The Neocatechumenal Way believes in Transubstantiation in which the bread and wine turns into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This has always been the belief of the Early Christians, and only the two oldest Christian Churches have kept this belief - the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Early Christians who celebrated in homes in small communities never receive the Body of Christ by tongue. It had always been by hand because in those times, they made the bread......something which is also done in the Way. They did not have the host that dissolves once it is in your mouth. Receiving the Body of Christ by tongue came at a later time, and with the creation of hosts that can easily dissolve in your mouth.
I would like to add that one of the fundamental beliefs of Catholicism IS transubstantiation. All Catholics regardless of whether they are walking in the Way or not believes in Transubstantiation.....that the bread and wine transforms into the Body and Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation was defined by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent and is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. All Catholics regardless of whether they walk in the Way or not follows all Church doctrines. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206
This is what the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches, and this is a teaching that all Catholics accept. Just as all Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, so too do we believe in Transubstantiation.....that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ that we consume. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of our Blessed Mother are the two infallible doctrines declared in ex cathedra by the Catholic Church; therefore, we accept and believe ALL that the Catholic teaches and holds as Truth.
Transubstantiation is also truth taught in the Catholic Church. It is a truth taught by Christ Himself when He stated "This IS My Body" and "This IS My Blood." The belief in Transubstantiation is extremely important. A person who does not believe in what Christ and His Church teaches about Transubstantiation can easily mistreat the Body of Christ during the Eucharist.
Diane.....in reference to this post.....you will receive over a hundred responses because people do not have the time to reflect on the event.
ReplyDeletethe early Christians?.....come on Diana.........most people.....most Catholics do not know the difference between a Catholic or Christian.......and they will defend......attack if though you clearly differentiate the two.
Making bread? What is this?........They do not know the significance of bread throughout scripture. The wafer is enough to justify.
Small communities.......who was apostles writing to in their letters?......they will criticize.....attack this point because it has no significance in todays mega churches.
Anon 11:33. My my, don't you have anything worthwhile to say about the Blessed Eucharist? Why the anger? Don't you believe?
DeleteAnonymousFebruary 7, 2015 at 3:45 PM
Deleteplease enlighten me......what part of the Eucharist do you wish to speak about?
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeletere: "The Neocatechumenal Way believes in Transubstantiation in which the bread and wine turns into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This has always been the belief of the Early Christians, and only the two oldest Christian Churches have kept this belief - the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church."
I agree with the second sentence only. Re the first: Although the NCW may NOW believe in transubstantiation, this was not always the case.
Here is just one example from an excerpt taken from one of Fr. Erico Zoffoli's books on the NCW.
acatholiclife.blogspot.ca/2011/10/fr-enrico-zoffoli-on-neocatechumenal.html
Find the complete article on the above website with Fr. Zoffoli's credentials.
" * The Mass, downgraded to a simple “feast,” exposes the Most Holy One to the inevitable profanations resulting from the indifference to the “fragments” of the “consecrated bread” and of its remains. (Once again, very recently, in the basilica of St.John Lateran, the cathedral of the Pope, on the evening of 21 October 1992, during the rite of ordination of a number of deacons,the Neocatechumenals demonstrated that they pay no heed to the fragments of the “consecrated bread” left scattered on the table,making one logically suppose that they do not believe in the “real presence” of Christ derived from the “transubstantiation.” One person, inspired by faith, dared to gather them up in order to prevent their profanation, but was sternly rebuked and derided by the leaders of the Movement… On the morning of the following day, the same person, having returned to the basilica, was able to pick up from the ground an entire portion of the “consecrated bread” which the participants in the Eucharist are in the habit of consuming for the Communion. One of the caretakers, when sweeping the pavement would certainly have picked it up and thrown it in among the other rubbish."
Now, the point that NEEDS to be pondered and prayed about is: If this altered thinking produced this NCW Mass for about 40 years, why would anyone trust that the current NCW Mass is approved without the recognitio (written permission) that Holy Mass deserves to protect it from Liturgical Abuses? This seems like a logical request that NCW members SHOULD ask for. Put Christ first; this is His Mass. Although, some of the NCW Mass was corrected prior to the NCW getting their Statutes approved in the 2008 (eg. liturgical prayers dealing with sacrifice re-inserted after being taken out for about 40 years), there remains an unapproved remnant that needs immediate correction. Take Courage. Ask for the written permission.
Dear Anonymous at 2:59 pm,
ReplyDeleteI have read the Pope's Armada, and if I had not been in the Way to see things on a first hand basis, I would probably believe the book. Due to this first hand experience, I know that the things they say about throwing pieces of the Body of Christ on the floor is false. In the Way, we have always treated the Body and Blood of Christ with reverence. As for it being a banquet meal, it is also a meal. That is both in the Holy Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, I am called to be trust the leaders of the Church. In this case the Archbishop and the Pope are the leaders. We have the approval and endorsement of the Pope. Christ is always in charge of His Church, and He is the one leading her.
Dear Diana, I have witnessed the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament falling to the floor as it is being eaten during the NCW Eucharist
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:10 pm,
DeleteAnd how did you come to witness this? Forgive me, but I do not believe you. I have been in too many Eucharistic celebrations to see that no crumbs were on the floor. In fact, the brothers take great care in eating the little bits from their palm by hand picking them.
Dear Diana, the truth doesn't change whether you believe it or not. A fragment fell from the priests mouth while he was eating, and one of the lay people present casually walked over picked it up, returned to their seat and ate it. I had the impression this was nothing extraordinary, because there was no fuss made, and no-one gave any instructions to this person to do it.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:24 pm,
DeleteAnd who was the priest who did this?
Your tall tale is equivalent to that old accusation "They eat the flesh of newborns and drink their blood"
DeleteRoman Missal says to use freshly baked bread: bread has crumbs. Host is not the recommended form. If your story is true, and I have been walking for 30 years and never seen this happen though my husband is an eucharistic minister, what the person did shows his reverence. Nobody eats anything from the floor, especially from a public place, the fact that he did shows how much he reveres the body of christ.
Maybe what bugs you is that he was a lay person. God forbid, maybe it was a woman!! Then your problem is what the pope calls clericalism and if you view the Church through those lenses then you must hate the way because the Way is fundamentally pastoral not clerical.
what "bugs" me is how offended you seem to be. Calm down for goodness sake. Evryone is entitled to their beliefs. Let's have a calm discussion, try not to freak out so much.
DeleteDear Diana,
ReplyDeleteFr. Zoffoli has an extraordinary credentials, as listed in the noted website. He would not fabricate the story.
I'm glad, however, that you have never experienced anything but reverence to our Lord in the Eucharist. Not all priests denied transubstantiation; not all communities are alike.
I, too, have first-hand experience - but I've seen the opposite, albeit different abuse.
I've also had first-hand experience in celebrating the Mass without all the proper prayers - Prayers, purposely left out. And, I spoke with someone from the NCW that admitted this used to be the way.
You keep saying "we have the approval and endorsement of the Pope."
