In his book entitled Old Errors and New Labels, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen stated that the Catholic Church loves controversy for two reasons: 1) because intellectual conflict is informing and 2) because she loves rationalism. The structure of the Catholic Church has been built up through controversy. It was the attacks of the Docetists and the monophysites in the early centuries of the Church that made her clear on the doctrine concerning the nature and divinity of Christ. On the other hand, Christ desires unity and reconciliation that He even tells a man to leave his gifts at the altar to reconcile with his brother (Matthew 5:24-25 ). Even the Apostles had their own controversial disagreements. Who knows!! The first schism may have been between St. Paul and St. Barnabas. Their disagreement was so intense that they went their separate ways (Acts 15:37-40 ). However, I'm sure that sometime later, they may have reconciled with each other. God allows controversy to take place so that we can grow and reconcile with God and with one another. Reconciliation is part of our growing closer to God.
Another controversial disagreement was when St. Paul rebuked St. Peter for his behavior (Galatians 2:11 ).
Galatians 2:11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
St. Peter behaved in such a way so as to avoid conflict between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile converts. At that time, the Jewish Christians segregated themselves from the Gentile converts and demanded that they follow the Jewish law of circumcision. Although St. Paul rebuked St. Peter's seemingly bad behavior, St. Paul later found himself imitating the same behavior. To avoid conflict with the Jewish Christians, St. Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3).
This controversy became so heated that a council was finally held in Jerusalem to resolve it. It was decided that the Gentile Converts did not have to follow the Jewish law of circumcision nor other Jewish laws. It was this council in Jerusalem that finally settled and resolved all disagreements.
So, this now brings us to Kiko Arguello. According to Pope Benedict's XVI's letter on January 12, 2006:
You have asked that the Successor of Peter confer this mandate as my venerable Predecessor John Paul II did in the past, on 12 December 1994, because you intend your apostolic action to take place in the heart of the Church, in total harmony with her directives and in communion with the particular Churches in which you are going to work, making the most of the riches of the charisms that the Lord has awakened through the Founders of the Way........
Precisely to help the Neocatechumenal Way to render even more effective its evangelizing action in communion with all the People of God, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments recently imparted to you in my name certain norms concerning the Eucharistic Celebrations, after the trial period that the Servant of God John Paul Ii conceded. I am sure you will attentively observe these norms that reflect what is provided for in the liturgical books approved by the Church.
A few days later, Kiko responded:
"We also wish to thank you for the benevolence, mercy, and goodness. You have shown to those farthest away in allowing the moving of the sign of peace and in granting a period of two years for the adaptation of the manner of distributing the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord: we have always shown to the many brothers who have emerged from hell, full of wounds and of self-loathing, that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and come to serve them: "He will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them (Lk.12:37)
In this way, every time we celebrate the Eucharist we experience the power this sacrament has to draw them into the Passover of Christ, bringing them from sadness to joy, from darkness to light, from death to life....
Clearly, Kiko was expressing his disagreement and he cites Luke 12:37 as the reason for his disagreement. This is not disobedience. In no way, is Kiko saying "I will not obey." These words never even came out of his mouth, but he is expressing a disagreement. And what is this disagreement? From the letters it is obvious that it has to do with sitting down when receiving the Body of Christ. Disagreements will always occur, but how we handle these disagreements determines whether we are in disobedience or working toward reconciliation.
Disobedience is when one refuses to work with the Catholic Church in order to seek a resolution to the conflict. Disobedience is when one no longer turns to the Catholic Church or the Pope for any approval of anything because they are truly on their own. Disobedience often ends in excommunication.
Despite these disagreements, Christ always favor unity and reconciliation. Was there any reconciliation between Kiko Arguello and the Pope concerning their disagreements? Yes. That reconciliation was found in the letter in which Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez, and Father Mario signed. According to their letter, which can be found in the Introduction of the Statutes, page 9-10:
After the approval of the Statutes, before the great challenges that await the Church, we are happy to be able to offer ourselves to the Holy Father and to the bishops for the new evangelization and for the transmission of the faith to the new generation. Pray for us.
After the Statutes were approved, there was a change in the way the members of the Way received the Body of Christ. Before, members of the Way received the Body of Christ sitting down. The "sitting down" was the controversy, which has already been resolved.
