From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Concerning Recent Development 2 Reponse To "Concerning Recent Development" 3 In response 4 In Response Again 5 In Response Again 6 It Is All A Matter of Opinion 7 Clarification of the nature of the Neocatechumenal Way 8 Additions and corrections from Italian wikipedia page 9 Concerning "Neocatechumenal censorship" 10 Rather than "censoring" this article, allow me to provide an alternative prepective 11 The "anti-Neocatechumenal agenda" of pope Benedict XVI 12 Opinion 13 Another alternative 14 Response 15 Crucial Differences 16 Response and Current changes 17 This site is too anti-neocatechumenate 18 Citing sources 19 I have kept my voice silent for several months 20 Anger 21 Edit war 22 Examining the Arinze Letter 23 Removal of Criticisms 24 An Invitation 25 the neocatechumenal way and the need of adult christian formation in the roman catholic church. 26 Removal of Tags 27 Proposal - New Definition of Neocatechumenal Way and Archiving of discussion. 27.1 Proposal - New Definition of Nature and Mission of the Neocatechumenal Way. 27.2 "Notes" on Vatican Document 27.3 Neocatechumenal Propaganda 27.4 Neocatechumenal Liturgy and Vatican Letter 27.5 Neocatechumenal Way

Concerning Recent Development

Wikipedia is not a blog. It's an encyclopedia, and therefore it must contain definitions and history. Personal opinions do not have definitory character, and are not allowed (cfr. GFDL). In the Catholic Church the definition of Catholicity, the approval of the Catechesis, the erection of Association, has been delegated to the competent authority (cfr. Canon Law - 298-329). All of the above, has been, in the 40 year process of growth of the Neocatechumenal Way, constantly reviewed by the Holy See, and culminated in the approval of the Statutes. Even if the process is not yet completed (such as everything in the Church), the direction given by the last three popes to this approval process has been constant and unequivocal. Corrections perhaps should be done by the Authority of the Church in order to include them actively in the diocesan and parish life, but this does not undermine its general validity, as Pope Benedict on November 18 reminded the bishops from Germany in visita “ad limina” [1]

I edited the recent development section because it only superficially details the changes which Cardinal Arinze had required of the Neocatechumenates. Cardinal Arinze does accept the Neocatechumenates, and their unique character in the Church, but he clearly ordered fundamental changes to the way in which the Neocatechumenates conduct their Eucharists. He asks that the Neocatechumenates (and so did Pope Benedict in the recent audience) heed faithfully to the official rubrics with only one deviation (the sign of peace). This article makes it look like that all Cardinal Arinze did was actually accept the Neocatechumenates' liturgical innovations - au contrair. However, my editings seems to have been removed. This article seems to be too pro-neocatechumenates. It's not healthy for any organisation to spurn criticism, especially when it comes from the top. This is a new liturgical 'movement' (ok, not a movement, but you know what I mean) and therefore obviously will have its problems which need to be ironed out. They went a bit too far in the deviation from the rubrics in the celebration of the Eucharist, and this is precisely what Cardinal Arinze is condemning. Why do the neocatechumenates want to pretend that this was never said?

Reponse To "Concerning Recent Development"

I can respond to you in kind. I have read the letter by Cardinal Arinze. The only fundamental change I see in that letter deals with the way in which the Way celebrates the Eucharist. The echoes according to the letter are permitted, as are the admoninitions, but they must be "brief" and they must not be done as homilies, these are points that well-before this letter have always been stressed by catechists as well as priests within the Neocatechumenal Way. Crucial in Arinze's letter, is the idea that neither echoes nor admonitions should be homilies. The Way has always emphasized that, but now this is being solidified. The way in which the Eucharist is celebrated, save for the manner of consuming the body and blood of Christ do not seem to be affected, and otherwise, the changes seem to be about conforming to the way traditional masses...such as saying the Creed, incorporating the Gloria, etc. This article says all that, and provides a link for those interested in the Arinze letter as a whole. I agree with you, that the letter does aim for the Way to simply be more incorporated into overall the Body of the Church. Some recent editorials however, have engaged in very anti-Neocatechumenal statements that simply are not true. Arinze's letter does not affect the weekly celebrations of the Word ceremony. It does not affect the celebration of the Eucharist, save for the most crucial part, the consumption of the Eucharist, and it simply standardizes the kinds of prayers the Way uses. The innovations in music, adult-faith formation, the use of echoes and admonitions ("testimonials") are largely unaffected. However, the editorials have been removed, as a result of extensive and blatant anti-Neocatechumenal points of view, that completely misread the letter, and lack an understanding of the Way as a whole. My point is simply that the Eucharist is really the only part that has been revised in a massive way, most other points have just simply been refined, but do not change the actual celebration of a mass on Saturday. Those who walk in the Way are required to attend mass once a month in their respective Parishes on Sundays, and members of the Way traditionally did go to parish masses for Christmas as well as other celebrations. I also want to point out, that there is a lot of information out there that has more often than not been misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued. I speak from personal experience as a devout Roman Catholic who has, for most of his life, attended traditional mass, and has recently joined the Way. Aside from some innovations (such as the music, echoes, small-communities, retreats, and two hour long masses) it is incorrect for many people to state that the Way is heresy. It conforms to the teachings of the Church. The Neocatechumenal Way accepts the dogma of Roman Catholicism -- in fact, the Way is a ministry within the Church that has been formed for 1) new evangelization and 2) for adult-faith formation, nothing more and nothing less. There are those who may not agree with how the Way conducts it's celebrations, but Arinze's letter and the Pope himself are simply tightening up the manner of Eucharistic celebration, nothing more and nothing less, while simultaneously reaffirming the good work that has been done by the Way since its establishment in 1964. I might also add that the link to Cardinal Arinze's letter is preceded by commentary that is clearly anti-Neocatechumenal in nature. For that reason there is a link that illustrates the views of the Neocatechumenal Way toward the letter.

