AnonymousMarch 14, 2016 at 11:21 AM
Dear Zoltan, here is an example of the heresies of the Neocatechumenal Way, that doesn't come from Chuck White's bliog, but rather from the initial catechesis which I heard with my own ears and recorded with my own device.
Speaking to a group of baptized Catholics who all had recently (the day before) attended Mass and had received the Body of Christ, the NCW stated:
"There is nothing good in you. NOTHING! Only selfishness and sin!"
That is heretical, Zoltan.
Speaking to a group of baptized Catholics who all had recently (the day before) attended Mass and had received the Body of Christ, the NCW stated:
"There is nothing good in you. NOTHING! Only selfishness and sin!"
That is heretical, Zoltan.
To answer this first comment, the NCW teaches that there is selfishness and sin because that is the truth. In the first place, we were all born with original sin. So, we already had sin in us the moment we were born. The only two people in the world who were born without any sins were Jesus and Mary. Baptism may have taken away the original sin, but as humans we continue to commit personal sins. All people (except Jesus and Mary) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (See Romans 3:23). The Catechism of the Catholic Church also says that all of us (including priests and ministers) must acknowledge that we are all sinners (CCC 827)
AnonymousMarch 14, 2016 at 11:38 AM
Here's another one:
Kiko: Sin cannot offend God. Our sin cannot strip the glory from God.
Pope John Paul II: "It is therefore vain to hope that there will take root a sense of sin against man and against human values, if there is no sense of offense against God, namely the true sense of sin." (Pope John Paul II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia , 18)
CCC 1440: Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him
Kiko: Sin cannot offend God. Our sin cannot strip the glory from God.
Pope John Paul II: "It is therefore vain to hope that there will take root a sense of sin against man and against human values, if there is no sense of offense against God, namely the true sense of sin." (Pope John Paul II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia , 18)
CCC 1440: Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him
CCC 598: 598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured." Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone
This is where the translation from Spanish to English becomes a problem. The second sentence "Our sin cannot strip the glory from God" is correct and explains what the first sentence meant.
In Spanish, the words "offend" and "hurt" can be used in the same way. The Spanish word for "hurt" is "hacer dano" which can also be used for "offend". Our sins is an offense against God, but our sins cannot physically hurt God in any way. It cannot even steal His glory from Him. What Kiko is actually saying is that our sins cannot hurt God physically, emotionally, or spiritually nor can it take away His glory and power. Sin "offends" both God and humans, but sin can ONLY "hurt" humans physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Sin cannot hurt God physically, emotionally, or spiritually........the way it hurts humans. This teaching is aligned with Catholic teaching in that God is all-powerful. There is nothing that can hurt Him and take away His glory.....not even sin.
In Spanish, the words "offend" and "hurt" can be used in the same way. The Spanish word for "hurt" is "hacer dano" which can also be used for "offend". Our sins is an offense against God, but our sins cannot physically hurt God in any way. It cannot even steal His glory from Him. What Kiko is actually saying is that our sins cannot hurt God physically, emotionally, or spiritually nor can it take away His glory and power. Sin "offends" both God and humans, but sin can ONLY "hurt" humans physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Sin cannot hurt God physically, emotionally, or spiritually........the way it hurts humans. This teaching is aligned with Catholic teaching in that God is all-powerful. There is nothing that can hurt Him and take away His glory.....not even sin.
AnonymousMarch 14, 2016 at 11:56 AM
Kiko: "People think that with his life, his death, and above all with his suffering Jesus has given us an example so that we will do the same. For these people, Jesus is an ideal, a role model, an example... Not so!"
CCC459 "The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me." "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!" Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: "Love one another as I have loved you." This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example."
These words of Kiko were taken out of context, and you obtained this source from the jungle. According to the jungle (the bold is mine):
From the Catechesis:Kiko says the contrary (p. 124): "Doesn't it seem better to you to have a figure who is more human [Arianism] because, after all, anything else would not be attainable. How can we possibly imitate him if our human nature is weak and fallen? Jesus isn't at all an ideal for life; Jesus didn't come to give us his example." On p. 126 he says,"People think that with his life, his death, and above all with his suffering Jesus has given us an example so that we will do the same. For these people, Jesus is an ideal, a role model, an example... Not so!"
http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/04/divergence-from-catholic-doctrine-in.html
I placed the page numbers in bold to show that Kiko's quotes were deliberately taken out of context to mislead people. The jungle went from page 124 to 126. Why did they skip page 125?
These passages came from the Catechetical Directory, which was APPROVED by the Vatican in 2010. If there was anything heretical in any of the passage of the Catechetical Directory, it would not have been approved by the Vatican.