Dear Diana, thanks for reminding us to this controversy 6 years ago. I remember when I started to walk in the Way, my community used to sit during the Eucharist and this made me a little bit uneasy. Then this practice was fixed at the time the Statutes were approved and ever since then we receive the Eucharist while standing, in 100% compliance with the liturgical books.
ReplyDeleteBecause of this, some people still criticize the Way illicitly, despite the fact that Pope Francis has already supported us by participating in our Eucharistic celebration. The Lord told us not to hold grudges against each other. I hope one day our critiques will listen to the words of the Gospels. Meantime may our hearts have joy in getting closer to and growing in the Lord.
You're kidding right? There has never been a distinction in the Church between "receiving" the Body of Christ and "consuming" the Body of Christ". This is a disingenuous argument. Plainly, the practise of the Way is to "receive" (that is "communicate") the Body of Christ while sitting.
DeleteDear Patrick,
DeleteThe controversy had always been centered on "sitting down" while receiving the Body of Christ. Kiko and Cardinal Francis Arinze mentioned it in their letters. The Pope feels that the Body of Christ should be received while standing up, NOT sitting down as we formerly did.
This Catholic website tells you that there are only two ways to receive the Body of Christ....either by tongue or by hand. Consumption is not even mention in the website.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0005.html
"Receiving" does not mean the same as "consumption". Why? Because a person can receive the Body of Christ by hand, walk out and throw it on the ground. A person can also receive the Body of Christ by tongue and then spit it out. By taking it from the priest by either hand or tongue is receiving because it was given to them by the priest.
The next step is to eat what you receive, and that is a matter of choice because Christ said one must EAT His Body to gain eternal life. If one chooses not to eat it but desecrate it, one does not gain eternal life. In the United States, it was noted that there were some militant atheists who entered the Catholic Church, received the Body of Christ from the unknowing priest and then threw the Body of Christ outside the Church. Did the atheists receive the Body of Christ from the priest? Yes, because it was given to them by the Priest. Did they consume it? No, that becomes a different matter.
In other words, just because I received a box of fruit cake for Christmas doesn't mean that I'm going to consume it. I don't like fruitcake so I usually end up giving it to someone else. In the Way, consumption was not the controversy. It was how we receive the Body of Christ that became a controversy as Cardinal Francis Arinze pointed out in his letter.
Diana, with the greatest respect, the reason your quoted article does not "even mention" consumption, is that in the History of the Church, there has never been a distinction made between "receiving" and "consuming". Our Lord's injunction is to "take and eat" - a single act.
DeleteIn fact, the article you mention says this: "Once we have received him in the Eucharist, he is present in our very persons, in our bodies."
Please explain how this can be if, as you say, receiving is distinct from eating?
I could go on: The Catechism paragraph 1383 cites the anaphora: "We entreat you, almighty God,
that by the hands of your holy Angel
this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven
in the sight of your divine majesty,
so that as we *receive* in communion at this altar
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son,
we may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace"
Or http://www.beginningcatholic.com/communion.html - "The action by which we as individuals receive the Holy Eucharist is an act of eating"
Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium - "55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended."
Diana, this is serious. I urge you to look very closely at what you are suggesting, as by making public statements of this nature, you are taking some responsibility for the actions of others.
I am sure you are a good person who wishes to do reflect the will of God. Please reconsider what you are saying here.
Dear Patrick,
DeleteAs I pointed out, there were militant atheists in the United States who received the Body of Christ and desecrated it. As Catholics, we know that we are supposed to eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood. We become one with Him ONLY when His Body and Blood enters into our stomach. When one does not eat His Body or drink His blood, it is logical to say that he/she is not one with Christ.
Receiving and eating is not always seen as a single act. This is why the Church has a law against those who don't eat the Body of Christ and just threw it away. The penalty for any Catholic who do not eat the Body of Christ and desecrate it by throwing it away or even pouring the Blood out in order to steal the chalice is excommunication. See the weblink below on the Canon Law:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/HOLDDEAR.HTM
Persecution and criticism is necessary for our salvation. Courage, if this does not happen then then this is not doing well. This is for our own good for our conversation. The way is built mainly for missionary not for our own Glory but to save souls.