In response

(This is the same person who wrote the first post)

I'm not charging the neocatechumenates with heresy or even suggesting that they are not faithful to the magisterium of the Church. Indeed, I agree with their function in the Church - as they fill a void which has plagued the Church right from the Middle Ages - the need for continual formation into adulthood. And the Pope's have rightly recgonised it.

I agree the site on which the letter was published was anti-neocatechumenate, but it was the only site whence I could find the letter.

Here are selected quotes and explanations from the letter:

[b]In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the Neocatechumenal Way shall accept and follow the liturgical books approved by the Church, without omitting or adding anything. [/b]

This is said very clearly. The neocatechumenates must follow the rubrics and the priests must do everything as prescribed (such as the Lavabo, Agnus Dei, Gloria, Credo etc.) Yes there are exceptions, but

[b]2. As for any admonitions issued before the readings, these must be brief. Adherence must also be shown to what is set out in the “Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani” (nn. 105 and 128) and to the Praenotanda of the “Ordo Lectionum Missae” (nn. 15, 19, 38, 42). [/b]

So it is permitted for certain lay people to explain the readings prior to the readings. But the testimonies are to be offered only 'exceptional circumstances'. Clearly Cardinal Arinze is permitting them, but with the intent that they be not regular (i.e. every week)

§2 - “It is permitted to have a brief instruction that helps explain better the liturgy that is being celebrated, and even, [b]in exceptional circumstances, a few testimonies, as long as these conform to the liturgical norms,[/b] are offered on the occasion of Eucharistic liturgies celebrated on particular days (for seminarians, the sick, etc.), and are thought truly helpful as an illustration of the regular homily delivered by the celebrating priest. These instructions and testimonies must not assume characteristics that might cause them to be confused with the homily.”

In Response Again

(I wrote the first response to you before)

The crux of the issue is that testimonies (what we call echoes) and instructions (admonitions) "must not assume characteristics of a homily." However, admonitions and echoes are still permitted. They must be brief, and they must not be homilies.

2. As for any admonitions issued before the readings, these must be brief. Adherence must also be shown to what is set out in the “Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani” (nn. 105 and 128) and to the Praenotanda of the “Ordo Lectionum Missae” (nn. 15, 19, 38, 42).

3. The homily, because of its nature and importance, is reserved to the priest or deacon (cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 767 § 1). As for the occasional contribution of testimonies on the part of the lay faithful, the proper places and methods for these are indicated in the Interdicasterial Instruction “Ecclesiae de Mysterio,” which was approved “in specific form” by Pope John Paul II and published on August 15, 1997. In this document, sections 2 and 3 of article 3 read as follows:

§2 - “It is permitted to have a brief instruction that helps explain better the liturgy that is being celebrated, and even, in exceptional circumstances, a few testimonies, as long as these conform to the liturgical norms, are offered on the occasion of Eucharistic liturgies celebrated on particular days (for seminarians, the sick, etc.), and are thought truly helpful as an illustration of the regular homily delivered by the celebrating priest. These instructions and testimonies must not assume characteristics that might cause them to be confused with the homily.”

§3 - “The possibility of ‘dialogue’ during the homily (cf. Directorium de Missis cum Pueris, no. 48) can be used occasionally and with prudence by the celebrating minister as a means of exposition, which does not transfer to others the duty of preaching.”

Note: The dialogue (echoes) and few testimonies (admonitions) must "conform to liturgical norms." The possibility of a dialogue can be used occasionally and with prudence by the celebrating minister. In other words, so long as echoes and admonitions, are brief, not homilies, and are relevant to the ceremony, and conform with the teachings of the church, it is up to priest who is celebrating (e.g. "with prudence by the celebrating minister as a means of exposition") how often they can be said. This means that members in the Way are allowed to give an admonition (instruction) before the readings and the gospel, and that the priest can allow the congregation (according to his own prudence) to give their echoes, keeping in mind that these must respect litrugical norms, must be brief, and must not be homilies. Other than this, it is only the Eucharist (the manner in which it is celebrated) that is being altered from its current form, and this process will give us a transition period of 2 years. My problem with the earlier editing, is that it made it seem like the only thing that the Neocatechumenal Way is allowed to do is the kiss of peace. This is not so. The Word Celebrations on Wednedsays are undisturbed, as our the monthly Convivances (retreats), and as for the mass itself, the echoes and adominitions are being streamlined so that they are not homilies or encroach on what the priest's role is. Eucharist celebrations must shift to the mainstream way (which I believe will be standing up and going to receive the Eucharist around an actual altar) but other than this, the innovations that enable the Way to function as a ministry for evangelization and adult faith formation are really unaltered.

Also, I need not mention that Pope Benedict XVI, as did Pope John Paul II and Paul VI, supports the Neocatechumenal Way. After all, he is the one who when he was a Bishop in Munich, brought the ministry to the city.

In Response Again

I'm well aware of the support that the Popes have given to the Neocatechumenates. This is really irrelevant to the issue at hand (I'm sorry to speak like this). I do support the work fo the Neocatechumenates but I think talk like this is very counter-productive. The Popes support the neocatechumenates because they see the good in what they do, but this DOES not mean they are perfect. We are all human after all and severely fall short of perfection. The neocatechumenate is a new movement after all and unfortunately (IMHO) adopted liturgical reforms which were a misunderstanding of the intentions of Vatican II (the whole church fell to this so it's not unique to the way). Pope Benedict in his recent audience with the neocats echoed Arinze's desire that the neocats adhere faithfully to liturgical norms (something that is often not mentioned by the neocats)

Cardinal Arinze is basically asking for the celebration of Holy Mass to be conducted with STRICT adherence to the rubrics with a few concessions which reflect the unique nature of the formation of the neocatechumenate, but these concessions are much more limited than what they previously were. The testimonies are only to be given in 'exceptional circumstances' not week by week as they are given now. This is truly a fundamental change in the way in which their masses are celebrated where these 'echoes' often constituted a large proportion of the celebration.