We can see that the moving the Sign of Peace in the NCW Mass was approved - the NCW has "written" permission of this change. So, how is it that the "removal of kneeling at the Eucharistic Prayer when our Lord is truly made present" and the "method of distributing and receiving/consuming both species of the Eucharist" which are at least as important (I'd say more important) - do not have "written" permission?
That we all may be One.
Sincerely,
Dear Anonymous at 5:35 pm,
DeleteThere are a lot of Bishops and Cardinals with credentials (See the weblink below):
http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2014/08/more-on-redemptoris-mater-seminary.html
Dear Anon at 5.35, that is a very good question. Why would some permissions be written and others allegedly only verbal? Very good question.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:23 pm,
DeleteAccording to Tim Rohr, the Vatican delegation told him to help out. So, where is the written evidence?
Dear Diana @ 11:49: uhh...not a good analogy, Diana. Tim's assertion has nothing to do with giving permission to do something different in Mass. Your assertion has hundreds of people doing something during Mass that they consider wrong.
DeleteBut I am curious to hear your answer to the question....
Dear Anonymous at 7:52 am,
DeleteBoth Kiko Arguello and Tim Rohr has followers. It does not matter that one has a million followers and the other only has 50 followers. Both were given instructions, so where is the written instruction given to Tim Rohr by the Vatican?
Dear Diana @ 10:30am,
DeleteYou misunderstand. The comment was not about the number of followers. The comment was referring to the instructions. Tim's assertion is not an instruction for anyone else but himself and certainly not giving him permission to do something contrary to traditional practices in Mass. Whether true or not, it really does not affect anyone else's actions. But the instruction(s) of NCW, that are in question by non-walkers, give permission for Neos to do something different.
From what I am reading, the question is simply why are some instructions written and some only verbal? Given the resistance NCW is receiving from traditional Catholics, one would think that Walkers would also want to see the written (to keep things consistent and to shut non-walkers up) especially since NCW is worldwide.
Dear Anonymous at 11:04 am,
DeleteThat is the way the Catholic Church has always been. Some instructions were given orally while others were written. We follow both. I am sure that with time, what was given to us orally would be written down in paper.
I would like to add under this thread that one of the fundamental beliefs of Catholicism IS transubstantiation. All Catholics regardless of whether they are walking in the Way or not believes in Transubstantiation.....that the bread and wine transforms into the Body and Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation was defined by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent and is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. All Catholics regardless of whether they walk in the Way or not follows all Church doctrines. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
ReplyDeleteCCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206
This is what the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches, and this is a teaching that all Catholics accept. Just as all Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, so too do we believe in Transubstantiation.....that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ that we consume. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of our Blessed Mother are the two infallible doctrines declared in ex cathedra by the Catholic Church; therefore, we accept and believe ALL that the Catholic teaches and holds as Truth.
Transubstantiation is also truth taught in the Catholic Church. It is a truth taught by Christ Himself when He stated "This IS My Body" and "This IS My Blood." The belief in Transubstantiation is extremely important. A person who does not believe in what Christ and His Church teaches about Transubstantiation can easily mistreat the Body of Christ during the Eucharist.
The making of Bread, actual unleavened bread, is what is prescribed by the church...
ReplyDeleteGIRM
"By reason of the sign, it is required that the material for the Eucharistic Celebration truly have the appearance of food. Therefore, it is desirable that the Eucharistic Bread, even though unleavened and made in the traditional form, be fashioned in such a way that the Priest at Mass with the people is truly able to break it into parts and distribute these to at least some of the faithful. However, small hosts are not at all excluded when the large number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral reasons call for them." (no. 321)
REDEMPTORIS SACRAMENTUM
"The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools." (no. 48)
During the Mass, Eucharist, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and all the other terms used to describe this feast, we fully believe in the Transubstantiation. Why would the Priest go on to say...
"Make Holy therefore these gifts we pray, so that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ"
People need to stop listening to the Rohrbots and reading other trash that is found on the internet. These things just create illusionairy propaganda.
I know you started this entry with the topic of Transubstantiation but maybe it is fitting to go elsewhere since some of the commenters have brought up other things.
First of all, theres a constant complain about wheres the permission to do this, have that, sing this. Its very constant and it only leads me to realize the obvious. We are a people of the law. This now leads me to remind everyone that RUBRICS MAY CHANGE BUT DOCTRINE REMAINS.
Think about it. Its true. History has it written all over its wall.
Continued.
ReplyDeleteOn another note I'd like to share this...
Here we are crying about why do the Neos stand during this? Why do they kiss rather than just throw up the peace sign? Which by the way, traditional latin followers dont even do at all, yep no peace during their holy sacrifice of the mass. Why do they clap? Again, Rule Number 1, no clapping at the the latin mass. I could go on about all the Whys and other complaints but I hope you get the point.
Ive said this before maybe a few times as Annonymous but also identifying myself but this whole thing is a clash of two Vaticans. Pre-Vatican II traditionalists and Vatican II fruit. It will take a long time for the two groups to see things on a balanced level.
We have the NCW that is a fruit of Vatican II and has brought many families back to the church and on the other end we have traditionalists who blame Vatican II for the lose of church attendees. We have the NCW which stands to recieve Holy Communion and we have the traditionalist that will kneel and genuflect at every oppurtunity. We have the NCW which claps and dances at the end of the celebration but on the other end we have the others who feel that clapping and dancing in thanksgiving and praise to God is irreverant and is reserved for concert halls. We have the NCW which extends the Kiss of Peace with an actual Holy Kiss and we have the traditionalists who feel that if you want to make peace with your brother do it after mass and at home. We have the NCW who willingly will share their sufferings and miracles to the flock but we have the others who think that this should be done behind closed doors. We have the NCW that has beautiful painted icons while we have the traditionalists who have beautiful plaster statues that cover them in purple for Forty Days and Forty Nights. We have the NCW that celebrates in small, intimate communities while the others celebrate in large general assemblies. We have the NCW that goes out door to door, announcing the Gospel while we have the others who meet amongst themselves. We have the NCW who gather the youth and young adults to nurture their vocations while we have the others who say, wait till youve graduated from high school and come back and see me. We have the NCW who go out to the squares and public places to announce the Good News while on the other end we have these conferences and workshops/seminars that we have to register for and pay a fee. We have the NCW that sends priests to foreign lands to bring Christ to them while the other priests are going elsewhere to recruit the support of Cardinals and buy new pews. We have the NCW that meets twice sometimes three times during the week while the traditionalists wait all week for the 45 minute Sunday Celebration. We have the NCW married couples waking up in the wee hours of the morning to read the Psalms while the other end is waiting for that 3oclock recording on KOLG. We have the NCW families who are open to life while the other end is figuring out whether they want 1 or 2 kids. We have the NCW who offer themselves freely to support the parish operations while the others scramble to pay thousands in payroll. Lastly, we have the NCW that is imperfect and a gathering of sinners who are willing to share their realities but lean on God and trust in him and on the other end we have a perfect world.
Didnt do this to boast but instead to share what it all comes down to, the reality.
You decide, the left or the right?
"LIKE"
DeleteAntoine, I have a bunch of questions.
Delete1. How is the NCW the fruit of Vatican II? The Council was about so much more than the NCW!