ReplyDeleteYou really should stop kidding yourself with that mantra. Criticism is not persecution. This is dangerous denial you are exhibiting and demonstrating false humility.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:58. I think that Anonymous at 10:52 realizes that criticism is not persecution, which is why he separated the two. He stated "Persecution and criticism is necessary for our salvation."
DeleteDiana what I meant conversion not conversation this auto word on my smartphone is dumb. LOL. Sorry if I confuse the living daylight out of you. Anon 11:58, why is it dangerous? Please do tell. To accept it with humility? Obviously your a smarter than I am and you know better to seek assurance of salvation. My main goal is to be in Heaven. That's all.
DeleteHi Diana, I guess I don't need to say anything. I completely trust your judgment. I still write down my opinion. This offer from the Jungle is as fake as the fake is. First of all, there is no offer of apology after his avalanche of scoffing and insults. No apology to you, not to anyone else. If Timmy thinks seriously that you represent more than yourself, then he also has to apologize for everyone he has hurt. This is that simple, a basic condition for any further contact. Otherwise there is absolutely nothing, zero, zilch to talk about with him, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSounds like your'e holding a grudge.
DeleteDear Zoltan,
DeleteWalking in the Way is not always easy. As one anonymous poster pointed out, we need to be humble. I am not anyone's spokesperson.
Then you need speak for no one other than yourself. No. I am not apologizing. I am asking you to confront me as a Christian. I am asking because you have much to say about me here. I will listen as promised.
DeleteDear Tim,
DeletePeople have much to say about you because you made it that way. You made yourself known so many can say much about you. You are not interested in knowing anything about the Neocatechumenal Way. You only want to know my identity.
Furthermore, my posts are not about you. I never said your name in any of my posts. I always say "Those who oppose the Way" because it isn't only you who oppose the Way. However, people say your name in comments to my post.
Diana, I believe that if you are a strong advocate and believe in whatever path you are on, then there should be no fear in meeting with Tim Rohr. If not, then you do not have the faith or strength to face him head on. Think about it!
DeleteDear Anonymous,
DeleteThe strength of my faith is not measured in whether I meet Tim Rohr or not.
I have no idea why your identity needs to be a mystery in the first place. I have no clue why Christians do not have enough strength of their convictions to put their name on them. And no, I have no desire to know who you really are. I only have the desire to fulfill the commandment of Christ to confront our brothers as he prescribes. It may go nowhere, but at least we will have fulfilled the command. And as the scripture says, once you fulfill that prescription, you can shake the dust from your feet and move on. However, if you will not meet me, please send someone who will.
DeleteAnd so if it isn't about me and about many who oppose the Way, then have you attempted to personally engage any of them as Christ instructs?
DeleteIt's because "Diana" may be a conglomerate of persons. Also, in-line with the distortions and manipulations of official documents, "Diana" has to distort and manipulate who "she" is. Meeting with Tim will reveal the deception.
DeleteAs long as "Diana" is not identified, anything written on this blog will never be verifiable as well as nobody can be held accountable for the errors.
It is in "Diana's" interest to never reveal who they are and to never meet with anyone.
As I was taught since I was a kid, there is no need to "show face" or be known just because you strongly defend something. What the point of knowing ones identity? I mean does it matter?
DeleteDear Tim,
DeleteThere are always two sides to every story. You provide one side, and I provide the other side. The purpose of your blogiste is to tell people about the Neocatechumenal Way. My blogsite serves the same purpose. The only difference is that you are voicing your opinion as one who has never participated in the Neocatechumenal Way. I am the one walking in the Way for 8 years. Also, you didn't sin against me. I think it's the Archbishop you offended the most especially with your call to gather people against him.
And to Anonymous at 9:28 a.m., I am not a conglomerate of many persons. I am one person, and anyone can see that from my writing. I provide sources to back up what I say. For example, the letter of the priest who has a PH.D is on the Internet, and I provided the weblink for you and everyone else to read. All you need to do is show me how I managed to manipulate his letter.
As an example, Tim Rohr interpreted Kiko's letter to the Pope as "disobedience".....I will not obey. Under this thread which I posted, I showed that there is a difference between disobedience and disagreements, and how Kiko's letter was one of disagreement rather than disobedience. Even Tim Rohr agrees that it's okay to disagree with the Pope as he stated in one of his posts.