There are other issues I have with the neocats liturgically too, especially the hideous guitars and folk songs, but I guess it's better than much of what the rest of the Church has to offer. True liturgical renewal should return us to our roots i.e. Gregorian chant. We are losing our Catholic heritage week by week as Catholic children now no longer can recite the Salve Regina or any Latin at all... what a shame!

The Way shouldn't think that they are exempt from liturgical norms, our Catholic tradition and all the liturgical guidelines written by past popes and indeed what was written in the Second Vatican Council.

It Is All A Matter of Opinion

I for one do not believe that the Way thinks it is exempt from liturgical norms. We are adhering to the Arinze letter. However, it is all a matter of opinion as to whether or not the guitars are "hideous". That is a matter of preference. The same can also be said for Latin, Salve Regina, and returnining to the Gregorian chants. Those sentiments have their place. But that is all opinion. Once again, it is presider (priest) who will decide how often or under what circumstances echoes and admonitions are to be given, that is the impression I get from the letter. There are many rooms in my father's house, is what the Lord tells us. And this can be applied to the body of the Catholic Church. You want to say the mass in Latin and have people sing Gregorian chants, go ahead and do it. We will sing He Rose From The Death and neither is that divergent really, because in the end, we all worship one God, we all acknowledge that his son is our Lord Jesus Christ. And we also acknowledge the same Ressurection and the undeniable fact that the bread and the wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. How we go about celebrating that ceremony, is frankly, a matter of secondary importance. The point is what we believe. And in that sense, you and I are no different.

Clarification of the nature of the Neocatechumenal Way

I have noticed once again, that individuals have been posting very biased articles that are clearly against the Neocaechumenal Way. I want to clarify the nature of the Neocatechumenal Way, hopefully, once and for all. The difference between a mainstream Catholic Mass and that of a Neocatechumenal Eucharist, is one of form, not of doctrine. I have been a Roman Catholic since I was born, I have read my Bible extensively, and I am well aware of the theology that forms the bedrock of Catholic Doctrine. Simply put, the Neocatechumenal Way does not differ in terms of dogma. We believe the exact same dogma that mainstream Catholics believe. How we conduct a mass, that is slightly different. It is a longer mass (approximately 2 hours long). We have echoes and admonitions. Other than these differences, the substance of the faith remains grounded in Roman Catholicism. We do not deny the rosary, we do not deny confession, sin, nor do we believe in predestination. In short, we believe and accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. As for the charge of brainwashing, that is also very trumped up. People choose to be in the Way, people choose to leave the Way. No one is holding a gun to your head, saying that you have to reiterate the manner in which other people echo, etc. People echo as they see fit. However, as some of us become catechists, we do lean on the words used in catechesis, "memorials" "Judas" etc. How this is brainwashing, I don't know. If that's brainwashing, then being raised as a Catholic, because your parents are Catholic is also ostensibly brainwashing. Not everyone is going to agree with us. Nobody says that has to be the case. But we are not a sect. We are not heretics. We are not divergent in our theology. We are first and foremost Roman Catholics, like any other Roman Catholic.

Additions and corrections from Italian wikipedia page

Its status within the Roman Catholic Church is therefore unique in that it is legally neither an Order nor an Association, but is a process of initiation

This is not true. As of Codex Iuris Can., the Way is a "private association" (started from Catholic people and requiring Holy See recognition), and has to be approved as such (cf. Statutes). The "process of initiation" is the name of their method. You can name the Way in any manner you like, but the C.I.C. only provides two forms of association: the "private" one and the ones created by Bishops. C.I.C. does not provide "approval" of things like "itineraries" or "processes of initiation".

Italian words meaning

Please do note that some same-sound English and Italian words have different meaning. «Eventuale» has a meaning of "rare", "unexpected", not "eventually". Also, «incidente» has a meaning of "car accident", not "incident". I had to specify a number of times where English translations were incomplete or may mislead.

Letter by Francis Cardinal Arinze

The English translation is available (the letter was originally written in Italian), and also the English interview to Gennarini, so you can read them and verify who "misleads" what. I added also Jimmy Akin's links, which already clarify everything and will save long discussions about interpretation. Anyways, the existence of "Holy Father's decisions" about Neocatechumenal liturgy, shows that there still are a number of abuses in the Way which the Pope wants to correct.

Extensive and blatant anti-Neocatechumenal points of view

When "anti-Neocatechumenal points of view" come from known and serious theologians (father Zoffoli, father Landucci) or from Bishops and Cardinals, it's a serious matter.

Individuals post biased anti-Neocatechumenal articles

Neocatechumenals should take into serious consideration (instead of censoring or banalizing or diminishing) what the hierarchy says. For example, there is a big difference on a liturgical abuse accusation if coming from an anti-sect non-Catholic or if coming from a Bishop.

The Pope supports Neocatechumenals

This is misleading. The Popes have always encouraged the Way, no more no less than for every other movement or association. And the last "encouragement" to the Way was the 1-Dec-2005 letter to correct liturgical abuses.

Benedict XVI has sent out Neocatechumenal mission families and priests to evangelize

This is not correct. Actually, Kiko sends Neocatechumenal families and priests out to evangelize. Before starting, they ask to go to visit the Holy Father. For example, Neocatechumenals say that on 12-Jan-2006 Benedict XVI "sent out to evangelize" 200 families. This is not exact: it was Kiko will, not Benedict XVI will. On the Holy See internet site you can see the Benedict XVI speech about it and verify by yourself. And see that the Pope also states:

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 Celebration, 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.

