidden from everyone except the catechists. Nowhere else in the Catholic Church does this happen. The initial catechesis is given virtually word-for –word from this first volume of this Directory. There is no dialogue and no possibility to ask questions. There is no mention of the CCC, despite the many additions made by the CDF. All those present at the initial catechesis are treated as though they have never encountered the true Church and that their faith is deficient and their baptism unrealised.
Truth (assertion) 2: It is fair to say that we are entitiled and in fact obliged to share the Good News we have received. However, caution should be exercised that in this sharing, the faith of others is not judged or called into question, nor the enduring traditions and teaching of the Catholic Church minimised, mocked or otherwise called into question.
Truth (assertion) 3: “Salt and light” is of course a Gospel concept. But not if this is used to imply that the “regular” Church is not salt and light. There is a tendency in the NCW to retain this expression to apply only to those in the NCW, although it is admitted that some in the NCW are not yet “salt and light”. Kiko teaches that not everyone is called to salt and light. He gives this through the analogy of some person with a lamp leading others through the dark room. He explicitly says that it is not the task of the Catholic Church to convert others to be salt and light, that if the whole batch is leavened the batch is ruined. The phrase “not everyone is called to be salt and light” is used when a member is on the verge of leaving the community and it is part of the attempt to convince them that if they leave, even if they are to remain in the fold of the Catholic Church, they have abandoned their call, and have been “cut off from the vine”.
Truth (assertion) 4: The Dogma of redemption and salvation as taught by the Catholic Church involves the action of sanctifying grace. This is practically ignored by the NCW
Truth (assertion) 5: I am familiar with the CCC and the utterances of the Magisterium. This does not assist me to know what is the content of the Catechetical Directory. It is merely an assertion that it reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church, and every Catholic has the right to investigate, question and discuss. “test everything and hold fast to what is good”. As mentioned previously, the Catholic Church makes available its teaching in its entirety. It is at least suspicious, and certainly unlike the Church to withhold this sort of document. What is more, the Church has given its approval for publication of these volumes, so there is no good reason they should not be made available.
Cont..
Truth (assertion) 6: If those that are baptised are treated as though their baptism has not happened – ie that they have not received the grace necessary for salvation, then for all intents and purposes the baptism has been disregarded. The first steps of the way are figured as the descent into the waters of baptism, and following the final step the neocatechumen is encouraged to make a journey to the Holy Land and re-immerse in the Jordan. All the symbolism and language of the catechesis implies that the baptism of the member is ineffective and practically useless without the Way.
ReplyDeleteTruth (assertion) 7: Jesus encouraged us to be like little children – who come to their parents for help in bad times and for celebration in good times. That the natural state of man is perfected by grace is a fundamental teaching of the Church, and the clear attempt within the NCW to set “natural religiosity” in opposition to the true religiosity is essentially for the purpose of undermining the existing sense of faith in the listener, so they doubt the validity of the “regular” Church, and cling more closely to the NCW. It is also used as a general criticism of anything outside the Way, including the ordinary practices of the ordinary Catholic, including the sense of the Holy Mass being a true sacrifice, a de fide teaching of the Church.
Dear Anonymous at 6:13 pm,
ReplyDeleteI only have one question for you, and I hope that you would answer this question before we can proceed any further in the discussion. You say that the first volume of the Catechetical Directory does not mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So, this is my question to you.
Do you believe that the first volume of the Catechetical Directory is an error and that the NCW should NOT follow the Catechetical Directory?
Isn't it funny? First they accuse us of not following the vatican approved directories. Now this guy accuses us of following it words for words. U can't win! We are dammned if we do and dammned if we don't.
ReplyDeleteBe as disgruntled as u want: The directories and statutes are approved. Tough if u don't like them
answers....answers....I need answers that makes sense.....answers from directories written by man for man.
ReplyDeletethere cannot be the thought or the sense of the mysteries of Gods work......
Thanks be to God for Abraham
Dear Diana, to answer that I need to clarify that I did not say that the first volume of the directory does not mention the CCC. On the contrary there are many references to the CCC in that volume. Rather, I said that there was no mention of the CCC in the initial catechesis, despite the references in the book.