2. What is good in receiving Holy Communion into your hand standing and then sitting down? How is this better than kneeling and genuflecting?
3. How is clapping and dancing appropriate for remembering the death and resurrection of our Lord? According to the Bible, the disciples did not clap and did not dance like that!
4. How is kissing "peace" part of the liturgy? We read in the Scriptures that the disciples greeted each other by kissing but did not give "peace" this manner.
5. What is good about sharing your suffering in mass? The Lord Jesus never did that!
6. How is this great to have one single icon to show it everywhere and at every occasion? The history of the Church has produced many beautiful icons by a good number of excellent painters.
7. Why is it better to celebrate the Lord among a few chosen, when you could go out and celebrate Him together with the whole wide parish?
8. How is it beneficial to go from door to door? Are not the Jehovists doing the same?
9. Why is it good to gather the youth and press them for vocation? Should not this be a voluntary and conscious choice by those who are called?
10. Who are attracted by street preaching to the Church? Are not the Protestants doing the same thing more efficiently for their own churches?
11. Why is it better to send priests to foreign lands than keeping them at home in their own parishes? Foreign people believe their foreign priests better than to ours.
12. How is it better to meet twice or three times a week that disrupts your weekly schedule and uproots your life? The disciples started to follow the Lord after one single meeting with Him!
13. How is it better to have 2-3 hours for a mass than one single hour? Jesus completed the Sermon on the Mount in 30 minutes.
14. What is good in reading the Psalms in the wee hours when you are sleepy? Is this no better to read it at a quiet afternoon calm when you can focus on every single word?
15. What is good in giving birth to more children than you can handle properly? What is the point if you neglect their education and your kids end up in wrong places like the prison?
16. Why is it better to separate your finances from the parish community? Is not the parish a community of the Lord for you?
17, What is good in sharing your sinfulness with others? Do you want them to fall into the same sins you have fallen before?
18. What is truly your reality? Is not the true reality expressed by the words of the Lord Jesus?
- jeremy from auckland -
Jeremy, I have a bunch of answers.
Delete1. The NCW is A Fruit of Vat II. There are many responses to Vat II, the NCW only being one of them. I never mentioned that the NCW was the ONLY FRUIT of Vat II.
2. The church prescribes that the Bread for consecration should always look like bread. The "Wafers" that are being used today was an exception to the rule, in short, for it to be easier for the large crowds at the parish masses. If possible, unleavened bread should always be used, so in the case of the NCW, the small community allows for it at this time. It would not be wise for the Priest to place a piece of unleavened bread directly into ones mouth, it is a substantial sized piece and the communicant would have to take at least two bites to completely consume. The church allows for the communicant to either stand or kneel and to either receive it on the hand or on the tongue.
3. Christ, "the first-born from the dead", is the principle of our own resurrection, even now by the justification of our souls, and one day by the new life he will impart to our bodies. -CCC 658
I believe it is very fitting to CELEBRATE the Death and Resurrection of Jesus? Do we mourn this? How do you react to a moment of passing fro DEATH to LIFE. You are correct in stating that the Bible does not mention that the disciples did this. If you really read the scriptures, the disciples were very skeptic about the resurrection even though Jesus had told them many times before. We are blessed today, knowing that the Resurrection is true.
4. The Rite of Peace was always part of the liturgy, it was removed at a certain point but restored with Vat II. The GIRM states, "There follows the rite of peace, by which the Church entreats peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the [Blessed] Sacrament."
The Gospel of Matthew tells us also to leave our gifts at the altar and go first and make peace with your brother.
5. The Lord Jesus sat with his disciples at the Last Supper to celebrate the Passover. This Passover was fulfillment of the scriptures. Jesus was now the lamb to be sacrificed to save us. Did Jesus not share, Take this, this is my body, Drink this, This is my Blood which will be shed for you. Is this not Jesus sharing the sufferings that he will endure?
6. The NCW does not have just one single icon. It has many. Kiko Arguello, initiator of the NCW is also an artist, he has reproduced many replicas of traditional icons.
7. Celebrating in the small community has nothing to do with exclusiveness. In fact the celebration is open to all and is part of the life of the parish.
8. There is nothing wrong with going door to door. Isnt it our duty as Christians to spread the Gospel? Is this something only reserved for the Jehovahs?
9. Vocations need to be nurtured. Youth need to be given an avenue that can help them along the way. This is not an act of pressing vocations on the youth. How would they know how to respond to the call that has been on their conscience for some time? How are they to know of the many ways to serve the Lord? Do they stay home and wait?
10. Pope Francis is constantly telling us to GO OUT. Go to the Streets. Go to the existential peripheries.
11. Priests are needed all over the world. There are places in the world that do not have priests. There are Catholics who cannot celebrate the Sacraments because they lack a priest. Priests are not solely for Parish Life. If this is your thought, you need to know that there are Priests actively taking on roles as college professors, nurses, doctors, military chaplains etc.
continued....
Delete12. Meeting twice up to three times a week is not a disruption. It is a disruption only if you have placed priorities in vain objects and idolatry. The disciples believed in Jesus after just one meeting? thats new!
13. Celebrating the Eucharist should not be a matter of keeping it within a certain time limit. It should be celebrated in a way that special care and dignity is given to each rite of the Liturgy, it should not be rushed. Where in the bible does it say that the Sermon on the Mount was only 30 minutes?
14. Waking up to read the Psalms is very healthy for the Spirit. Isnt interruption good for us? Especially when we have occupied ourselves with only what we want and how we want to live. Is our faith suppose to be at our convenience?
15. Being open to life is a chance for you to really trust in the providence of God. Having large families does not mean that you are unable to provide for them. So it is okay to have 2 kids and have a million dollar home? or have one kid and drive a Ferrari? Too many couples are making it a matter of finance rather than life.
16. There are no separate finances of the communities. If the community has a need then everyone in the community contributes to the bill. Since the community is part of the parish, it too at times contributes to the needs of the parish.
17, In sharing my sins, my sufferings, I share with the others that it is possible to rise from these depths. I do not share so as to give ideas to others to sin, there are enough resources out there in this day and age for people to get creative. It is possible that someone else is experiencing that same as I, it is possible that they think they are alone and there is nothing that they can do about it, to help them. My sharing always points to Jesus, that he can bring us out of this slavery.
18. Jesus shared the reality. That we have a Father, God, who loves us no matter who we are. That God has mercy on us, he has mercy on our sins. This is my Reality. I am a sinner, a very imperfect person, I have flaws and addictions, I have made many mistakes. I also have a God, who loves me over and over again, no matter how many times I mess up.
-antoine from Merizo, Guam
Ha-ha Antoine, you gave me a bunch of things to ponder about... thanks! Please allow me to continue with some more questions.
Delete2. Why is real bread better than wafer? I cannot see... either way it is the same holy.
3. In life celebration and mourning goes hand in hand together. Why should mass be different?
4. Making peace is not made by kissing in the Bible. Judas betrayed the Lord by kissing.
5. Jesus was not a Passover meal at the last upper. Was not He sacrificed the next day?
6. Where are the other icons by other painters? All icons I ever see when I look over to the "Way" is the very same icon.