The Way is intended as a means for Catholics to evangelize other Catholics

If this is true, then Neocatechumenal catechists will be the first to obey to everything required by the Pope, and will fight against any error and abuse noticed by Bishops. Example: "closed-doors" Mass? do show, everywhere, that Neocatechumenals don't have any "closed-doors" liturgy, immediately stopping any de facto "closed-doors" behavior.

We are adhering to Arinze's letter

All Neocatechumenals should be adhering by heart to Arinze's letter, provided they read it instead of getting Gennarini's interpretation only (see Jimmy Akin's comments). It's good news to know that there are some at least in the USA.
Anyways, one wonders why all Neocatechumenals needed such a letter to understand that their liturgies contain abuses. Even accepting the idea that all Neocatechumenals will adhere by heart to the restrictions of the letter, one wonders why for more than 30 years they didn't understand they were abusing.

«New Developments»

The entire paragraph contained a pro-Neocatechumenal self-promotional advertisement, ending in a gorgeous "consult your local parish or diocesan centre to enquire if this charism is active in your area". I had to rewrite the entire section, and add some links to sources.

Gordon Urquhart

This is an English "anti-sect" author. He was a high-rank Focolare chief in the UK; he eventually had some serious arguments with the founder and left the movement. He wrote that book accusing Focolare, Neocatechumenals and Communion and liberation, to be "sects".
I think his book should not be cited in the Neocatechumenal Way wikipedia page because his arguments are far from theological and doctrinal, and reflect only his rage against Focolare movement. I leave it to discussion.

Sandro Magister

This is an Italian "vaticanist" (journalist with lots of sources in the Holy See). He writes for a leftist Italian magazine, L'Espresso, yet he publishes Church-related anticipations and documents before any other (he is sometimes even classified as a "neocon", something different than a "leftist", at least in Italy). He published a number of revelations and documents about Neocatechumenals, St.Egidio and Focolare. He was the first to publish the entire text of Arinze's letter.

Concerning "Neocatechumenal censorship"

Like in the Italian wikipedia page, some Neocatechumenal guys erase the entire section of "criticisms" in the Neocatechumenal Way page. Not only this is fairly incorrect (Wikipedia policy): this is also the worst indication about obedience to the Holy See by Neocatechumenal people. Current version of the English page of Neocatechumenal Way contains a number of notes coming from Bishops and Cardinals (Catholic hierarchy), and analysis by theologians: all that is strangely called "misinformation" or "bias" by Neocatechumenals, maybe because much of the text comes from Italian sources (most documentation about the Way is in Italian only; only sometimes with English translation). User "Ladb2000" heavily and repeatedly censored the article and even the text of this discussion page.

Rather than "censoring" this article, allow me to provide an alternative prepective

I am a devout Roman Catholic, and have been so for my entire life. My erasing of criticism has more to do with the material that is being placed on this wikipedia article. Rather than providing an unbiased objective article, your criticisms are taken directly from an avowedly anti-Neocatechumenal Way website, with an anti-Neocatechumenal Way agenda. The article in its current form still uses not-so subtle phrases to intentionally discredit the way.

1) doctrine: equivocal and misleading doctrinal statements, sometimes near to heresy;

What are these equivocal and misleading doctrinal statements, that are sometimes near to heresy? Please explain to me so that I can respond to them in kind.

2) liturgy: serious differences between the Way and the Catholic Church liturgies (large "admonitions" - "introductions" like homilies -, use of a cloth-covered "dinner style" square table instead of the Altar, receiving the Holy Communion while seating, lenghty and closed-doors liturgies, etc);

As the Arinze letter points out, and as the Neocatechumenal Way has always believed, admonitions and echoes are not (and were never supposed to be homilies), rather they are meant to be brief and only said when they are appropriate. The Arinze letter also addresses the "dinner style square table" issue, but that in and of itself is not necessarily a serious difference. Furthermore, we are saying the Gloria, the Creed, and many other prayers and standardized elements from the liturgy of the Church.

3) Pastoral: aspects like a sect (original catechetical texts kept secret as far as possible; the Way shown as the only way to be Catholic; the lenght of the Way, often way more than 15-20 years; excess of emphasis on the Old Testament; reduction of the importance of the sacraments; reduction of the devotion to the Virgin Mary; Neocatechumenal heads considered better than priests and Bishops; etc);

The Way is not the only way to be Catholic. Those individuals who express such a perspective, are expressing just that, their own perspectives, not that of the Neocatechumenal Way. As for the length of completing the Way, I don't really see how that can be a problem. Nor do I see an excessive emphasis on the Old Testament, and if there is one, it begs the question--why not? Those are part and parcel of the cannon.

Finally, the most glaring errors on the part of this sort of criticism, comes in the form of the following statements:

1) Reduction of the sacraments

We are Roman Catholics. We celebrate all the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church (and we do so within the Roman Catholic Church) nor do we deemphasize any aspect of the sacraments.

2) Reduction of the devotion to the Virgin Mary

The icon of the Neocatechumenal Ways shows the Virgin Mary with her infant son. How is that a reduction of the devotion to the Virgin Mary?

3) Neocatechumenal heads considered better than priests and Bishops, etc

It is the Pope who is glorified, and only through the popes has the Way been able to exist. We do not think of so-called Neocatechumenal heads as "better" than priests and bishops. They are just people, they are not priests.