ReplyDeleteSo no, it is too simplistic to say that the first volume of the Catechetical Directory is an error. It is certainly ambiguous at times and required careful reading because there are many unorthodox statements and some that on the face of it are quite worrying, such as the passage I mentioned in relation to the Exodus. Many perceived problems with the text, and consequently with the content of the verbal catechesis might be addressed if the NCW were to open discussion about it and the other volumes instead of keeping them hidden.
Dear Diana, I should add that there is no particular reason to believe that the content delivered during the catechesis is actually the corrected content, following the lengthy revision requested by the Holy See and the manyh additions made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It would assist in answering that question as well, if the NCW were to make these books available.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI asked you two questions in one sentence. I asked if the first volume of the catechetical directory an error. Am I correct that you are saying no, it is not an error? The first volume has already been published, and anyone can purchase it. So, is the first volume an error? The second question I asked you is should the NCW follow the Catechetical Directory word for word just as they have been doing?. Ido not want a lengthy reply to a simple yes or no question. Please give a straightforward answer.
Dear Diana, it is difficult to have an open dialogue if you close the questions down to yes or no. In order to give a yes or no to your first question, I would have to agree with the proposition that the book is either entirely "an error" or entirely not. I do not. Much of the content is not disagreeable. But there are crucial points that are not clear, and have problematic language. I have already sent you an example. If you are willing to post it, we could have a more meaningful discussion on these questions.
ReplyDeleteIn order to give you a yes or no on the second question I should have to agree that the NCW follow the Directory word -for -word. Certainly, the catechists stick to Kiko's and Carmen's words, but they omit the important references to the CCC and the additional discussions inserted by the Holy See. Surely we must believe that the Holy See inserted them for a reason. So the idea that the OP offered, that to know the content of the books one should simply refer to the CCC etc, cannot be true, for otherwise there would have been no need for the Holy See to insert those amendments.
So, are there problems with the text of Kiko/Carmen's words in the first volume, taken on their own? Yes (hence the additions)
Should the NCW continue to give word for word Kiko/Carmen's statements only? No
Dear Anonymous at 12:27 am,
DeleteThe reason why I asked a simply yes or no question is because the answers should be simple. Are there any errors in the first volume of the Catechetical Directory? The answer is no. The reason is because the ENTIRE first volume was approved by the Vatican. The reason you are having problems answering the first question is because you believe the Vatican approved only parts of it. And this is a false belief. The ENTIRE volume was approved.
The Catechists do not omit the important references because when they preach about baptism (for example), baptism is in the CCC. Should the Catechists follow the first volume of the Catechetical Directory word for word? The answer to that is yes. Why? Because the ENTIRE Catechetical Directory was approved by the Holy See, and we should follow the Holy See even when the Catechetical Directory tells us to preach about baptism to those who are already baptized INCLUDING the texts given by Kiko. The Vatican approved ALL texts and EVERYTHING in the first volume of the Catechetical Directory; therefore there is absolutely no error in it and the NCW should follow everything in it word for word INCLUDING the texts of Kiko and Carmen.
Therefore, your contention is not with us. Your contention is with the Vatican who approved the ENTIRE first volume of the Catechetical Directory
Actually it was not the Holy See that inserted the CCC footnotes: it was kiko, Carmen w a team of canon lawyers and itinerants. Ratzinger just approved them. And the way to use the directories was approved in the statutes, first by JP2 then by Benedict. Yes u r right: the NCW is a vast conspiracy headed by... The last 6 popes!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:00 am.,
DeleteOh ye of little faith. Where is your faith in Christ who said that He is the Head of the Church and that He will be with His Church until the end of time?? Did you honestly think that He is no longer the Head and that He abandoned His Church. It was Christ who approved the NCW through those Popes.
Dear Diana at 7.28AM, why would you ask me a question if you are only going to answer it yourself.
DeleteI did not ever say that I believed the Vatican only approved parts of the first volume. I accept that the Vatican approved all volumes of the Directory "for publication". Why is this so hard to understand? The approval was given "for publication". So far one thirteenth of the volumes have been published, and even you, an "insider", are not entitled to read it!
In any case, in the spirit of this open and honest dialogue, let me ask you a question. Why would the Vatican insist on the references to the Catechism being inserted into these books, if as you say it already contained perfectly orthodox statements? Why not leave it as it was?