7. How can you invite the parish and still celebrate in small communities? Cannot honestly do both ways.
9, Should not the youth complete their studies in the school first? What is good in pressing them and distracting them from studying so that they fail?
11. Yes, priests are needed everywhere. So why to send them out to foreign countries?
12. Who decides about priorities? Some people say it is the idolatry to force members to meet 2 or 3 times a week. There are places where you have to travel hours! Don't you think it is disruption? Do you think your regular life is vain and idolatry? When Jesus said to His disciples to follow Him, they stood up immediately, left everything and followed Him!
13. Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount from the first letter to the last? You can complete in 10-15 minutes.
15. Is it not better to give a decent education to your kids rather than neglecting them till they become criminals? How can you pay attention to each of them if you have too many?
16. Sometimes you contribute. But most of the time not.
17. Saying that "I can sin as much as I want and the Father still loves me" sends a unavoidable hidden message to your listeners. The message is that sinning is okay. Is it okay?
18. How can God have mercy on your sin? Does not He has mercy on the person rather than on the action? Don't you need to repent, confess and renounce your sin before you beg for mercy?
- jeremy from auckland -
Dear Jeremy,
DeleteYou asked for some answers for your previous questions. I answered them truthfully and in accordance with church teaching. It seems you still have a problem with the answers. The answers I gave you are not solely answers in regards to the NCW, they are answers that pertain to the Catholic Church.There is no difference between the NCW and the Catholic Church we call home.
I would suggest to you that you read up with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to help even more, maybe a few of the Encyclicals and Exhortations of the Present and Past Popes of the Catholic Church. I also invite you to read the Gospels and the Acts of Apostles.
Sorry I choose not to answer anymore of your questions, they are repetitive and most of them are based on your personal opinion rather than in correlation to what the church truly teaches.
If there is a NCW in your area, go and listen for yourself. Go with an open mind and without predisposed thinking of the NCW. It is not for everyone, but how would you know if you have not even attempted to go.
Lastly, There is a big difference between me saying, "I have sinned, and God Still Loves Me" and saying, "I Can sin and God still loves me".
Peace be with you!
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteCatechism of the Catholic Church 883 says:
The college or body of bishops has NO AUTHORITY UNLESS UNITED WITH THE ROMAN PONTIFF, PETER'S SUCCESSOR , AS ITS HEAD." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; BUT THIS POWER CANNOT BE EXERCISED WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF."
If your Bishop has permission for the NCW Mass with all the additions and deletions, than he must have the written proof of it from the Pope.
Please ask your NCW bishop to see the "written permission" for "your" Mass. Sorry, it doesn't exist.
May we all be ONE.
Sincerely,
Dear Anonymous at 5:04 am,
DeleteWe have the permission of the Roman Pontiff. We follow EVERYTHING the Pope says whether it be written or oral just as St. Paul taught all the Catholic converts.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
"For many years, the teachings of Argüello and Hernandez were kept away from the public. But during the Vatican process of approval, some of their texts were published. THESE TEXTS, taken from The Neocatecumenate, A Christian Initiative for Adults, (3) CLEARLY reveal the Protestant thinking that inspires the movement:
ReplyDeleteIt justifies Luther’s revolt: “It is understandable why Luther emerged making a clean break with everything he believed was a purely human addition or tradition.”
It promotes Luther’s teaching on justification: “Man is not saved by good works … Jesus Christ did not come to give us a model of life, an example. … The Holy Spirit does not lead us to perfection, to good works … God freely forgives the sins of those who believe that Jesus is the Savior.”
IT REJECTS TRANSUBSTANTIATION: "LUTHER, WHO NEVER DOUBTED THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST, REJECTED 'TRANSUBSTANTIATION.' BECAUSE IT WAS BOUND TO ARISTOTELIAN-THOMISTIC CONCEPT OF SUBSTANCE, WHICH IS FOREIGN TO THE CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES AND THE FATHERS." [please note: "which is foreign to the church of the apostles and the fathers."]
May we all be ONE.
Sincerely,
Dear Anonymous at 5:18 am,
DeletePlease see my post above. I am walking in the Way for almost 9 years, and I do NOT reject Transubstantiation. All RMS priests believe in Transubstantiation. Why? Because we are Catholic.
Anonymous February 8, 2015 at 5:18 AM
Delete"For many years............for 40+ years Father Mario; Kiko and Carmen have proclaimed the Word of God to all. Some who were touched by the Word chose to walk.......walk in spirit.
If you want to follow Luther....please go and follow Luther. The Way is Catholic....we are Catholic.
I respect your free will to follow Luther....please respect those who chose to follow Jesus Christ in spirit.
Dear May We All Be One,
DeleteThe only way to be one is to obey the authority of peter, his successors and the bishops they appoint. By calling us Lutheran (do you even know what Luther taught?!?!) you are implying that the popes who approved the directories are heretics. In addition you are in discommunion with your bishop and harming the unity of the Church. The evidence points to the fact that you are the protestant.
Part 1
DeleteNone of the statements you misquote are protestant.
1. All church reformers including saints, and i'm only going to mentions St. Teresa of Avila, maybe also charles borromeo (you know his own clergy tried to kill him because he bugged them so much?), fought against the corruption of the clergy and created scandal. The only difference between them and the INITIAL Luther is that they remained obedient to their bishops and to the pope. Are you obedient? (Then Luther also changed his theology which made him a heretic but where he started to go wrong was when he challenged the authority of the pope)
2. your quote is taken out of context. The context of that quote is that the people of God, including Luther, were ignorant of the Faith and so were scandalized by the church corruption and since their faith was immature they did not understand things like plenary indulgences. This is the same situation that is happening today with vatican 2. I'm not sure you get Trent, but do you understand vatican 2?
3. Man is NOT saved by good works. This does not mean do not do good works as penance or for the glory of god or whatever. Read saint Paul on justification. And st. John Chrisostomus addressing catechumens in exasperated tones (my transliteration: "How many times do I have to tell you that you cannot receive baptism until you show effortless virtue?" key word here being effortless … and we can sub good works for virtue) Good works are the product of receiving a new nature, the nature of Christ (or grace or eternal life or kingdom of God whatever you want to call it). As pope Francis keeps saying, You cannot expect people who come from a life of sin to immediately begin doing good works (that is a calvinist idea), first you announce the love of god. Are you a Calvinist? (Read Max Weber in case you don't know what the protestant ethic is)
3. Again you take quotes out of context, but in this case the problem is one of vocabulary. Jesus is NOT a model because no one can be like Jesus by force of personal perfection. Again that is a Calvinist idea. The vocabulary in question is MODEL. You keep trying to model yourself after Christ and let's see how u do. We are called to be Christ-like, in other words to let Christ live in us and HE will do the good works with our participation. St. Catherine of Siena (doctor of the Church): "I am nothing plus sin" No saint is ever accredited miracles, rather it is the power of God working through them. Any other power is from the devil. Do you have special powers?