4) Other aspects: ugly chants, bad ideas about Catholic history between Constantine and Vatican II Council, excessive emphasis about the demon, etc;

Ugly chants is simply a person's opinion. As for bad ideas about Catholic History between Constantine and the Second Vatican Council, the "bad ideas" may in fact hold a kernel of truth. The Medieval Church brought many abuses into the Catholic Church. These abuses were corrected gradually. Excessive emphasis about the demon is not possible. You can never excessively discuss the role of the devil in the world.

The individual who has been editing this article clearly has an anti-Neocatechumenal Way bias. I want to see an objectively written article on the Neocatechumenal Way, not one the simply spouts a lot of unjustified and uninformed material that is really misleading. His use of opinions of priests and bishops, are also just that, opinions. The current Pope, as well as, the preceding popes have supported and encouraged the Way. Furthermore, Redemptoris Mater seminaries are producing many of the Roman Catholic Church's new priests. In the same way individuals within the larger body of the Catholic Church have levied criticisms against cursillo, RENEW, Opus Dei, and other movements and charisms within the church, so to is the criticism that has been levied against the Neocatechumenal Way. I would like to see an objective article. What I see instead, are citations of priests and other opinions that are biased, and that may not in fact hold any water. The use of hear say (such as a report on a 1994 radio show of something Padre Pio said in the 1960s about the Way) these "facts" are very suspect. What I would rather see quite honestly, is an open dialogue where both the positive and negative aspects of the Way may be discussed openly. What I do not want to see are excessively biased statements, especially of the kind placed in the article. I would prefer to discuss the opinions of the other person editing this article and my own, not engage in an edit war, which is what has been happening for a while. ~Ladb2000

The "anti-Neocatechumenal agenda" of pope Benedict XVI

These criticisms however, often stem from personal opinions of priests as well as those who espouse an anti-Neocatechumenal agenda...

This is a personal opinion, and the entire paragraph does not add anything new to what already said above in the same page. Thus, the paragraph was modified.

The so-called heresies...

The article already cites its sources, including the one about st.Pius of Pietrelcina. You don't need to add your opinions in the page.

Recent develompents

The entire paragraph contained pro-neocatechumenal propaganda, and was changed with facts and verifiable sources.

The Way shown as the only way to be Catholic, aspects like a sect, etc.

These were accused by Bishops and Cardinals, always cited in the notes. Is this an "anti-Neocatechumenal bias"? "Devotion to the Virgin Mary" is not a simple matter of nice icons.

Redemptoris Mater seminaries are producing many of the Roman Catholic Church's new priests

This is incorrect. Redemptoris Mater seminaries are producing many of the Way's new priests. The Way claims to produce clean Roman Catholic vocations, but those vocations are only useful in the Way, and require a "special kind" of seminary (the Redemptoris Mater) to do the same things of common Diocesan priests and Fidei Donum missionaries.

I am a devout Roman Catholic, and have been so for my entire life.

This is not a discussion about your life and your faith, and your bona fide life in the Way cannot change the facts. The article about the Way should contain more than official Neocatechumenals propaganda. The article does not contain testimonials by Neocatechumenals enemies, neither contains slogans and propaganda by anti-Catholic people (while, for example, the pope Benedict XVI wikipedia page includes text and links to anti-Catholic biased sources). All reported criticisms to the Way come from Catholic hierarchy and theologians (ask to your friends why no Bishop or Cardinal or Pope ever said "Neocatechumenals doctrine is genuinely Catholic").

I want to see an objectively written article on the Neocatechumenal Way

Do read original documents: Arinze's letter about liturgy, cited Bishops documents, Kiko-Carmen-Pezzi letter, Benedict XVI documents, etc.

-- Zagor te nay 09:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinion

I have noticed that this particular article on the Neocatechumenal Way is grossly biased. Usually, wikipedia articles have all presented "both sides of the story", but in this particular article, there is a paragraph of objective information, then a whole litany of criticisms, which some I have seen, has been very much misinterpreted or taken out of context from there original sources. Whoever wrote the criticisms, should give just the facts and not there interpretation. What also must be kept in mind that if the Neocatechumenal Way was such a "heretical" movement, it would have been banned from the Church a very, very long time ago. With the approval of the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, and the presence of Pope Benedict XVI at the Meeting of Families of the Neocatechumenal Way, pretty much most arguments are just the product of disgruntled ex-members and/or critics of the Second Vatican Council, of which the Neocatechumenal Way is a fruit as explained very well by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II in his letter "Ognigualvolta" addressed to Mons. Paul Josef Cordes:

"Every time the Holy Spirit causes to germinate in the Church impulses for greater faithfulness to the Gospel, there flourish new charisms, which manifest these realities, and new institutions which put them into practice. Thus it was after the Council of Trent and after the Second Vatican Council. Among the realities generated by the Spirit in our days, figure the Neocatechumenal Communities, initiated by Mr K Argüello and Ms C Hernandez (Madrid, Spain), the effectiveness of which for the renewal of Christian life was acclaimed by my predecessor, Paul VI, as a fruit of the Council: "How much joy and how much hope you give us by your presence and by your activity... To live and to promote this re-awakening is what you call a way "after baptism", which will be able to renew in today's christian communities those effects of maturity and deepening that, in the primitive Church, were realized by the period of preparation for Baptism (Paul VI to the Neocatechumenal Communities, General Audience, 8th May 1974, in NOTITIAE 96-96, 1974, 230)".

It would be also good to note that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the current Pope Benedict XVI)recently wrote in his book The Salt of the Earth that it is very difficult today to live the faith on one's own and he suggests that the Church open paths of faith in small communities where Christians may help and sustain each other."