I think you're understanding of "approval" is not the same as mine. The Vatican gave "approval for publication". If the NCW is so concerned to do as the Vatican intends, why is it that twelve thirteenths not published. Your understanding seems to be that if the books are approved it means they are infallible pronouncements. The only books you could possibly claim are "absolutely free from error" are those promulgated by the Magisterium, for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But even in those cases, careful reading is required, as the text can be misunderstood at times and these books can also lead to confusion unless this care is taken.
I am curious why you will not discuss the matter raised in the post I sent you about the "Exodus". I do not believe you could consider that post to be impolite, irrelevant or unnecessarily critical. It clearly shows what I had claimed previously about the treatment of baptism in the catechesis. But it is a subtle problem that requires understanding. If you have a better explanation for this passage, why not offer it, otherwise your claim about open and honest dialogue will look rather dishonest.
Dear Anonymous at 10:43 pm,
DeleteYou said: " I accept that the Vatican approved all volumes of the Directory "for publication"."
"For publication"??? The Vatican approved everything that is INSIDE the book. It approved all the contents, texts, and writings inside the book. This is why it is so difficult for you to answer the question. And therein lies the problem. The problem is not us because we are following the Vatican. You make the excuse that the Vatican approved only the publication of the book, but not the contents of the book. And this belief is false. Whatever is approved by the Vatican should be followed, which is what the NCW is doing when it follows the book word for word.
I think the reason you don't understand the idea of a post-baptismal catechumenate is because u don't understand what baptism is. I do not mean this as an insult; having read ur considerable amount of ideas on grace, salvation, baptism and the way, what I read between the lines is that u r confused on how the sacraments work.
ReplyDeleteThe sacraments r not magic. You do not receive one and instantly become Christ-like. I had 2, 7-year old students last year, one baptized the other not. As we prepared the one for baptism, the other would analyze his misbehaviors in class and reached the conclusion that they were caused by his lack of having been baptized. He was very much shocked that after having been baptized the classmate continued to misbehave. I think u suffer a little of the same misunderstanding about baptism.
When u r baptized u receive sanctifying grace yes. U receive the mark of christian in ur soul. St. Paul uses the metaphor of being grafted on the tree of life. However the plant will not grow to maturity if it is not fed and watered through life in the church. All other sacraments and instruction are nutrients for this plant.
This is what is meant by an itinerary to rediscover baptism. U do not get baptized again. We r not Protestants anabaptist. the stages for baptismal instruction that were given to catechumens before baptism in the early church, r not given today. So the NCW provides a way for christians and non to receive them post-baptism so that the the seed of grace or christian life or new nature or eternal life or whatever u want to call it can grow to maturity.
Dear Anon at 2.03. You only need show me where the NCW speaks about sanctifying grace, and I will relax on this. I have not found a single reference to it, nor have I heard it in the catechesis. Instead, despite our baptism, I heard it told that we are still "in slavery in Egypt", having not even crossed the Red Sea. (On day 13 you are asked this question "where are you" and the answer of course is "in slavery in Egypt"). Of course, the unanimous opinion of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church is that scripturally, the crossing of the Red Sea is a symbol of Baptism. How would you explain this?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:51 am,
DeleteSanctifying grace does not mean that you are no longer a sinner. A person can lose their sanctifying grace when they commit a mortal sin. Adultery is a mortal sin, and there is a lot of that going on. So, yes, there are some people who had sanctifying grace at their baptism but may have lost it when they committed a mortal sin. These are still a slave to sin in Egypt.
Jesus also did not speak of sanctifying grace. He spoke of eternal life and the kingdom of God. Do you want me to go into an etymological analysis of the term sanctifying grace? The catechesis speaks of eternal life. Eternal life IS another term for sanctifying grace. If Ratzinger approved it, why on earth do you have a problem with it????