Well if anyone want's to Dialogue, the seminary it's down there in Yona. The damage is done, people were hurt in community and outside the NCW. I fully respect Tim but did not expect this from him. He inspired me to defend the CATHOLIC Church from the past. After all, the main goal for all of us being in the womb of the Catholic Church is the Kingdom of Heaven. How to gain this? Is love. Diana keep the articles pumping.
ReplyDeleteSo then, Diana, your answer is No? Please confirm.
ReplyDeleteThat is correct. My answer is no.
DeleteDiana, you are correct in acknowledging that the strength of one’s faith cannot be measured by such actions or choices as agreeing to meet OR face off with anyone as the situation is with Tim’s offer; in fact there is only One who can measure and judge the depth or superficiality of our Faith – no one else but God, our Creator. That said, it is also an innate human quality or human nature to want to share with excitement and joy, one’s discovery of authentic faith and Truth with everyone -- and not from the “closet.”
DeleteHaving discovered and thus possessing that which is The Authentic Truth one would not be able to contain the yearning not only to Share that Truth, but most especially to pass on and reveal such Truth, In Person! So why the hesitancy with taking on the opportunity to share the Neocatechuminal Way and Truth you walk with Tim?? Isn’t that a way of evangelizing?
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteTim Rohr does not need to be evangelized because he is a Catholic like me., I also don't think Tim is interested in knowing the truth about the Neocatechumenal Way.
I believe the Archbishop is the root to this. Archbishop has offended Tim and others and so they attack the NCW because he has close ties with them. What if the Archbishop was never involved with the NCW but still allowed in Guam?
DeleteDiana does not represent the way, she just have the inspiration of this charism. Tim knows who to speak to. He post it on his blog. Pick up the phone and call Jersey. Many had shared in JW but what happen? Statement were twisted and ridicule. He shared the root of this is between Gofigan and Archbishop Apuron. This can be handled internally not on CYBERSPACE (UNCLASSY by the way) Beside the damage is done, the way within the Catholic Church welcomes you ALL who opposes the way.
DeleteI guarantee you if you celebrate the Saturday celebration NO-ONE will condemn you. If you don't like it, you are free to get out. I'm more INTRIGUE to DEFEND the CATHOLIC Church who claim our Church and beloved Pope that is Anti Christ. The Protestant SECT. This? our own house hold battle? It's ridiculous.
This goes out to all who view this and opposes the way.
Lay man from Central
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteI had the same suspicions in the beginning. I suspect that there is a history between the Archbishop and Tim. I don't know what that history is or what the Archbishop did to Tim and vice versa. Whatever it is, I hope that the wounds between them can heal. There are people in the Way who are good people, and many of them may not even know Tim Rohr or even the Archbishop at the personal level.
How is the NCW even involved in the problem.....unless one feels that the Archbishop pays more attention to the NCW. If that is the case, then the problem is not the NCW. Perhaps, one simply needs to bring to the attention of the Archbishop that he appears to favor the NCW over anything else. Sometimes, people don't realize what they are doing unless one brings it to their attention.
Tim would say the same of the NCW. From reading his blog and those who follow him, it seems all we are is a negative asset to the Catholic community. Yes, there are bad apples everywhere. And yes we do have bad apples in the NCW, but do not use it to portray the total population of the NCW. You know? I mean I'm sure there are plenty in the NCW what are offended by its own members but surely they forgive them. Because I forgive them myself.
DeleteThe Archbishop doesn't listen to people! I tried and got blown off. I don't bother with him anymore! The only time he actually knows me, is he wants a donation! I quit giving 10 years ago. In my old age I don't have time to entertain what he asks!
DeleteYes, there is a history between the Archbishop and myself. I have gone to battle for him when no one else would. Back when no one would come forward to stand up against BJ Cruz and his same-sex bill, it was me the Archbishop turned to. I asked him if he could find someone else. I didn't feel equipped. I asked him if there was anyone in the Neocatechumenal Way, lawyers who knew much more than me who would stand up to BJ Cruz, an attorney, a senator, and a former Supreme Court Chief Justice. The Archbishop said, no. There was no one. Ask him.
DeleteIt took me 9 months of fighting against this bill on the radio, on TV, in the newspaper, 9 months of my life when I was struggling financially due to enormous medical bills related to the birth of one of my children, 9 months of being called a bigot and a homophobe and mocked.