In conclusion, the criticism that the Neocatechumenal Way is heretical, divisive etc. is pretty much moot given the exponential amount of documents from Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI (prior to being named Pope and after being named pope) in support of the Neocatechumenal Way. Like I said before, if it was heretical or divisive, the Church would have banned it a very long time ago. Instead, the Neocatechumenal Way has always been faithful and obedient to the Pope and to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. JA

This article does not actually contain "the other side of the story" because no criticism comes from outside the Church or from individuals. The first part contains something like a copy of one of the official depliants of the Way. The second part contains documented criticisms by Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, including citations to verify their context (do Bishops and Cardinals lie when accusing the Neocatechumenals to be unfaithful and disobedient?) The Statute is only a partial (and temporary) "approval", as documented in the article and in the Statute itself. Where is the "grossly biased" thing? Is "bias" something like "presenting Popes documents that do not praise the Way"? -- Zagor te nay 07:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are no criticisms from the Popes, there are critics, but it remains a "valid itinerary of cristian formation valid for our society and times" as said by Pope John Paul II. JA

You can't take as definitively authoritative that "valid itinerary" definition.

First, it was in a letter to mgr. Cordes, not to Kiko-Carmen-Pezzi.

Second, you must cite all the words surrounding "valid itinerary": John Paul II states "having seen documentation... welcoming the request addressed to me..." (addressed to the Pope by mgr.Cordes)

Third, "the Holy Father did not mean to give binding indications to Bishops", as stated in AAS 82/1990 where the document appeared.

Fourth, it came in 1990, when John Paul II had insufficient documentation about the Way (and in fact asked for it to mgr. Cordes).

No criticisms from the Popes? Well, someone should explain why John Paul II did not mention the Statutes neither the day of their approval by Pontifical Council for the Laity nor in the following days. Not even a word, up to September 2002. And someone should also explain what does Arinze's letter mean, if not a criticism against liturgical abuses of the Way. -- Zagor te nay 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently this debate can continue forever. All i'm saying is that the Holy See in countless documents, and in the creation of the Statutes has shown its support for the Neocatechumenal Way. Arinze's letter is in no way damaging to the way or seen as a punishment. Like I stated previously, if the Neocatechumenal Way was heretical or blasphemous against the Church, it would have been told to stop all activity and not exist at all.

This has not yet happened, and depends on Kiko Argüello: will he condemn his heretical statements? will he work against the sectarism created by himself? etc.

The Neocatechumenal Way has not yet been approved. It has got some temporary guidelines four years ago (Statutes). It has been often praised, but no Bishop, Cardinal or Pope ever said a word about its "orthodoxy".

"Not a punishment"? This is pure Neocatechumenal Spin (that is why this debate can continue forever). -- Zagor te nay 08:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Another alternative

You have stated that this "depends" on Kiko Argüello, and whether or not he will condemn his heretical statements. Well, let me speak forthrightly by stating that you clearly have your own agenda. This is not a matter of Neocatechumenal Spin. I am very familiar with both sides of the argument, both in favor and opposed to the Way. You state unequivocally that no Bishop, Cardinal or Pope had ever said a word about its orthodoxy. What you do not know, is that as recently as four months ago, the Cardinal of Washington D.C. showed the Church's support for the way by being present at the inauguration of a new Redemptoris Mater seminary in D.C. and he stated that the day will come when those present will remember that they saw one of the Doctors of the Church, Saint Carmen Hernandez speak in front of all of us. What more praise does one need than such instances as these. I can point to many others.

You also keep on putting in the first paragraph that the Way is centered in Italy and in Spain, this is not true. The Way originated in Spain and Italy, but it has since diversified and expanded beyond those two countries. There a lot of seminaries outside of Europe, and many dioceses outside of Europe.

To State that what Kiko Argüello is saying is heresy is to put forward your own agenda. My question for you is this, do you actually know what the Way is about? Have you ever been to a catechesis? Have you ever been to a Saturday Eucharist? Have you ever been to a Word Celebration? Have you ever been to a convivance? Have you ever seen the lives that Christ has touched in the Neocatechumenal Way? Have you been able to go beyond your own skepticisim and your own agenda to embrace the goodness of the Way? Call it Neocatechumenal Spin all you want. Call it heresy. Call it what you will. The reality is, that the Neocatechumenal Way is not, nor has it ever been heretical. It has a lot of strong support from three popes, many cardinals and bishops, and much more than just tangential support. There is support for the orthodoxy of the Way. You put forward a series of misleading interpretations and criticisms of the Way that are from people who think like you. Where are the opinions, in this article, of people who do not think like you? I do not see them in this article at all, except in this talk page? And quoting Enrico Zoffoli is certainly a biased source, considering that he wrote a book titled "The Heresies of the Neocatechumenal Way." Zoffoli, in my opinion, is misguided. My own belief, is that those who are against the way, fear the differences in form that the Way uses in the Eucharist. Once again, however, the differences are in FORM, not in DOGMA.

If you want to discuss the imperfections of the Way, and the problems of the Way, that is one thing. But you have revealed yourself for what you are by stating that Kiko Argüello has committed heresy. You are clearly in line with many other mislead individuals who either do not understand the nature of the Neocatechumenal Way, and how we are simply, Roman Catholics like any other group of Roman Catholics. It is the form in which we celebrate our Eucharist that there are differences. In terms of dogma, however, there is no difference. We are devout Roman Catholics who believe in the pope who do not swerve from dogma.

That said, I would hope you would attend a catechesis. And see, whether or not, you like what you hear.

Peace be with you.