DeleteDear Diana, it is not "some people". It is all people. If you attend the catechesis, there is only one right answer to these questions. You can only progress if you accept that you are in slavery in Egypt. This judgement is made on you by the catechists there and then, and there is no alternative. If you don't leave then, you accept this denial and negation of your own baptism. And that's just the start, unfortunately
DeleteOf course the crossing of the red sea foreshadows baptism! Baptism in its fullness. Come on! Your questions show that you are smarter than this. Take the analogy to its full meaning and not its literal one. Isaac foreshadows Christ but he is NOT Christ. As the israelites were trapped between the sea and the egyptians they lived in the terror of death. We also live under the fear of death because of the ontological death we experience through sin. Baptism is the killing of our bent, wounded self full of passions and concupiscences that is a slave to sin and afraid of death (aka old man as the fathers of the church call it) and the birth of the life of God within us (aka sanctifying face, eternal life, new man, etc etc). But again it is not magic! that new creature cannot remain an infant. it needs to grow. If that creature is not mature, if the faith of the christian is infantile and still dominated by the fear of the law (St. Paul) then the effect of original sin still dominates him and we still find ourselves doing the evil that we abhor and not the good that we want (St. Paul). We are not under the power (or slaves to) original sin but we suffer its effects.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:30 pm,
DeleteThank you for the correction. Yes, we all receive sanctifying grace at our baptism. I meant to say that some people such as those who commit adultery have lost sanctifying grace.
Dear Anon at 11.50am. Once again there is no room for grace in your picture. Sanctifying grace is important but so too is actual grace. Not only is sanctifying grace received in baptism but also through the other sacraments, especially that of penance, and the Holy Eucharist. Where is the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit in your understanding of the growth of the infant to maturity? In baptism we are incorporated into the Body of Christ and we become temples of the Holy Spirit who inhabits that body. It would take a lot, a conscious rejection of God and the action of the Holy Spirit to lose the company of the Holy Spirit that inhabits your soul after baptism. We can fall, but not all is lost as we have the assistance of the Holy Spirit if we assent to it. Your old testament model of faith is outdated and insufficient.
DeleteDid the Israelites go back to Egypt once they had crossed the Red Sea? Certainly they desired to at times, (because of the onions, as Kiko is wont to say), but they did not. Rather, they persevered in the "wilderness", and although they failed and fell, they were not unaccompanied by God, who brought them to safety in the promised land. That is a more apt understanding of our position as baptised people. Kiko insists on the "slavery in Egypt" because it is useful to his community schema, and to the (at least) implicit rejection of the non-NCW Church. You seem to be an intelligent person - think about it.
Origen discusses this in his commentary on the book of Numbers, making an analogy between the 42 generations of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel and the particular places where the Israelites camped in the wilderness, their place names and the events that occurred there. This he describes as the growth of faith from the sinful state (in Egypt) through the various stages of growth in the wilderness (from infancy to maturity), to the culmination of the "justified man" (Jesus Christ) and his entry to the promised land. Kiko's version is distorted. I urge you to read Origen on this, then tell me your thoughts.
Dear Anonymous at 12:59 pm,
DeleteThere is room for actual grace in the NCW. It is simply that you do not understand what it means to go from an infant faith to a mature adult faith. The problem here is not the Way. Your problem has to do with the Vatican who approved the Catechetical Directory. The Vatican approved what is inside the Catechetical Directory. All the teachings and texts inside the book are already approved, but you chose not to believe it. Instead, your rationalize that the Vatican only approve its publication, but not its teaching. This is actually not our problem. The NCW Catechetical Directory was approved by the Vatican and belongs to the Church just as much as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Dear Diana at 1.46. Its quite revealing to me, that out of all that has been said here, you are fixated on this one issue of how the Catechetical Directory is infallible, and yet even now you admit to never having read it! Amazing
Deletehe who has ears to hear, listen. If u do not see that what Origen says is the same as what kiko preaches, I cannot help u. Ur arguments r chimeras.
DeleteSince u seem not to agree with the initial catechesis, I invite u to trust Rome and suspend ur imperfectly formed judgement.
Dear Anon at 11.50.
DeleteHere is another question for you. If a member of the NCW is described as being in a state of "slavery in Egypt" are they then discouraged from receiving Holy Communion, or is it considered to be ok to be both in slavery to sin and receive the Blessed Sacrament?
Dear Anonymous at 2:07 pm,
DeleteI never said that the Directory was infallible. I believe the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. And it was the Pope who approved the Directory. I place my trust in what Rome approves because she is guided by the Holy Spirit. Who do you place your trust in because obviously it is not the Vatican.