Part 2
Delete4. The Holy Spirit does not lead us to do good works. Nope. He leads us to become like Christ and allow him to use as as…what is it that Jesus called it? servants? oh here it is "So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do." (Douay-Reims)
5. Um...hate to disappoint you, but God does freely forgive sins. Please read letters of peter, paul and hebrews something about "christ died once and for all". the forgiveness is done, the sacrament of penance is the recognition of the need for forgiveness and the acceptance forgiveness and deliverance from its power.
6. Again misquote taken out of context. as persons of faith, catholic faith, we agree with all the fathers and popes, and theologians etc that FAITH AND REASON GO HAND IN HAND. it's evangelical bible thumpers who refuse evolution, not the catholic church. To understand and explicate luther is NOT heretical is it the job of all people of faith who want to understand why the church is divided. all your quote is saying is that, in his zeal for reform, Luther threw out the baby with the bath water. Again he did not understand transubstantiation, and since all he saw around him were rich prelates selling indulgences, he concluded that the only way to reform the church was to eliminate everything that wasn't in the gospel. Yes, he had very infantile faith, and he was wrong. no wait let me say that again in case you misquote me: LUTHER WAS WRONG. especially because the misguided augustinian did not believe in OBEDIENCE.
yea, yea. you are going to answer with the thin argument of written/oral permission, and bread/host and kneeling/standing. We heard your sophisms and your chimeric arguments. I disapprove of your tactics. You are not in honesty. You are publishing lies. Only one is the perpetrator of lies. Guess who. (hint: read revelations)
Dear Diana and Anon,
ReplyDeleteUpon reading " "LUTHER, WHO NEVER DOUBTED THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST, REJECTED 'TRANSUBSTANTIATION.' BECAUSE IT WAS BOUND TO ARISTOTELIAN-THOMISTIC CONCEPT OF SUBSTANCE, WHICH IS FOREIGN TO THE CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES AND THE FATHERS" does seem to me that this book by the Neocatechumenal Way indeed rejected the Dogma of Transubstantiation, and implies that Luther was right.
This would explain the total disinterest for Eucharistic Adoration in our parish years ago by our NCW-influenced pastor.
This catechesis, thankfully, has been corrected. May we all be One.
Dear Anonymous at 4:37 pm,
DeleteYou said that it SEEMS to you that the The book ( I assume you must be referring to the Carechetical Directory) rejects Transubstantiation. It SEEMS to you, but the truth is that it does not because it was approved by the Vatican. And for your information, the NCW does not show any disrespect toward the Blessed Sacrament,
Wow. Dear may we all be one, your whole argument was refuted and you propose the same argument? do u understand this discussion? Maybe it's all going over your head and that's why you stopped at that quote?
DeleteGo see a youth scrutatio. Them come talk to me about reverence and transubstantiation.
The NCW does believe inTransubstantiation in principle...but not in practice...It all goes back to the first weekend retreat and their interpretation of history of the Eucharist, afternoon session, there is no talk about Transubstantiation.... I have seen crumbs falling and they, the deacons, do not bother to pick it up.
DeleteDear Diana,
ReplyDelete2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 95 says: "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."
Sacred Tradition cannot be taken separately from Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Otherwise, we run the risk of misinterpretation. They are the three legs of a footstool. Remove one of them, and the stool collapses.
AnonymousFebruary 8, 2015 at 5:58 PM - your right that is why THE Neocatechumenal Way was approved by five Popes. Thank you for the citation.
DeleteDear Anon. Feb 8 701 PM
ReplyDeleteRE: "Thank you for the citation."
Sorry, you are misinterpreting. Only certain things were commended by five Popes. But, not the NCW Mass..
Several years ago, (2011), the NCW came to our parish. After attending the catechesis, I declined their weekend convivence. I knew what their Mass entailed (through research) and did not want to be part of it.
The priest encouraged me to come, saying that the Mass was "soon" to get total approval of all the additions and deletions from the Pope. I could not believe it. But, he confidently reassured me "yes" this was so.
The point here is that the NCW Mass was "soon to get total approval of the additions and deletions." Does that not mean the NCW didn't already have it?
Shortly after, 7000 or so members went to Rome in January 2012. They were extremely confident and assured that they were to finally get "written permission" for their Mass. However, Pope Benedict XVI was informed of the Way's intentions/expectations, and made sure his address to them was adjusted. The NCW came away with no "written permission" for the alterations in their Mass.
Sorry, I know it must be hard to hear after all these years that the NCW Mass is not approved.
I feel for the unsuspecting members of the Way. And, I pray for Truth to prevail.
Again, I can, like the Popes, appreciate all the good things the Way does because they love the Lord. But, it is because of their absolute and sincere love for the Lord, that it will not be hard for them to change their Mass.
.Sincerely,
Dear Anonymous at 8:33 am,
DeletePerhaps, the priest meant the Catechetical Directory, which was approved in 2012. The Mass was already approved in 2008.
Dear Diana, I believe the Anonymous poster was referring to the following:
Delete"In a letter, addressed to Cardinal Bertone at the Secretariat of State, signed by Cardinal Leo Raymond Burke, the chief of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura writes that he found on his desktop an invitation to participate to a celebration that would have been held by the Pope six days later, ‘in the occasion of the approval of the NCW’s liturgy.’ The letter is dated January 14th, 2012 and the postmark shows that it has been received on January 16th.
The high priest appears to be very upset by the fact, even angry. ‘As a Cardinal and as a member of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments—we read—cannot avoid expressing he surprise this invitation caused me. I do not recall having heard about a consultation regarding a particular liturgy for this ecclesial movement. In recent days, many people—even a highly esteemed American Bishop—sent me expressions of concern regarding the possibility that the Pope may give such approval, which they already knew about. I regarded them as rumor or speculation. Now I’ve discovered that they were right.’
That’s how Cardinal Burke ends his letter to Bertone: ‘As a faithful student of the teaching of the Holy Father with regard to liturgical reform, which is fundamental for the New Evangelization, I believe the approval of such liturgical innovations, even after the corrections on the part of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the Pope.’
Please read again with care his words: Cardinal Burke states: ‘even after the corrections’ to the ‘liturgical innovations’ of the NCW, Neocatechumenal liturgy ‘does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the Pope.’
It’s a very soft way to say that the Neocatechumenals go against the Pope. It’s something that arises ‘concerns’ among Bishops. Also, these are maneuvers carried out—as everybody knows— ‘without the Pope’s knowledge.’
Another article reports Pope Benedict XVI’s reply, two lines in his own writing (note well the date: January 20th, the very same day of the Neocatechumenal auto-celebration before the Pope):
‘I send [Burke’s letter] back to Cardinal Bertone, inviting Cardinal Burke to report maybe also this extremely just observations in the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.’ B XVI 20. I.12"
Dear Anonymous at 11:50 am,
Delete"I find this part interesting because this is what we have been claiming. Cardinal Burke stated:
In recent days, many people—even a highly esteemed American Bishop—sent me expressions of concern regarding the possibility that the Pope may give such approval, which they already knew about. I regarded them as rumor or speculation. Now I’ve discovered that they were right."
