Kiko and Carmen write: “The memorial Jesus left us in His resurrected Spirit from the dead (…). How did the Apostles see Jesus Christ resurrected? In themselves, made a vivifying spirit.”Kiko and Carmen forgot that in the Catholic Church, when it is spoken of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, it is the resurrection of His Body.In its commentary on the Creed, the Catechism of the Council of Trent writes: “On the morning of the third day after His death, the soul of Jesus Christ was reunited to His Body, and thus He who was dead during those three days arose, and returned again to life from which He had departed when dying.” Kiko and Carmen forgot that the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ is a dogma of our Faith: “If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” (I Cor. xv, 14)PAPAL APPROBATIONIn October 1990, “Thirty days” magazine ran as a headline: “Green light for the Neo-Catechumens. John Paul II praises the Neo-Catechumenal Way.”Perhaps, the Pope had not received the secret book of Kiko and Carmen destined only to the catechists of the Movement: “If people knew this, they would fly quickly.”But, this official approbation is tragic. This Movement is a seat of destruction of Catholic faith within the Church, a kind of cancer, whose metastasis are spread all over the world now. Because of the papal approbation, seminaries of this Movement for the formation of priests are being built everywhere: in Rome, New York, Madrid, Varsovia, Medellin (Colombia), Caliao (Peru). As for all secret organizations working against the Church, the duty of all Catholics is to make known the secret and reveal the true goal of the Neo-Catechumenal Movement which is the destruction of Faith
Dear Anonymous at 1:34 pm, You need to quote the entire paragraph and the source of where you got that quote. The only place I can find that quote is in an Anti-Neo website such as the one below: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/catech.htm
Amazing that you can have such strong feelings about a catechetical directory that you have never read, Diana. Incredible in fact. You know nothing of what Kiko teaches. I have read the first volume and have seen for myself the problems with his teachings. You could say that most of it is orthodox, but many of the conclusions are not. Carmen's statement about there being no need for adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is one, for example. But there are many. the Vatican knows this is the case, which is why they insisted on inserting references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church - the same catechism that is never mentioned in the NCW catechesis
Dear Anonymous at 9:53 pm, If you can insert the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a REFERENCE to their statements, then their statements is aligned with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Vatican approved the Catechetical Directory and what is approved by the Vatican is what the NCW follows. If you do not follow what the Vatican approves, you are not very far away from going against the Pope.
"If you can insert the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a REFERENCE to their statements, then their statements is aligned with the Catechism of the Catholic Church."No, you are wrong. I will give you an example:Lets say I stand up and utter something like: "The mass is a sacrifice, but only a sacrifice of praise". Then this statement is recorded and put in writing. Later, the written version is circulated. It goes to the Vatican for review. The Vatican is reluctant to alter the words in quotes, because to do so would violate the original verbal statement (Kiko says this in his introduction to the Catechetical Directory, by the way. But you wouldn't have seen that, though.) Instead the Vatican chooses to add a footnote, directing the reader to the catechism to rectify the error in the original statement. ie "The mass is a sacrifice, but only a sacrifice of praise" (1)(1) see CCC 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189So you see, the references to catechism of the Catholic Church do not at all imply that the original words were error free, but in fact can imply exactly the opposite.
Dear Anonymous at 3:57 pm, You are giving Kiko more credit than the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a Church who have knighted and excommunicated kings in the past.. And here you are saying that the Catholic Church is so weak that it cannot change Kiko's words?? A Church so powerful that it has once knighted and excommunicated kings. Since when has the Head of the Church (Jesus Christ) become so weak that he can no longer protect His church???
Why some people chose to believe a man with no degree in theology is beyond me.Well, St Francis was not a theologian didn't even want be a member of the clergy, yet look at how many different Franciscan family he founded or were founded using his Rule of Life.So your argument doesn't stand.
Dear Anonymous at 1:50 pm, St. Francis never preached theology. He never even wrote a book. Chuck White, on the other hand, preached theology and he has no degree in theology. Yet, some people chose to believe him. That makes no sense at all. If person A has a degree in theology and Person B has no degree in theology, it would make sense to believe person A who preached theology. The only thing Person B does is criticize Person A. . .
Gosh.... This is something, comparing Chuck White to Saint Francis!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did anyone notice?The evangelicals in Guam are smart because they have been very quiet on this whole issue. They say, let the Catholics destroy themselves through this infighting in their Church. They say, let the Catholics contest their Archbishop. If they manage to destroy him, we shall have one serious opponent less to combat. They are so happy that we are annihilating ourselves by punching each other. Jesus Christ spoke of unity, “let them be one as you and I are one…” and look at these Catholics, writing articles on the newspaper one against the other, using blogs to demolish the authority in the Catholic Church, organizing meetings village by village to destroy their Archbishop, encouraging their people not to give money for the formation of priests. No seminary, means no priests. No priests means no sacraments. No mass. No confessions….Great job, dear devil….says Screwtape.
Dear Anonymous at 5:09 pm, The NCW is not against the Archbishop. We are not trying to remove him. Also, Father Paul and Monsignor are not destroyed. Because they still remain priests in the Catholic Church.
If the NCW is truly a cancer, like Anonymous @ 1:34p.m. alleges, so why hasn't it killed off the host (the Church) yet? As 1:34pm has observed, the communities "are spread all over the world now." How can something that has produced more seminaries, and thus more priests for the Church, be considered a cancer? Easy, the NCW is not like a cancer. On the contrary, it is awakening some Catholics who have been asleep and has inspired them to seek out Jesus in their lives.
I am sorry to say but this point simply does not hold. Even you yourself said to me once that having a qualification by no means makes you a good teacher for example. The same with theology. There are good priests, there are let's say less good priests, and that is impossible to not agree with. Also having the same degree as the pope is not what makes a person's theology right, it's not what makes Kiko's teachings right or wrong. Also and i would know because i am currently at university and know how getting a degree works, it is fairly simple to pass exams and get first class honours in a degree yet not knowing how to use what you learned, how to apply it best, and anything. So i am not saying kiko is correct or incorrect in his teachings in the catechetical directory but your point simply does not prove anything on either side.
Dear Keith, The Catechetical Directory, which contains some of Kiko's words, has the stamp of approval by Rome. You either follow Rome's approval or not. The NCW chose to follow what Rome approves. You have free will. You can choose to go against what Rome has approved, but do not tell the NCW to follow you.