Dear Anonymous, Diana gave a thorough treatment to your charges that should convince you about your obvious error of calling your fellow Catholic sisters and brothers heretics based on your personal preference. Let me add here the few points I had already made under a previous post in case you want to discuss them further.
ReplyDelete1. Chastising someone for not attaining the quality of holiness would call into attention that we need God in our lives. It is not heresy. If you look into yourself you'll find those things that block you from becoming holy. Are you ready to face those things?
Human frailty towards sin is not something that will immediately go away when you participate at mass and take the Eucharist. It is a long way to walk by.
2. Yes, it is true that you cannot hurt God in a manner that you strip him from his glory, because you are too small for that. When you say you can strip God from his glory by sinning against Him, you make yourself co-equal to Him.
3. Our Lord Jesus is so much more than a role model. Please, come to peace with that. The holiness of our Lord is beyond our capacities, as well as his divine Sonship. Still, we can strive for holiness according to our own capacities but acknowledging the divine character of Jesus Christ.
Please, tell us why do you think these points are heretic. Let me call your attention that the issue of heresy has not been present in a significant way in the church for the last couple of centuries. It became buried in the ancient past. To bring up heresy charges based on your personal dislike is like trying to roll the wheel of the church's history back in time by centuries. Is this kind of radical fundamentalism you truly want to get associated with? What we offer in the Neocatechumenal Way is a mainstream Catholic lifestyle based on the values of the Catholic Church and Vatican 2.
You would do better to go away from NovusOrdoWatch, JungleWatch and WhatNotWatch, from all these radical fundamentalist groups, because they will mess up your mind and destroy your faith life. If you don't need a book to read and don't need anyone to learn from to understand the meaning of the word heresy, well, it is not our fault. Peace be with you.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/the-church-is-our-mother-pope-francis-explains-to-neocatechumenal-way-61747/ Hi there again. I think it is time we started seeking TRUE union. It's never been made so clear by the Pope and thus the Church. No the NCW is not something more special than other charisms. It is beautiful when used well but can be a devil's tool if used incorrectly by malicious or ignorant people. So let us start unifying the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteHi Keith!!!!!!
DeleteIt's great to see you!!!! Long time no see! :-) Welcome back. And thank you for the website.
Kieth you hit it waaayyy left field.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-calls-neocatechumenal-way-to-unity
ReplyDeletePope Francis is calling the Neocatechumenal Way into unity with Mother Church, not Mother Church into unity with the "ways" of the Neocatechumenals. He does however commend them for their zeal of evangelization but cautions them of pride. He also stresses the importance that the church be ONE.
Dear Anonymous at 11:03 am,
DeleteThe NCW on Guam is united with Mother Cburch because we are obedient to the Archbishop, who is the local vicar of Christ and representative of the Pope. Those who oppose the Archbishop are the ones who are not in unity with Mother Church.
Dear Diana, it is very grown up of you to post this OP in answer to my comments. Thankyou. Before we begin the discussion on each of your points, though, I would like to start with your last sentence:
ReplyDelete"If there was anything heretical in any of the passage of the Catechetical Directory, it would not have been approved by the Vatican."
This is an argument from authority. You are effectively saying - "you can trust this here directory, because the relevant authority says its ok".
But the question is - where is the the directory? Which one do you use - the ald version or a corrected one? The corrected version from 1999 or the one from 2010? Howcan we possibly simply trust that what the catechists use is the same thing that was "approved" by the vatican?
And you may be quite correct - if there was anything heretical in the volumes, the vatican may have very likely ordered that they be taken out. But have they actually been removed? Were the catechists directly told that what they were teaching prior to the corrections is no longer to be taught, and that they must now teach the new books?
You see, its easy to say "oh trust us - everything's fine with these books. In fact they're just like the catechism", but unless they are available for us, and others to see firsthand, the argument from authority means simply nothing.
Thanks again, I shall get into a reponse to each of your comments shortly
Dear Anonymous at 11:41 am,
DeleteYes, I trust the Vatican. They spent years going over the Catechetical Directory and finally approved it in 2010. I also know that the NCW uses the APPROVED Catechetical Directory. Everything that is said in the catechesis is from the approved Catechetical Directory. The catechesis is also public. In other words, everything in the Catechetical Directory is made public whenever we announce the catechesis despite that you do not have the books. Because the catechesis is public, the Vatican would easily know whether the NCW was following the approved Catechetical Directory or not. After all, Rome has one of the largest Neocatechumenal Way communities, and the catechesis are made public in the streets of Rome.
In addition, certain steps outlined in the approved Catechetical Directory involves the Bishops. For example, the Bishop has a role in the First Scrutiny. Through these steps, the Bishops can determine whether the appropriate steps were taken or not as outlined in the approved Catechetical Directory. The Neocatechumenal Way in Rome has a Bishop just as we do, and I am certain the Bishop of Rome (Pope) would take part in those steps as outlined in the Directory.