And another note, it is not for lack of understanding that "I don't get the point." Io poso parlare italiano e spagnolo. -- Ladb2000

Response

• You stress that I have «my own agenda». Your opinion. And it grants me the right to reply: "you have your Neocatechumenal Spin Agenda".
• Anyways, everyone can read the official documents and verify. Se sei capace di leggere l'italiano, allora puoi verificare tu stesso tutti i documenti citati (if you understand Italian language, then you can verify by yourself all cited documents).
• Surely, not everyone can read the "secret catechetical books" to compare them to the Catechism, but supplied links will help.
• You cite some Bishops and Cardinals and Popes praising the Way. But this does not change anything in those documents.
• Currently, the Way has not been recognized by the Church – except the Statute: a temporary "approval" (five years, expiring on June 2007) of present and future guidelines of the Way, still requiring a "Catechetical Directory".
• No "Catechetical Directory" has been published (yet).
• Another official document: Arinze's letter containing «Holy Father's decisions».
• News about 900 dioceses appear in almost every pro-Neocatechumenal site.
• The Way was born in Spain (Madrid, 1964-1967) and Italy (Rome, 1968).
• I can (but do not need to) testimony many, many things about the Way but here I only state what the cited documents state.
• Are the Neocatechumenals "heretics"? Only they are heretics who have some knowledge of being heretics and persist in sustaining the errors listed above. But since identifying them individually escapes all our scrutiny, all we can do is to disapprove the heresy in itself which results from the "catecheses" of Kiko. In fact, this constitutes one of the most fearful dangers to the faith. (father Enrico Zoffoli)
• ...And quoting Irenaeus of Lyons is "certainly" a biased source, considering that he wrote a book titled "Against Heresies". If Zoffoli is misguided because he wrote "against the Way", then also st.Irenaeus is misguided.
• In liturgy, differences in form are often differences in dogma: lex orandi, lex credendi.
• Peace be with you. -- Zagor te nay 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Crucial Differences

Irenaeus of Lyons was very critical of Gnosticism, and rightfully so. Gnosticism was not simply different in form, it was almost entirely different in its theology and its dogma. While you make a valid point that differences in form in some cases indicate differences in dogma, this is not the case with the Neocatechumenal Way. We do the Gloria, we recite the Creed, we believe in the transubstantiation, and so on. I have said it many times, and I will say it once more, the Neocatechumenal Way is no different than the rest of the Roman Catholic Church. In terms of dogma there is no difference between a traditional sunday mass and a Neocatechumenal Saturday eucharist.

Ireneaus had to fight against heretics. Heretics never say "we are heretics". Luther never said things like "I want to create a wrong christianism, a different church, etc".

Yes, you "do the Gloria". Up to recent times, this didn't happen in the communities of the Way. You recite the Creed. Up to recent times, this also didn't happen. You believe in transubstantiation, but Kiko always told that the term was only "philosophical" stuff needed in the first Protestants years (i.e.: it's superfluous).

You say that the Mass of the Way is "no different" than the Roman Catholic Church one. Then, why Benedict XVI required serious changes in the Neocatechumenal Mass?

-- Zagor te nay 08:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Response and Current changes

I was reading the above comments and if the argument is for the "Way" being heretical then it’s an extremely silly argument, how long did it take Leo X to excommunicate Luther? But yet they "Way" has existed for over thirty years, unless the last three pontificates have been all ignorant and unable to see the obvious heresies in the "Way" then the church is being run by incompetents. Thus we all know that it is not heretical so arguing that it is would be an insult to the entire church. Also a "Serious" change would imply that something drastically different was being done, it may seem so in light of different peoples opinions, but instead everything which has been done up till now has been approved (not speaking of the Eucharist that comes later on) the admonitions must be short now and they usually have been due to stage fright, and other natural things. Echoes have always been said to be personal and not to resemble a homily and when one did it was usually stopped. The communities usually have celebrated mass in the parish at least once a month due to the unavailability of priests, or events which occur in the respective parish. Regarding the Eucharist it is important to question ones self, what is the church? Is it the four walls and the roof where the people celebrate, or is it the actual people? On the use of the altar, if it was indeed an important issue then why would priests be allowed to celebrate masses outside of a church? A "Dinner" table is used in place of the altar because it is the partaking of the Passover the same way Jesus did, with a table and his apostles, the significance of doing it this way is in meeting with Jesus Christ, having an intimate relationship with him is establishes this way, as when a family comes together to have dinner.

Now regarding the changes I made in the actual article, brief comments are available in the history page but I wanted to expand more on what I had in mind when changing it. The first thing is the insertion of the topic "Dangerous Aspects of Current day Mass: Comparison", the reason for inserting this should be clear, while it is important to “iron out” all faults it is also important to praise it for the things it does well which is why I re-included it into the page. Next is the "Critical aspects of the Neocatechumenal Way" section, I completely removed the fourth point because all of the aspects listed represented personal opinion not fact, if you dislike a song then that is your opinion, also false statements had to be removed, the most eye catching and important being, "reduction of the devotion to the Virgin Mary" I removed it because it was EXTREAMLY false, why do you thing most of Kiko's paintings include the Virgin Mary? I the revised the last line of that section because I did not wish to remove the following criticisms to try an establish an unbiased page,as many of the people in my position would not have done. I adjusted a few minor things in the "Recent Developments" section because I wished to express another purpose for the January meeting. Not only did Pope Benedict XVI give a greeting to the Neocatechumenal way, but he also gave a blessing to families and priests which were going to go in mission. I also inserted a few words in the "critical literature" section because it is always important to know and experience things first-hand. and finally I added the "The Law that Breaks all laws" section because, (small general note before this, this is a tricky subject to handle because many times the intention to save souls exists but yet it can be heresy) it is important to realize that the Neocatecumenal Way is the only truth in the church that actively goes and evangelizes difficult areas, I have first hand seen priests turn away people because they did not "belong" in a certain area.

Ncwfl 22:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This site is too anti-neocatechumenate

The links and references, apart from the Neocatechumenal way official site, are too anti-neocatechumenal way! In order to achieve a balanced critical contribution from external links, include several other neocatechumenal way-related sites which are either neutral or at least, favourable in some way!