And it was my idea to put together a symposium to go the churches and speak about this bill and what its effects would be. It was I who asked the Archbishop to ask Edward Garcia and Ric Eusebio to join me in this crusade. It was I who stood side by side with them night after night in parish after parish. Ask him.
And then when BJ went after the Archbishop personally with a bill that would have put him behind bars for not reporting known sex abuse cases (AND THERE WERE KNOWN SEX ABUSE CASES), it was I who went to bat for him, it was I who fought BJ tooth and nail in the media, it was I who the Archbishop's legal counsel called when they needed somebody to go after SNAP. Ask him.
It was I who fought to limit BJ Cruz's "window legislation" so that the archdiocese couldn't be sued as other dioceses in the states have been sued. It was my face which was the hated face in the media. It was I who was called the "bishop's boy", the bishop's lackey", the "bishop's dog." Ask him. Ask BJ Cruz.
And it was I who worked to get the first significant legislation introduced to battle the abortionists who had free rein on this island for 30 years. It was I who stood in front of the legislature at public hearings and battled against senators who mocked, ridiculed and even yelled at me. I did it so the Archbishop wouldn't have to and so that I could save him stain of abortion blood on an island that is mostly Catholic and under his control for three decades but kills a child every day, 2/3 of whom are of his own blood. Ask him.
And it is I who go on the radio, on TV, into the newspaper overtime our Catholic Faith is mocked or challenged. It is I whose family had to suffer and do without while we sank every available dollar and available minute of our lives in starting a Catholic bookstore so that Catholics could learn about their faith and because no one else would do it. It was I who got my children up at 4am on Sunday mornings so we could load up our car with tables and books so that we could be at the 6am Mass somewhere and sell books after Masses standing in the rain and the sun when other families were enjoying brunch, and doing it even though I could have been making much more money doing something else.
Tim you did out of LOVE and God will give you a hundred fold.
DeleteGuy in Mangilao Parish.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteOkay about the difference between disagreement and disobedience. Here you clearly state this was a disagreement between Kiko and the Pope, I understand. But there is also the matter of the Archbishop, he can disagree with the Pope but at the same time, because of who he is to the Church, he must comply with what the Pope was instructing through Cardinal Arinze. He showed outright his disobedience when these orders were presented by questioning the credentials of Cardinal Arinze and balking at the orders given. What he should have done is fully comply and then express his disagreement and work towards a resolution. But instead he questioned thereby refusing to comply.
Nonetheless, why is the Archbishop so much for the Neocatechumenal Way? At least that how so many of us non neos feel. He’s supposed to be neutral to all Catholics and resolve any of these disagreements, but he’s not. He continues to do what he does which causes us to question him. He has to know by now that not everyone is going to be or will ever be members of the Way. The Archbishop is slowly changing the look and feel of all our Churches. He is slowly making them all Neo Parishes. This is absolutely not right. This is not God’s Plan for he would not force this movement upon all of us.
Further, why is it that the members of the Way look at non-members as lost souls and in need of salvation? I know who I am and God knows me, I love my Church and the Church welcomes me. Jesus loves me for who I am, a non-member of the Neocatechumenal Way.
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteI have not heard the Archbishop speech or read his letter to Cardinal Arinze, so I cannot comment on it As for your second paragrap, I cannot speak for the Archbishop. When you ask why the Archbishop is so much for the Neocatechumenal Way, only he can answer that question.
However, I can comment about your last paragraph because I am a member of the Way. We have both good and bad members in the Way just as you have good and bad members in the Parish. Even in the Way, we have our own Pharisees. When I place the icon on the right, they tell me it's should be on the left. When I place it on the left, another Pharisee would tell me it belongs on the right. There are also members so full of pride that they see themselves better than their own brothers and sisters walking in the Way. .
.
And it was I who cleaned up the mess after his meeting with the legislature and where at he was accused of wanting to kill homosexuals because of a letter released in his name that he didn't write. I was I who called up Travis Coffman when he was reading the letter in disbelief on the radio that afternoon and fought to protect the bishop's name, making sure that everyone knew that the archbishop didn't write it even though it was on his letterhead. Ask him.
ReplyDeleteIt was I who called his attention to the Archdiocese' paying for contraceptives and abortifacients because of the Obamacare mandate. It was I who was at the meeting with the Archbishop and his advisors: Deacon Kim, Msgr. David, Ed Terlaje. It was I who proposed a solution which has kept this Archdiocese, the only Archdiocese in the whole country, exempt from having to pay for baby killing drugs. Ask them.