Furthermore, Chuck White has the first volume of the APPROVED Catechetical Directory. He and Tim Rohr uses the approved Catechetical Directory to claim that the NCW teaches heresy despite its approval from the Vatican. According to Tim Rohr:
"While both the Statute (2008) and the Directory (2011) eventually received “approval,” it is grossly misleading to simply say so."
http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/08/show-us-your-catechetical-directory.html#more
Tim Rohr admitted that the APPROVED Catechetical Directory is grossly misleading. Apparently, he and Chuck White claims to know much more than the Vatican who approved those volumes. So, who do you believe? The jungle who tells you that the approved books are grossly misleading or the Vatican who approved those books?
I would also like to add that having all 13 volumes available to the public can cause those in the Way to "cheat" in their walk. By "cheating", I meant that once a person knows what is in store for him/her, they will automatically prepare themselves ahead of everyone else, and their walk will not be sincere. Those walking in the Way must be sincere or honest in their walk through their life experience. This is one of the reasons why God never revealed exactly when the end of the world would be. If we knew the exact date, we would not be sincere in our behavior.
DeleteFurthermore, it would also give those who oppose the Way more ammunition to misconstrue the approved Catechetical Directory once it falls into their hands. The jungle already misconstrued the first volume. How much more the rest of the volumes?
Diana, this is what the Gnostic sects do. Secret knowledge is revealed in stages following the logic of their pre-set ideas by those who are "walking" above you. Do you see the similarity? Why don't you call yourselves Gnostic?
DeletePope Francis told the neo yesterday: "This is the fruitfulness of the Church, who is Mother: not an organization that seeks followers, or a group that goes ahead following the logic of its ideas, but a mother who transmits the life received from Jesus." Do you understand, Diana?
By the way, it was Pope Benedict who requested from Kiko to publish the 13 volumes. Obedience is that you listen to the Pope, doesn't it?
Again, it is Pope Francis who speaks very clearly: "It is always necessary to keep an eye on the charism, cleaning out the eventual human excesses through the search for unity with all and obedience to the Church."
"This fruitfulness is expressed through the ministry and the guidance of Pastors. The institution is in fact a charisma, because rooted in the same source, which is the Holy Spirit." See the link from Keith Xuereb above.
Doesn't this tell you very clearly that you have to obey your Pastor who is the priest and your chief Pastor, who is the Pope?! Not the catechist, but the Pastor! No catechist can be raised above the Pope. Why didn't Kiko obey his chief Pastor, why didn't he obey Pope Benedict?
Dear Anonymous at 2:17 pm,
DeleteGnosticism teaches that knowledge is the way to salvation. The NCW teaches that Christ is the way to salvation. The NCW follows a similar pattern that the Early Christians used to convert the Gentiles. According to the Holy Bible:
Hebrews 5:12-14 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
As you can see from scripture above, the Gentiles who were starting to learn about Christianity were given "milk"....simple Catholic catechesis that they could understand. They were not given any solid food (catechesis that is much more advanced). It would be too overwhelming for them to understand. The NCW follow this same pattern. Otherwise, it would be too overwhelming for the brothers to understand and they would be scandalized by it or some brothers would use it to their advantage to walk in a dishonest way.
Where does it say that Pope Benedict told Kiko to publish the 13 volumes?
What makes you think that we are not obeying our priests? Do you not see that we obey and support the Archbishop. If we can obey and support the Archbishop, what makes you think that we are disobeying our priests?
Furthermore, the priest is part of the catechist team. In other words, he is also a catechist, and it is his duty to correct or clarify things with his fellow catechists who are laypeople who do not know theology.
As far as I know, Kiko obeyed the Pope. The only one who says he is disobedient are those who hate the Way. If the Archbishop of Guam is disobedient to the Pope, the Pope would remove him, but he did not do that. And if Kiko is disobedient to the Pope, the Pope can discipline him, but he did not do that. Instead, Kiko was given an honorary doctorate and given 5 more years as the consultor for the Pontifical Council for the Laity. That does not sound like any disciplinary measure or reprimand at all. It has already been over 50 YEARS since the NCW has been in existence. Really....over 50 years! If the Vatican were to give some disciplinary action to Kiko, they would have done it a long time ago.
Dear Diana at 1.02.
DeleteYou claim that you trust the Vatican. Well, the Vatican didn;t simply "approve" the Directory. Rather it approved it for publication. Kiko and Gennarini and others actually stated that this will allow pastors who question the teachings of the NCW to refer to a particular page of the Directory so they can see what is being taught. But this has never happened.