We have been saying that we have the approval of the Pope. The Cardinal thought it was a rumor or speculation. Now, he finds out that it was not a rumor. It was actually true that we have the approval of the Pope. So, Cardinal Burke (who is a traditional liturgiest) wrote to Bertone. Then the Cardinal goes on to say (capitalization is mine):
"I believe the APPROVAL of such liturgical innovations, even after the corrections on the part of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, does not seem coherent with the liturgical magisterium of the Pope.’ "
It appears that Cardinal Burke was NOT saying that the NCW is in disobedience. He is saying that the APPROVAL was wrong and is not consistent with the liturgical Magisterium of the Pope. Is there a website where we can see the entire contents of the letter and not parts of it?
Dear Diana,
DeleteNote the "expressions of concerns" that Cardinal Burke received? How do you intend to spin the phrase "expressions of concern"?
Cardinal Burke appears to be saying that many eminent people were "concerned" that an approval might be given, but that he thought the possibility of an approval was outlandish, and "just a rumor." He goes on to say that after having found the letter on his desk, pre-empting an approval, he now understands that the possibility of the approval being given was correct. This was evidently a surprise for him, as he points out that the approval of these practises would not be consistent with the liturgical directions of the Pope.
Why would there be a letter at all, referring to this expected approval, if the approval already existed, as you seem to suggest?
IT is quite obvious that Cardinal Burke's surprise is not because he found out that approval had already been given, but because an approval of these things would not be consistent with the Pope's teaching on the liturgy.
This is why, a few days later, Pope Benedict did not announce any approval of these practices, but rather spoke to the NCW about the need to ensure that they followed the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, as directed by the definitive statutes.
Dear Diana please refer to the following article:
Deletehttp://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/leaks-confirm-ambivalence-about-neocatechumenal-way
is this the same Cardinal burke who threaten a schism after the synod a few months ago? Are we really using him as our reference model for catholic doctrine?
ReplyDeleteLet's instead listen to Cardinal pell who became the champion of orthodoxy at that synod recognized by both ultra conservatives and moderates alike. And he has a rms.
"Are we really using him as our reference model for catholic doctrine"
DeleteNo. We are referring to him, because he was head of the Apostolic Signatura, and a member of various congregations including that of Divine Worship, and because he is implying that there was an attempt by supporters of the NCW to attain an approval for the practices of the NCW Eucharist by stealth. Judging by Pope Benedicts response, it would appear he had the same view.
Would you like to question Pope Benedict's credentials now?
But he was neither at faith nor liturgy! Ratzinger was at faith and he gave nihil obstat to the directories and liturgy has granted concessions some in writing some in word by the pope yes Benedict himself.
DeleteYes! I question a Cardinal who says the approval is outside the jurisdiction of the pope! (Benedict) And who then threatens schism to the successor of that pope!(Francis)
Let him retire to his nominal congregation and leave the running of the church to bishops who have understood vatican 2.
And still when he was at liturgy he did not ban NCW mass!
Deletehe T H R E A T E N E D S C H I S M.
DeleteNo, he did not. A rumour passed around to discredit the Cardinal based on misinformation. Please read Diana's next blog entry and you'll see some resources supplied by her readers relating what actually happened. Including an interview with the Pope and his clarification. This whole incident has maligned the good Cardinal's name, all because of taking things out of context!
DeleteDear Readers,
ReplyDeleteI will be posting about Cardinal Burke as another post because this is now derailment of the Original Post.
Dear Neos and non-Neos:
ReplyDeleteWe are fighting because we both want the same thing - to do the will of God in the Spirit of Truth.
We are fighting a bigger war. Communism and Free Masonry have inserted their men into the Catholic Church to destroy the Church from within.
I will give one example: Archbishop Sheen assisted Bella Dodd ex-communist into the Catholic Church.
She revealed to him that she herself helped 1000-1200 communist men to enter the Catholic Seminaries to become priests to destroy the Church from within. She also said that the Catholic Church would become "unrecognizable." and she herself knew of 4 cardinals that were communists.
I look at Kiko and his original conversion. That was something extremely good. But, is it not possible that he was encouraged and influenced by the very likes of such "Catholic" clergy. We know that the Neo catechesis had to be corrected; and, we see that the Mass was "unrecognizable" and still remains so in many ways. Athough Kiko may have meant well, I believe he truly did; but, I also bellieve that he was deceived. But, on that note, let me say, that we can all be deceived. That is why we must pray Extra Hard - Holy Mass, Daily Rosary, Chaplet of Mercy.......Let us not strip one another's God-given dignity by insulting one another. Let us pray for one another's continued conversion.
Let us seek TRUTH. Satan is laughing at us - he has caused division and is very happy about that.
Yes. Disunity comes from the devil. So does deception. He is the king of liars.
ReplyDeleteKIKO was not deceived. That is ur personal opinion. And since the popes do not agree with it I wonder who inspired u that idea. KIKO was inspired by the holy spirit. Who inspired u to write that KIKO was deceived?
The church is not just full of communists and Freemasons. The church is full of superstitious ignorant people who think that if u change the mass or don't genuflect in from of the altar you are offending the deity. That is not Christianity. by all means pray. Pray and ask God for unity in the church. And then pray that he give u the gift of wisdom and understanding so that you r noy stuck in the mental closure of the person who thinks Christianity is only ritual, and the gift of discernment to distinguish between what is from God and what is from the devil.
Dear Anon at 11.11pm. What a strange reply to anon at 8.23! He/she has written very gently and yet you respond with that same bitterness and vitriol we have come to expect. How do you know that Kiko has not been deceived? Surely that is only your opinion as well?
ReplyDeleteYou write: "The church is full of superstitious ignorant people who think that if u change the mass or don't genuflect in from of the altar you are offending the deity."
This is pure arrogance and mockery. This "offending the deity" is a strawman argument. It is actually a case of following the clear, lawful authority of the Church, not whether an absence of kneeling is going to cause God to suffer. How ridiculous. We hear this sort of argument all the time in the NCW. And if these things - kneeling, genuflecting - Ritual, were not important, why, first of all does the Catholic Church speak about them and give firm, clear directions on them? And secondly, why do you, in the NCW have device and ritual - eg The menorah; the insistence on sitting to consume; the fanatical use of Kiko-only materials and productions? You accuse yourself of superstition when you make these judgements. All is projection from you. And your arrogance in suggesting that you have discernment but "regular Catholics" do not!!
Finally, can you make up your mind whether it is "you" or "u"? Are you trying to sound trendy? Reading your comments is often like picking through a nasty soup.
I use "u" when I answer from my cel. Sorry: I'm a millennial! :)
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with the bleeding hearts approach to these arguments. There are only two sides to this argument: either God's or the devils. The devil acts presenting half truths to confuse the bleeding hearts, creating division and scandal for the weak, and trying to destroy the Church. Within this context, trying to find a little good and a little bad in everything (NCW and opposed) is playing into the hands of the devil. Either the Holy Spirit inspired the NCW, and Kiko and Carmen, who are a sinners and weak and full of imperfections, have been faithful to the mission that God has entrusted them, or the NCW is demonic.