Yes, that is what is between the Archbishop and me. I have gone to bat for him again and again in the dirtiest of battles and when no one else would. Ask him.
But if you don't want to meet with me, if only to fulfill the commandment of the Lord, so that you can rightfully shake the dust from your feet, then, well, at least you know the rest of the story.
The parts at the end of Tim's comments are missing. You did not post that part?
ReplyDelete. "I did all these things because I love my Catholic Faith and because the Church is my Mother, and you don't mess with my Mother. I did it too because the Archbishop is the embodiment of the Catholic Church, and protecting him was protecting my Church. But the Archbishop has chosen to attack a portion of that Catholic Church, he has chosen to side against the portion that is not Neo, he has chosen to destroy priests and deacons who stand in his way, and I will fight him as viciously as I protected him. "
ReplyDeleteThis part is missing from your post
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteI apologize. I couldn't find that last part anywhere. I will also get back to Tim's comments later. I have to eat dinner.
Dear Tim,
DeleteI apologize for the delay in my response. You've done a lot for the Archbishop, except that it was actually God working through you that accomplished those things. Think about it. BJ Cruz is an attorney, a Supreme Court Chief Justice, and a single Senator and look who defeated him.........a struggling businessman and family man with no expertise in the law. God took someone who is not an expert in the law and defeated a lawmaker. It was God who chose you and worked through you. And after all this, you are still standing strong because you are also one of God's chosen ones. Glorify God for what He has accomplished through you. In other words, give God the credit and the glory.
You are correct when you say that the Archbishop is part of the Catholic Church, but God did not make you the judge, jury, and executioner over the Archbishop. You say that the Archbishop has chosen to attack the Catholic Church (mainly those who are not neo), but you're only doing the same thing as the Archbishop attacking the Catholic Church (mainly those who are neo). That doesn't make you any different.
You may not like my recommendation, but I will tell it anyway. Whether you decide to follow it is really up to you. My recommendation is simple.....Give it up to God. Christ said that He will always be there for His Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against her. I understand that even the Archbishop can make mistakes because he's human like all of us, but he's also God's chosen one because he's the Archbishop. So, leave it up to God and trust in Him. He will take care of it in His own way and in His own time. Forgive the Archbishop and move on. Follow in the footsteps of St. Francis of Assisi who was in a similiar situation. There will always be good and bad Catholics in the Church. Those who love and forgive are on the right side of God. I will pray for you and your family.
Anon @ 2:58 PM: You're right. The Archbishop is the root to the problems. He’s the root not because he offended Tim and others. He’s the root of the problems because once he became a follower of Kiko he stopped being a spiritual leader to Guam's non-Neo Catholics. As a follower of Kiko and a member of the NCW all of the Archbishop's actions now must be approved by the NCW instead of him approving their actions.
ReplyDeleteIf the Archbishop was not involved with the NCW but still allowed it in Guam I think things would have been very different. He would be like all the other bishops and archbishops who allow the NCW in their diocese and oversee the activities of that movement. But the fact that he is a member of the NCW means that he cannot oversee the NCW and instead does what he is told by those in charge of the NCW.
Dear Diana, I wish I would have thought of this before. The Archbishop has only to state that the manner in which the Neocatechumenal Way distributes communion is licit and there will be no more discussion about it. To be sure, he has advocated for it, and practices it himself, but he has yet to officially declare it licit. This is thoroughly within his competence to do, and in fact, is his job. I have posted my letter to him, which I am sending separately as well, on my blog. His pronouncement will be then end of it as far as I am concerned. Let us hope he responds quickly. As an aside, I am calling off any invitation to discuss differences. It is simply not necessary. The Archbishop will clarify things for us and provide us the appropriate references, thus there will be nothing to discuss. I will abide by what he says and no more question the practice. Best Regards, Tim Rohr
ReplyDeleteTim the Archbishop love you, I think it's an honor that he ask you help from the past. Why don't you reconcile with him?
ReplyDeleteI bristle at Tim Rohr's sometimes abusive language (cf. Ephesians 4:29-32), but here I commend him for his courageous and costly engagement on behalf of Catholic values.
ReplyDelete