Secondly, how do you know for a fact that the catechsists of the NCW use the "approved books"? Have you actually seen the approved books (all thirteen of them) yourself? If not, you cannot make this claim at all, and in fact to do so would be highly reprehensible.
So , please answer this in truth - have you read the thirteen books and if so, how can you be sure they are the same books that the Vatican "approved for publication".
I also have the first volume of the Directory which I purchased from a publisher. At first glance it looks like it is the version "approved" by the vatican, as it was published in 2012. However, the letter by Kiko that introduces the text, and which refers to "corrections" made, was written by him in 1999 - more than a decade before the vaican made any statement about it.
So, how can anyone know if this is the same version as the vatican reviewed and "approved"?
This is what is meqant by "grossly misleading". The book looks like it might be one of those approved, but there is no way to know, and the content is suspicious.
You say "Everything that is said in the catechesis is from the approved Catechetical Directory."
Do you mean to say that following the "corrections" to the text after review by the Vatican, that catechists were re-taught what was ok and what wasn't? I don't think so.
The catechists teach exactly what they always have - nothing has changed in that respect. So where are the corrections? And what value do they haveif they are effectively ignored.
Before the "corrections" by the Vatican you would have claimed that "Everything that is said in the catechesis is from the Catechetical Directory.", and now you are saying the same thing. Nothing has changed even though the vatican insisted on thousands of additions and corrections to these texts.
Finally, your comments about "cheating" have no justification and no place in the Church. The Catholic Church does not share your view that sincerity comes from not knowing where you are going. The Catholic Church makes freely available everything it can to edify the faithful, to teach them and to make clear their path. Your claim that the NCW keeps these things secret to protect those seeking God from cheating is of extreme concern, and is the best evidence yet that the NCW is not Catholic in practice.
You should meditate on this and pray about it. It may be the way in which you come to a realization about the truth of the deep problems in the NCW - problems that the Pope spoke about yesterday - about being "closed", such as keeping this "secret teaching".
"Furthermore, the priest is part of the catechist team. In other words, he is also a catechist, and it is his duty to correct or clarify things with his fellow catechists who are laypeople who do not know theology. "
DeleteExcuse me, but that is pretty musch the most dishonest thing you can say. The priest is formed in the community, and the community is the priests' father and family. The catechists wield delegate-Kiko-power and exercise it to everyone in the community, including the young man, the seminarian and the priest. They are formed in the likeness of the community, as the community is to the image and ideology of Kiko, and they are bound to it forever.
Dear Anonymous at 6:39 pm,
DeleteThe priest was formed in the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, not in the community. Why di you think there is a RM seminary in the first place???????? So, who is being dishonest now? Did you come here to ask questions or to make accusations????? If you are here only to throw accusations, please stay in the jungle.
Dear Anonymous at 6:02 pm,
DeleteSince when does the Vatican make it a practice to approve the publication of a book that you say was not approved by the Vatican? Can the Vatican approve the publication of a book on homosexuality? Don't you think they should read the book first before they give approval of its publication?
How do you know if the NCW is using the approved books? I already answered that question. Go back and read my comments rather than asking the same questions over and over.
Dear Diana at 6.39. Tell me what proportion of RMS seminarians do not come from pre-existing communities? Be honest now.
DeleteEach of these seminarians has already been prepared by the community, the catechesis etc. They are formed to enter the RMS. Even you can't deny that. This is why the priest becomes a presbyter, and is sidelined into a sort of figurehead at best, and just another brother at worst.
Dear Anonymous at 4:01 pm,
DeleteI do not know the percentage, but the RMS priests are called into the priesthood by God just like any other priest. The NCW is an itinerary of Christian formation. That means that the goal is form Christians and Christian families. In the NCW, individuals discern what their vocation is. Some are called to marriage. Some are called to become mission families. Others are called to the religious life while others become itinerants. Still, others are called to the priesthood and some to the monastery.
Dear Diana - re yours of 11:24 you state:
ReplyDelete"The NCW on Guam is united with Mother Church because we are obedient to the Archbishop, who is the local vicar of Christ and representative of the Pope. Those who oppose the Archbishop are the ones who are not in unity with Mother Church."
HOWEVER, the CCC 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."
The approved Statutes do NOT give permission or approval of the many additions and deletions to the NCW Mass. Pope Francis has said we may charitably correct the NCW with the Statutes in hand. The Sign of Peace is mentioned in the approved Statutes, but not the "more controversial" alterations that the NCW have designed - such as not kneeling at the Eucharistic Prayer, and sitting to consume our Lord.
Please, do not make the NCW's UNAPPROVED "design" of their Mass into a god.