How do you tell if something is from God or from the devil? 1. Jesus says it, from its fruits. Everyone has now heard this. The NCW has been the instrument of God to bring people back to the Church and the sacraments, rebuilt marriages, inspired families to be open to life, 102 seminaries, over 1000 priest ordained from RMS, young people who do not leave the Church after Confirmation (which is the norm today, just look at statistics), who remain chaste, etc etc etc. 2. Faithfulness to Peter and his successors. Kiko and Carmen by themselves, and then with people who walk in the Way have met with the last three popes at least once a year, and usually more. The popes have encouraged the founders, sent families in mission given advice, and admonishment. The local communities support and obey their bishop. And these bishops know that! So much so that whenever there are public events in Europe or in the USA the first group they call to fill seats are the communities. I can provide examples but I would be going off-topic.
St. Thomas Aquinas said that the liturgy is made for man and not man for the liturgy. Genuflecting, bowing, the songs, the bread to be used in the Mass are all signs that speak to man's intelligence and heart. They allow man to better participate in the miracle of the sacraments and experiment their efficaciousness, but the signs are not Christianity! In the same way that Trent and various councils got rid of the different Eucharistic Rites and generalized the use of the Roman Latin rite, Vatican 2 eliminated many of the signs that had been used since Trent. This is not an evolution to a "better" more perfect rite. This is the Churches response to the needs of the people. For example, Latin was a sign of the Catholicity of the Church during the fragmentation of the Reformation. Now it is not needed anymore. People are scandalized when they see changes in the liturgy because they approach Christianity with superstition: if the rite is not perfect, then we please God less or we break God's law. This is the problem that those who reject Vatican 2 have and that is the problem that people who criticize the NCW Mass have. Yes. I stand behind this statement. In order for the consecration to be valid, the priest has to use the same words as Christ in the Gospels. These are specific and are the only ones that all valid Mass use around the world. Everything else in the liturgy can be modified. Because the rest of the liturgy is to help man partake of the sacrament. I do not like the youth Mass with electric guitar and drums, like the ones Cardinal Bergoglio so liked to preside in argentina, but I am not scandalized by them because they are valid! My arrogance, if it arrogance, does not come from claiming discernment. It comes from having studied the matter.
Dear Anon at 3.43, I disagree with almost everything you have written here.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all you say that there is no grey area - either the NCW is wholly good and from God, or wholly eveil and from the devil. This is not a Catholic view, as it does not adequately allow for the free will of man, and his propensity to disorder. Hence, we have seen from time to time that the Church has issued directives, instructions and corrections to the NCW, as it does in all cases. The changes in the NCW liturgy over time - from sitting to standing (then sitting) - the corrections to the Directory etc - all of these reforms are legitimate and do not mean that the NCW is from the devil. Nor does "approval" of certain aspects of the NCW mean that all aspects are perfect and without error. You only need read the "recommendations" of Pope Francis, let alone the previous popes, to the NCW to see that you are incorrect in your first assumption.
Your second point is in regard to discernment - whether some thing or event comes from God or from the devil. Again, there are nuances in this question, and it is not a case of either/or. When Peter was shown to be wrong about the need for Christians to follow the Mosaic Law, did that ruin his authority or prove him to be demonic?
So, can we see the in the fruits something of the tree? Yes, but with only with wisdom and certainly not in isolation to revelation or the authority of the Church. You say that The NCW has been the instrument of God to do all these wonderful things. But do not these things occur in other realities? For example, Muslim families are "open to life" but this is not a sign of the annointing of the Holy Spirit, is it? The devotion and dedication of the Mormons, who go door to door, and who have significant response from their young people is not an indication that they are the true Church.
Faithfulness to Peter and his successors is fine to say, but simply meeting with the Pope is no guarantee of that. Obedience to the lawful direction of the Pope and his dicastries is more important, and we have good reason to suggest that Kiko and others have not been entirely honest in this regard. And what good are vocations if they are bought rather than encouraged, or attained by brainwashing or the negation of the rational mind.
I don't recall Thomas Aquinas ever having written what you suggest. Kindly provide the reference if you wish to rely on it. I do recall thomas Aquinas maintaining that the liturgy is not the work of man, but the work of God, and a gift of God to man. This is why not even the Pope is entitled to change the liturgy in any way that contradicts, minimises or undermines its previous iterations.
to be cont...
Dear Anon at 3.43 cont...
ReplyDeleteThe signs and symbols of the liturgy are not Christianity, agreed, but neither are they meaningless or without direct relation to the revealed truth. The custodian of these symbols is the Church proper, its people, and the magisterium. And while it is true that for finite man, the symbols have an effect to ready one to receive the grace of the sacrament, they are nothing without the grace itself.
Vatican II did not "eliminate many of the signs that had been used since Trent". If you can, please give one example. The use of Latin was not in any way altered by the Council, in fact, it was confirmed:
"36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Sacrosanctum Concilium)
Your statement that "now it is not needed anymore" is absolutely incorrect and without justification.
Do you know that it is the law of the Church to receive Communion on the tongue? Communion in the hand is granted under what is called an indult - in other words, a particular and specific permission to "break the Law", much like the police have to run a red light.
I suspect you need to study some more, my friend. It is certainly not the case that "everything else" other that the anamnesis and the words of consecration can be changed. This is a totally wrong statement.
"People are scandalized when they see changes in the liturgy because they approach Christianity with superstition"
This is merely something you have been told, and bears no resemblance to reality. You are told this so you develop a prejudice against the regular Church and cling more closely to the NCW. If that statement was correct then virtually the entire course of history of the Catholic Church was in error - all those saints were mistaken and the Lord really had abandoned us long ago. This is unacceptable, but is the logical conclusion of your assertion.
Of course, people are in various stages of relationship with God, and struggle to elevate themselves from the pull of the world. But to dismiss this as "superstition" is simplistic and weak. The first Catholic definition of superstition is "improper worship of God". This is why the answer is to "follow faithfully the liturgical books" Ask yourself honestly - Why did the Vatican issue Redemptionis Sacramentum? Please look it up and especially read the preamble.
The measure of the liturgy is in regard to its adherence to the lawful authority of the Church, not whether you like it or not.
There is no gray are. THAT is not Catholic. There is room for the sinfulness of man, which I allowed for if you read back, but either the Way is faithful to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and to the pope (meeting him once a year is proof of the good relationship which can only come from obedience even to changes and admonishments, as I wrote above), or it is not from God. If it is not from God, then who is it from? The fact that you claim that Kiko and Carmen have "not been entirely honest" is an accusation of heresy. I claim they have. They have been faithful to their mission and to the pope. And the popes continue to support the way, otherwise I see no reason for them to keep personally sending thousands of families in mission to propagate the way.
DeletePrecisely because the liturgy is not an evolution to a "perfect rite" but functional for man (google st. thomas and you'll find it), it is only people who regard the liturgy as the way to ingratiate the deity who are scandalized by changes to it. This is superstition according to your definition and mine. The fact that you say that the only proper worship of God is through a specific modality of liturgy (did I understand correctly?) only makes it seems that you count yourself among those who do not agree with any liturgical changes. Redemptionis Sacramentum does not exclude change and is not a document to be taken in isolation form other documents as the introduction says. And since the NCW follows the Roman Missal usually more faithfully than the regular Sunday Mass (i.e. no women eucharistic ministers, freshly baked bread) except where special concessions have been made (i.e. communion in the hand, which everybody does outside of the NCW, and peace after petitions, receiving at your place) I don't see where you find "deception". I stand by what I said before.