When you say that there is no room in the picture for actual grace, are you saying that the sacraments given by priests to members in the NCW are not valid?
DeleteDear Anonymous 3:36 pm,
DeleteIf their sins are venial sins, they may take the Body of Christ.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteSince my comment in reference to the prysbyter not consuming the Body and Blood before the rest of the community. as per the Roman Missal, was not shown on your Building Up Church blog, may I try to re-present it here?
Re: AnonymousJanuary 30, 2015 at 6:06 PM
Annon. says. "The only thing is that we are real crammed sometime and do not have enough room to kneel."
But. now that our NCW priest is using the actual altar in the church instead of the table in a small room, there is plenty of room to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer as per the Roman Missal - approved liturgical Book.
So it is no longer "crammed space" that is an issue: it is the NCW feeling that we're "cramming their Style."
This is constantly being shown by their comment of "there's other Masses to go to if you don't like ours."
Anon. says,"We were taught that the consecrated bread is the body and blood of Christ. Yes, body AND blood. So when the priest eats the bread, he actually consumes the precious body AND blood. So despite your claim there is no violation of the precedence rule."
Yes, the Church teaches the Consecrated Bread is both the Body and Blood; and, the Precious Blood is both the Body and Blood.
But that reasoning does not justify the Priest going against the Roman Missal. It, may justify not having to consecrate the cup of wine into the Cup of Precious Blood. "Oh, you would say, that is not in accordance with the Roman Missal. Interesting.
The NCW prysbyters IGNORE the Cup of Precious Blood, till AFTER they receive/consume the Body together with the concregation, sitting down/not standing, according to who? It wasn't any Pope that said the NCW SHOULD receive that way.
One, also, is to consume Holy Communion immediately when received in the hands. There is no written permission to hold Jesus till the whole congregation has Jesus in their hands and then receive. Although your particular group might be reverent in this gesture, I've seen different behavior. So, why would anyone want to endanger the Body of Christ this way?
Anon. says, "On receiving the Eucharist on the tongue, well this question is different by pure technical reason. I personally would be willing to receive it on the tongue but it is technically impossible."
But, this is NOT supposed to be technically impossible. Receiving Communion on the tongue is the NORM. Receiving Communion in the hand is an INDULT - special permission which can be revoked at any time.
A person wishing to receive on the tongue IS NOT TO BE DENIED.
Does not the NCW see how divisive their Way of Mass is???
Anon says, " But anyway, everyone has the opportunity to go to regular mass and receive the Eucharist on the tongue there. Does it answer you questions, dear Anonymous? "
Again, the NCW does not welcome all members of the Church to their Mass - They say we can come, but... in essence they say "Go to another Mass so we don't have to change our Mass to correspond with the approved liturgical books. Leave us alone."
"The smoke of satan has entered the sanctuary."
That very smoke has "blinded" the NCW; they do not see.
I'm pretty sure that when Paul VI talked about the smoke of Satan he did not mean the way. You know, he actually met with Kiko and Carmen and gave them the go ahead to catechize in Rome and celebrate the eucharist the way we do. I am afraid you are misquoting.
DeleteAnonymousFebruary 6, 2015 at 3:33 AM
Deleteforgive me as I comment on your note but do you always take pencil and paper to Mass?
take notes on who is there......style or quality of clothes they are wearing....type of car.....and who they are with?
the smoke of satan has entered the sanctuary?.....if Jesus was foremost in your heart as you enter into the Mass.....there is no chance in hell you will find satan in the sanctuary.
I guess the question today is who is in your heart?
Much of the content of the catechesis is the same as corrected one. It may have the CCC quotes in the text but it is not mentioned in the catechesis. The first volume is The same as before, content wise.
ReplyDeleteDear Anon. Feb 8 9l0AM
ReplyDelete???????
Re your statement "the smoke of satan has entered the sanctuary?.....if Jesus was foremost in your heart as you enter into the Mass.....there is no chance in hell you will find satan in the sanctuary.
I guess the question today is who is in your heart?"
Please remember the quote comes from Pope Paul VI in reference to liturgical abuses. Are you addressing him too?
Shalom