In: http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-calls-neocatechumenal-way-to-unity
the following excerpt:
Unity. Jesus prays to the Father so that his (followers) be " brought to perfection as one” (Jn 17:23): he wants them to be "one" (v. 22), like Himself and the Father. It is his last request before the passion, the most heartfelt: that there be communion in the Church. Communion is essential. God’s and man’s enemy, the devil, is no match for the Gospel, cannot compete against the humble power of prayer and the Sacraments, but can do much harm to the Church by tempting our humanity. The devil provokes pride, being judgmental of others, he causes closures and divisions. He himself is "the divider" and often starts off by making us believe that we are good, perhaps better than others: thus the land is ready for the sowing of discord. It is the temptation of all communities and can it can insinuate itself even in the most beautiful charism.
You have received a great charism for the baptismal renewal of life. Every charism is a grace of God to intensify communion. But this charism can deteriorate if you close in or if you boast about it, when you want to distinguish yourselves from the others. So we have to safeguard it. How? Following the main path: of humble and obedient unity. If there is this, the Holy Spirit continues to operate, just as it did in Mary, who was open, humble and obedient. It is always necessary to keep an eye on the charism, cleaning out the eventual human excesses through the search for unity with all and obedience to the Church. This is how to breathe in the Church and with the Church; this is how to stay docile children of the "Holy Mother Hierarchical Church" with a "soul which is prepared and ready" for the mission (cf. St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 353).
I stress this point: the Church is our Mother. Just as children carry, imprinted in their faces, a similarity to their mother, we all look like our Mother, the Church. After Baptism we no longer live as isolated individuals, but we have become men and women of communion, and we are called to be operators of communion in the world. Because Jesus not only founded the Church for us, but he founded us as Church. From her we are born again, she feeds us the Bread of life, from her we receive words of life, and we are forgiven and accompanied home. This is the fruitfulness of the Church, who is Mother: not an organization that seeks followers, or a group that goes ahead following the logic of its ideas, but a mother who transmits the life received from Jesus.
Ok, the first point in the OP is in response to the statement by catechists at the initial catechesis, that : ""There is nothing good in you. NOTHING! Only selfishness and sin!""
ReplyDeleteYou respond to this by saying that the Catholic Church maintains that all of humanity, excepting Our Lord and Our Lady, are sinners in fact.
And while it is true that we are sinners, this is not a sufficient response to what was said. Why? Because we are no just sinners. There is more to us than that. But the catechists shouted - with heir claimed authority that "There is nothing good in you. NOTHING! Only selfishness and sin!"
That this is wrong can be easily demonstrated.
Lets start with the natural level.
I have a liver. It is essential to my corporal life as it is involved in metabolism and production of essential substances. As it works to my benefit, it is good. And it is inside me.
I also have any other muber of physical goods in me - my hands, my feet, my brain. All of these have been given to me by God the Creator. Why would you imply that God is bad to have given me these natural goods?
Of course, my soul too, created by God is endowed with goods - my intellect for example, which allows me to seek truth. Surely this is good, albeit in a natural sense?
I am also given faith, or the beginnings of faith which, being a gift freely given by God, is very good, as it has the function of bringing me ever closer to God, to trust him and his love for me. Are you going to tell me that this faith is not good?
Now, over and above that, I am baptised into the Catholic faith - as were all those who attended the catechesis. As such, we are incorporated into Christ - our natural lives are ended and our supernatural lives have begun. Now Christ is in me, and the Holy Spirit dwells in me as in a tabernacle or temple.
Are you honestly going to tell me that these "good things" are not in me?
How dare you?
What is more, I (and the others) had not long before received holy communion - Jesus Christ himself had come to make a home in me, to purify me, to make me holy.
And yet you say "There is nothing good in you. NOTHING! Only selfishness and sin".
Bear in mind that it could have been said - "there is sinfulness and disorder in you". But that is not what was said. What was said was said for a reason - to convince us that we were truly excrement, and that our only hope was the community. You know the spiel Diana, and there is no escaping it in the NCW.
This attitude of the NCW - this teaching - is heretical. It denies the natural good of creation which God loves; it denies the good gifts he has given me; and worse of all it denies the salvific grace of baptism, the Eucharist and the other sacraments.
This is the catch phrase of a gnostic philosophy. Anon above is correct that gnostics keep their doctrine secret, but before that they claim the inherent badness of the creation and the need for an enlightened teaching.
The Catholic Church is not to be made into a gnostic sect.