Latin, while the official language of the Church, is not used anymore for daily Mass or Sunday Mass or Easter. Local churches, last time I checked, celebrated in the language of the place: again the liturgy responds to the need of the people (lex prima salus animarum).
The only unchangeable part of the liturgy is the consecration: that has remained the same for 2000 years. the rest has changed, does change, and will change.
If Kiko and Carmen are weak and full of sin, then by what measure do you have the confidence to say that either they are entirely faithful to God or entirely demonic. How can you say they are good at all if they are "full of sin" and you have this extreme either/or approach. In your rendering they must be demonic because they are full of sin. But could they not be faithful to God up until the point of sin? Surely that is the nature of sin? They do not have to be "demonic" to be in error, for goodness sake. And they have "been in error" as can be seen by the "corrections: made to various aspects of the NCW.
Delete"but either the Way is faithful to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and to the pope, or it is not from God."
Again this is an extreme point of view and is hardly consistent with an understanding of the human condition. There have been, and always will be, people who have the best intentions, start out well, but go off track, or lose the initial sense of their work, and despite their good intentions, create problems. The NCW is an example of this. That doesn't mean it is a work of Satan, but that it is comprised of people who are tempted and assailed by Satan.
You also did not answer my question about St Peter. Did his mistake about the Mosaic law render his authority null, and prove him to be demonic? If not, then why would you say that either the NCW is perfect and from God, or wholly evil and from the devil? Its just another example of your extremism.
Do you really believe that the pope "personally sends thousands of families in mission to propagate the way"? To use a "millennial" term - Lol.
I have "googled" St Thomas, as you suggest but can find no reference to him saying that "liturgy was made for man, not man for the liturgy". Perhaps you can provide a link?
"it is only people who regard the liturgy as the way to ingratiate the deity who are scandalized by changes to it"
This. Is arrogance and presumption. How dare you make that judgement of others? Would you include Pope John Paul II in that group? In Ecclesia de Eucharistia, he writes:
"A certain reaction against "formalism" has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the "forms" chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.
I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated... Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject". (EE 52)
cont..
"The fact that you say that the only proper worship of God is through a specific modality of liturgy "
DeleteThis I did not say. I said that the Catholic definition of superstition is improper worship of God. You can get an idea of what that means from the above quote and from Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Your strawman that I reject all liturgical change is therefore meaningless. But I will point out that there is legitimate and lawful change (ie moving the sign of peace in the NCW Eucharist) and there is illegitimate and unlawful change (sitting down to consume the host).
And you have no idea what you are saying in regard to the "regular Sunday Mass". In the case of most Catholics, the lack of adherence to the liturgical norms is a consequence of ignorance and can be addressed merely by education. For the NCW it is a case of wilful disobedience, and we can point these things out till we're blue in the face, but the response is only that the NCW do it better.
"Latin, while the official language of the Church, is not used anymore for daily Mass or Sunday Mass or Easter."
Actually it is. And the first place you will find it so, is in the Holy See. I think I've heard the NCW apologists say something along the lines of "If its good enough for the pope...."
And here you have it ladies and gentleman: "For the NCW it is a case of willful disobedience"
Deleteanonymous is saying we are not in communion with Rome and as such we are heretics. What do the popes say about this? It is funny, but why is it that the extreme conservatives always challenge the authority of the pope?
we have here a case of he said - she said (I am the she). He says we disobey, I say we do not.
Let's wait for the Vatican to pronounce itself. Until then, can you suspend judgement?
(of course Latin is used in daily Mass in the Vatican it is the official language there! local language remember? nice work of editing to discredit my remarks)
Still nothing to say about St Peter, huh?
DeleteAre you talking about the Peter and Paul episode in Galatians? Where Paul (the charism) convinces Peter (the institution) that the gentiles don't need to be circumcised? Are you seriously using the example par excellence of how the norm of the church changes in relations to the need of the people to say the institution is monolithic and the charism is wrong? Really?
DeleteHowever you misuse this story, the point is that Peter and Paul had the same spirit. Maybe they argued and fought over methods, but in the end they were in communion. Paul, in his inimitable manner, says he has to defend the gospel as it was given to him, it is his mission and he has to be faithful to it all the while in communion and under obedience to Peter. Kiko is in communion with the pope. He needs to be faithful to his charism while under obedience to the pope. Is he a sinner? yes, even Peter and Paul were. But he is faithful to his mission.
The logic behind this argument bothers you. It challenges you to either recognize the Holy Spirit working in the NCW or declare it does not. If it does not, then the NCW is not from God, and what is not from God is from the devil. This logic does not allow you to choose the shadows of "there is a little good in everything, we all make mistakes, but let's love each other anyways", where you do not have to stand for the truth. It is not love to let you believe an error. It is not love to let you believe your sophism. If you are offended by my tone, I apologize. That is my sin.
And we know that "you can't get out from your sin", don't we, so just continue to use offensive tones, I suppose.
DeleteNo, I'm not really bothered by your tone. I asked this question seriously. You have indicated a number of times that either the NCW is wholly good and contains no error, or is from the devil. As I have said this is an extreme point of view. Peter was wrong about the application of Mosaic law to the new believers, but this did not mean he was "from the devil". And paul was certainly "not in communion" with Peter on this point. This is my objection. You have been conditioned to believe that the NCW has no possibility of error, and so you are often left to defend absurdities.
Paul, the charism? Peter, the institution. Gosh, another false dichotomy. Can I assume this is another thing you have been told?
The fact that you can't even recognize this is enough proof of my point.
You should not be arguing these points if you don't know the well recognized allegorical reading of peter and paul (it's not a dichotomy).
DeleteYou again misquote me or misread me. I said logic bothers you, not my tone.
As far as I know the NCW is a set of spiritual gifts and either they come from God or they don't. Once again, either kiko and carmen are faithful to these or they are not: this does not preclude their own sinfulness. If you are asking have they ever commited sins, the answer is obviously yes. Have they been faithful to the charism that the Holy Spirit has entrusted them? Yes. Are they in communion with Rome? Yes.
Actually their is a lot I can do about my temper. I can listen to the word of God, I can go to confession, I can receive communion and I can ask God to free me of it. However, if you are not offended by my tone, then maybe my tones are not offensive and I was just being scrupulous.
And a last word on fruits. Muslim natality rates are in decline all over Europe, America and the Middle East. So much so that Iran is facing one of the most severe population crisis. The only ones who keep birthing like "rabbits" to use the pope's expression are the Palestinians because of violent ideological reasons. Everywhere else Muslim are secularizing and consequently having less children. We can thank the power of the god almighty dollar for that: they love money just as much as catholics! However they divorce, as Mormons do, they kill their enemies and their youth are into as much drug sex and alcohol as western ones (please read sex and the citadel).
ReplyDeleteI find it disturbing that you would denigrate the positive changes brought on by God in people through the way. You are denigrating and belittling not people in the way who birth like "rabbits" but the action of God.