Dear Anonymous at 5:46 pm,
DeletePlease make up your mind. First, you agree in that we are sinner. Then you disagree that we are not just sinners. The NCW also teaches that although we are sinners, we were also made in God's image and likeness. The NCW follows a similar pattern as the Early Christians did. To understand that you are children of God, you must first understand that that all of us are sinners. God called all of us to be holy. In order to be holy, you must be humble. And in order to be humble, you need to know that we are sinners and no better than anyone else.
If you really want to know what Gnosticism, there are websites on them that you can go to. Their teachings are not the same as what the NCW teaches.
Did you not read what I wrote. Regardless of you wanting to believe that it is necessary, it is simply untrue to say that there is NOTHING good in you - only selfishness and sin. Once again I remind you that the baptised person is already a member of the body of Christ and a temple of the holy spirit. Even more so for those who receive holy communion.
DeleteAre you seriously going to deny the grace of baptism, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the phenomenal grace of the Eucharist?
Dear Anonymous at 4:04 pm,
DeleteWhy do you think Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism, the sacrament of the Eucharist, and the sacrament of reconciliation? It is to remove the sins inside you. If you had anything good in you, Christ would not need to institute those sacraments in the first place. And even after receiving the sacraments, that does not guarantee that we will not fall into sin again.
The Bible tells us of 2 people - a tax collector and a Pharisee. The Pharisee recognized the good things in himself while the tax collector recognized his sins. Both came to the altar of God. The Pharisee thanked God that he is a good person and not at all like the cheating tax collector. The tax collector, on the other hand, prayed for God's mercy because he is a sinner. Anonymous, you are that Pharisee because you only want to see the good things you have done.
The NCW, on the other hand, teaches that both the Pharisee and the tax collector were sinners. But the Pharisee cannot see his sins. He only prefers to look at the good things he has done. Jesus asked which of the two went home justified. Well, it certainly was NOT the one who said he has done good things.
Dewar Diana, it is your logic that lets you down again. You say that: "If you had anything good in you, Christ would not need to institute those sacraments in the first place"
Deletebut that is entirely mistaken. It is not because there is NOTHING good in you that you need the sacraments, but that there is disorder and sinfulness as well as the good gifts you have received.
Even natural goods can be recognized in the unbaptised. And though natural goods are not sufficient for salvation, they are still goods that come from God and orient the person toward God. Also, the graces that come through the Church from the merits of Christ and the saints, overflow even into the world of the unbaptised - and in fact, these graces effect the conversion towards God in the unbaptised.
But, for arguments sake, lets say that the unbaptised have "nothing good in them", that still leaves a massive problem when this unCatholic phrase is addressed the to baptised member of the Catholic Church living in a state of grace.
There is no justification for levelling that accusation or assertion at the baptised, expecially for an itinerary which is supposedly aimed at a post-baptismal catechesis. In other words, the NCW should be bringing to light the grace of baptism and the sacraments - not mocking and denying them by these Calvinist theological tendencies.
Finally, you seem to get distracted very easily. This is not a question of whether people should or shouldn't claim that they do "good things", but rather whether or not the baptised Catholic who has just received communion, has "nothing good in them - ONLY selfishness and sin".
Dear Anonymous at 10:31 pm,
DeleteHaving humility is recognizing that only God is good and that the person next to you is better than you. Saying that you are good or showing the good things you have done is called "bragging." Bragging is the opposite of humility.
None of the saints ever said that they were good. All of them said they were sinners. Even the Apostle Paul said he was less and the least of all of God's people (Ephesians 3:8). God calls each of us t be holy saints. Exulting yourself by recognizing the good things you've done like the Pharisee in the Gospel is not humility and does not lead to the road of holy sainthood.
You've totally missed the point again. As I said, this is not a question of whether you claim that you are the author of good things or not. That is a separate issue. This discussion is simply whether it is true and just to say to someone, particularly a Catholic person, "you have nothing good in you - only selfishness and sin".
DeleteThat is the question. It is actually quite possible to recognise your sinfulness and at the same time recognise that God has given himself to you and that he is living in you.
In fact, let me ask you this. Were the saints holy and humble because they were told that they had nothing good in them? Or did they become more aware of their own "selfishness and sin" as they came closer the light of God's grace?
And you misunderstand what i'm saying. I am not for one minute saying that it is right to claim that I am so good. God is good. And if God is in me, then there is goodness in me. Simple as that. Can you accept that Diana? If so, then finally you might realise why this phrase is so problematic.
The NCW is built on this phrase - so that the member learns not to trust themselves in anything, but give over all their will, effort and decisions to the catechists and the community. It is not about holiness, as it denies baptism and the the action of God, but it is rather about control.
Now go back and read what I wrote previously, as you have completely missed it.
Here you are lecturing us on humility. I wonder why Pope Francis chose to give a lesson on "humility and obedience" to the NCW the other day? Could it be that he saw pride and disobedience at work? When one suspends the operation of their own God-given intellect and chooses to follow a dubious path into error, simply because they told you to, I suppose its not surprising. Intellect is from the devil after all, isn't it Diana?
DeleteYou, more than most, have been given every reason to review what you have been told in the light of the actual teaching of the Church, but you simply can't do it, so strong is Kiko's hold on you that your own rational and Catholic sense is rendered inoperable.
I truly feel sorry for you. Not just because of your own personal refusal to see the truth, but because you are actively causing that same intransigence in so many others.
Dear Anonymous at 12:20 am,
DeleteI was not lecturing you. I was responding to Anonymous 10:31 pm comment regarding the OP.
Dear Anonymous at 11:56 pm,
DeleteI am glad that you agree that God is the only one who is good. Will also agree that God who is inside you is NOT YOU?
You asked: "In fact, let me ask you this. Were the saints holy and humble because they were told that they had nothing good in them? Or did they become more aware of their own "selfishness and sin" as they came closer the light of God's grace?"
The saints became holy and humble because God was the only one who can sanctify them and make them holy. They were unable to do it on their own using their own human power. The saints have always declared that they were sinners. They knew the truth about themselves....that God made man from dirt and dirt they will return. Because they recognized that they were sinners, they needed God in their everyday life. And God stayed with them to make them holy. Any goodness they recognize belongs to God who is the source of all goodness.
Ok. I asked this before but you were too scared to post it. But I'll ask it again and see if you are willing to answer now.
DeleteThe proposition put by the NCW is
"There is nothing good in you. NOTHING! Only selfishness and sin!"
Would you say this to the pope? Why/why not?
Would the pope say this to you? Why/why not?
Diana, Anonymous is right. Our humanity carries our values and qualities. Without the good tendencies we have in ourselves Christ's teaching would have zero impact on us. He builds on the good we have in us to draw us closer to Himself.
DeleteIf you tell a kid that he is evil, he will be one. But tell him that Jesus loves him and he will show you the good qualities he carries on his tiny heart. The goodness is part of our creation, a potential that we need to bring about and live by. That is the only thing what makes us capable to listen to Jesus.
The problem as I read from J.C. is the original sin and concupiscence, though. Original sin appears to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through all the parts of the soul, rendering us obnoxious to the divine wrath and producing in us those works which the scripture calls. Those who have called it concupiscence [a strong, especially sexual desire, lust] have used a word by no means wide of the mark, if it were added that whatever is in man from intellect to will, from the soul to the flesh, is all defiled and crammed with concupiscence.
But underneath this corruption human goodness is shining forth. Our baptism renders corruption void and fills us with resistance to sin. Our sinful nature is gone, although we remain sinners by the residue of sin of Adam.
Diana, there was an assumption that the yelling catechist we heard about was simply unjust. But now you confirmed that this injustice was not made accidentally, it is part of the strategy, part of the the teaching of the neo, an official standpoint promulgated by your elders that contradicts the catechism as we know it. Why is this not a heresy?
Dear Anonymous at 11:23 am and 6:54 pm,
DeleteActually, Pope Francis did say it to us. In his speech to the mission families, Pope Francis stated:
"The devil provokes pride, being judgmental of others, he causes closures and divisions. He himself is "the divider" and often starts off by making us believe that we are good, perhaps better than others: thus the land is ready for the sowing of discord."
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/03/18/pope_francis_calls_neocatechumenal_way_to_unity/1216301
As you can see, Pope Francis stated that it is the Devil who makes us believe that we are good. What the Pope said here is aligned with what Kiko Arguello said about sin being in us. Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ who sits in the Chair of Peter. Therefore, I will believe what the Pope says rather than what YOU say.
To the second point of the OP:
ReplyDeleteYou argue that Kiko is right when he teaches that "Sin cannot offend God. Our sin cannot strip the glory from God", despite Pope John Paul II and the catechism saying the exact opposite. God is offended by sin. And you argue that our sin simply cannot affect God in any way. And yet the Catechism says this:
"Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself"
So, how do you understand this line from the CCC, and how does it fit with the sentiment expressed in the NCW?
Dear Anonymous at 10:22 pm,
DeleteI argue that sin cannot "hurt" God in anyway because He is an all-powerful God. Do you believe that God is all-powerful?????? Yes or no? Do you believe that something can actually "hurt" the all-powerful God physically, emotionally, and spiritually??? Yes or no?
Yes, I do believe that sin can actually hurt God physically, emotionally and spiritually. Were you not listening to the Gospel today? Jesus suffered much - physically, emotionally and spiritually. What does the Church teach about this? Open you ears and listen:
Delete" CCC 598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:
We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391
Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392"
Dear Anonymous at 10:37 pm,
DeleteThe Church teaches that Christ has two natures - the human and divine nature. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"On the contrary, Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict.): "The Word is impassible whose Nature is Divine." But what is impassible cannot suffer. Consequently, Christ's Passion did not concern His Godhead."
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article7
Yes, Chist has two natures - but he is a single person. Do you honestly want tyo claim that the Church, through the catechism, is speaking of the suffering of Christ as if it occurred only in his "nature" not in his "person". I suggest you tread carefully here.
DeleteI have shown you the clear teaching of the Church. Are you truly willing to be hostile toward it? Let me post the relevant part again so you can think on it once more:
"Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt."
and
"it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still"
Crucify him still? How can this be?
Dear Anonymous at 12:02 am,
DeleteAre you saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong???
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Encyclopedia says: (emphasis mine)
"By voluntary submission to His Passion and Death on the Cross, Jesus Christ atoned for our disobedience and sin. He thus made reparation to the offended majesty of God for the outrages WHICH THE CREATOR SO "CONSTANTLY SUFFERS" AT THE HANDS OF HIS CREATURES."
Dear Anonymous at 3:11 pm,
DeleteWhat about what I quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia? Are you not going to address that statement? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The Word is impassible whose Nature is Divine. But what is impassible cannot suffer. Consequently, Christ's Passion did not concern His Godhead."
The Church does teach that Christ has two nature - a human nature and a divine nature. So, explain the quote above rather than responding with a quote that has no relation to the topic of discussion.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Encyclopedia is not wrong; however, not understanding what is said or taking info out of context will make for an erroneous argument. The following is the context of the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia you referred to at 11:08 .....
(emphasis mine):
Objection: 1. It would seem that Christ's Passion is to be attributed to His Godhead; for it is written (1Co 2,8): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." But Christ is the Lord of glory in respect of His Godhead. Therefore Christ's Passion is attributed to Him in respect of His Godhead.
2. Further, the principle of men's salvation is the Godhead Itself, according to Ps 36,39: "But the salvation of the just is from the Lord." Consequently, if Christ's Passion did not appertain to His Godhead, it would seem that it could not produce fruit in us.
3. Further, the Jews were punished for slaying Christ as for murdering God Himself; as is proved by the gravity of the punishment. Now this would not be so if the Passion were not attributed to the Godhead. Therefore Christ's Passion should be so attributed.
On the contrary Athanasius says (Ep ad Epict.): "The Word is impassible whose Nature is Divine." But what is impassible cannot suffer. Consequently, Christ's Passion did not concern His Godhead.
I answer that As stated above (Question [2], Articles [1],2,3,6), THE UNION OF THE HUMAN NATURE WITH THE DIVINE was effected in the Person, in the hypostasis, in the suppositum, yet observing the DISTINCTION of natures; so that it is the same Person and hypostasis of the DIVINE AND HUMAN NATURES, WHILE EACH NATURE RETAINS THAT WHICH IS PROPER TO IT. And therefore, as stated above (Question [16], Article [4]), the Passion is to be attributed to the suppositum of the Divine Nature, not because of the Divine Nature, which is impassible, but by reason of the human nature. Hence, in a Synodal Epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes., P. i, cap. 26] we read: "IF ANY MAN DOES NOT CONFESS THAT THE WORD OF GOD SUFFERED IN THE FLESH and was crucified in the FLESH, let him be anathema." Therefore Christ's Passion belongs to the "suppositum" of the Divine Nature by reason of the passible nature assumed, but not on account of the impassible Divine Nature.
Reply to Objection: 1. The Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not as the Lord of glory, BUT AS A MAN CAPABLE OF SUFFERING.
2. As is said in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus [*P. iii, cap. 10], "Christ's death being, as it were, God's death"---namely, by union in Person---"destroyed death"; since He who SUFFERED "WAS BOTH GOD AND MAN. For "GOD'S" NATURE was not wounded, nor did It undergo any change by those sufferings." (Diana please note - Christ has two natures - God which cannot be offended, wounded, or suffer and His "man nature" which absolutely can be offended, wounded, and suffer.)
Dear Anonymous at 3:56 pm,
DeleteI did not take it out of context. It is clear from the Catholic Encyclopedia. As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia: If any man does nor confess that the word of God suffered in the flesh (human nature) and was crucified in the flesh (human nature), let him be anathema. Therefore, Christ's Passion belongs to the "suppositum" of the Divine Nature by reason of the passible nature (human), but NOT on account of the impassible Divine Nature.
The impassible Divine Nature........means it cannot suffer.
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
DeleteWhy are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
“He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
“let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”
Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.
(Psalm 22, prayed bu our Lord on the cross while dying)