Most critics of the Neocatechumenal way fail to realise one important point; Pope John Paul the Second and Pope Benedict the Sixteenth both approve of the Noecatechumenal way, indeed the present Pope INTRODUCED IT in his native diocese of Bavaria.

To keep on blindly saying that the Neocatechumenal way is heresy etc like Father Zoffoli did (May God Grant him eternal rest), is implying that you are more enlightened by the Spirit in the matters of the church than the Popes are!

Your personal testimonial is useless for a wikipedia article. Please document every statement; wiping out things only because you think it is "false", is not correct; an entire section of personal opinions (highly pro-Neocatechumenal biased) has been erased.

• The Way hasn't been yet excommunicated (because of bona fide of most participiants), but this does not mean that "no heresies".
• Heresies: fr. Zoffoli and other theologians wrote that the Way contains heresies (the article already documents who wrote it and where was written). Zoffoli documented what he wrote.
• The main argument of criticism from cited people (Zoffoli etc) is that Popes and Bishops were partially or totally ignoring real issues of the Way. This is why they informally "approved" the Way. Anyways, Arinzes's letter shows that Benedict XVI, while encouraging Neocatechumenals, disapproves Neocatechumenal liturgies.
• About echoes and such stuff, documents by the Holy See were already mentioned; if you have sources more important than those documents, please cite them.
• "Include Virgin Mary in painting" does not mean orthodoxy.
• "The law that breaks all the laws" argument only explains why Neocatechumenals are not yet excommunicated. The Holy See doesn't want to excommunicate a (maybe large) number of bona fide people.
• You can include as many as "favourable Neocatechumenal-related sites" but remember:
  • almost all cited criticism comes from Catholic hierarchy and theologians;
  • wikipedia articles cannot be "link farms";
  • adding pro-Neocatechumenal stuff will not reduce Neocatechumenal Way issues and problems;
  • Neocatechumenals should obey (instead of criticize).

--Zagor te nay 13:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Zoffoli is not a valid source due to his bias against the way, and Benedict has celebrated Eucharist’s before and never seems to have complained, even when he was Cardinal Ratzinger but if that’s the impression that you got from the letter then so be it. I understand that saying that the Virgin Mary was in a painting does not prove its "orthodoxy" but she has always been mentioned as a positive figure, behind all of Kiko's paintings there is a catechesis, and she is mention many a time. I have no intention of adding many pro way links but it is very simple to see that most of the current ones are against the way. The obidience is the most absurd thing and should not be brought to question, every time a pastor said they wanted us out of the parish we go quietly, everytime a bishop does not want the way in his dioscese we obey and leave, if the pope were to declare the way heretical only then would it be stopped immediatly and completely.

Ncwfl 23:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Zoffoli's orthodoxy is well known (he published about a hundred books in defense of Catholicism). Benedict XVI did not actually celebrate the "Neocatechumenal Mass" with a square table and self-service Communion; it's anyways documented his concern about Neocatechumenal liturgies (cfr. Arinze's letter). While he encourages Neocatechumenals, he wants them to get back in orthodoxy.

Neocatechumenal censorship on this article continues. Why do Neocatechumenals need to wipe out criticisms that come from inside the Church? Why do they need to wipe out Bishops and Cardinals pronouncements? -- Zagor te nay 10:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

Wikipedia content policy named "Wikipedia:Verifiability" states that: "...articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. (...) Editors should provide a reliable source for material (...), or it may be removed."

Despite of that, almost every cited source in the section "Critical aspects of the Neocatechumenal Way" refers to the site www.geocities.com, which provides free space for user homepages. That kind of source does not meet the criteria of verifiability. The owner of such homepage can place arbitrary content in it.

Therefore information based on this kind of source will be removed from the article. It is not censorship, but removal of information that have weak sources. However, if someone is able to provide direct, reliable and verifiable source of this information, it can be brought back to the article. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Ghalas 13:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Almost every cited source": this is incorrect; anyone can read the is largely incorrect.

Also, despite the "geocities" location, that "home page" contains large excerpts from documents and books related to the Neocatechumenal Way.

Anyways, you are encouraged to extend your "geocities homepage censorship" to the 16500+ articles on English wikipedia which link to some geocities page.

--Zagor te nay 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide direct, verifiable sources of your critical facts. Try to cite them without bias. Only then there is a chance they will be accepted by the other side. Otherwise there always will be someone that will try to remove these facts. Please, try to discuss, instead of bringing back and back your version of the history and discarding all the changes made by other users. Please, try to rephrase your critics every time you bring it back. Try to limit yourself only to the most important facts. I would like we meet half way between critical (contra) opinions and other (pro) opinions, and make them all neutral.

I am sure you think that there are people that try to remove all the critics from this page. Maybe there are. However, I think that facts about problems of the Way are important for the completeness of this article and should remain in the article. (Of course if they meet content policies of Wikipedia, namely Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:Verifiability.)

Also, if you have any documented, verifiable, unbiased critics of the Neocatechumenal Way, that comes from outside of the Church, please bring it here. This critics is also important for the completeness of this article. However, please make sure that this critics is unbiased. Regards. Ghalas 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Direct and verifiable sources are already there.

Wiping them won't make them false or useless; wiping them only means that Neocatechumenals fear the truth, Neocatechumenals fear Catholic hierarchy, Neocatechumenals fear simplest description of public facts.--Zagor te nay 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have kept my voice silent for several months

We are all Roman Catholics! How many times do I have to repeat this? How many times must I confront the ludicrous teachings of Enrico Zoffoli? How many times do I have to defend the Neocatechumenal Way against a charge of heresy? We are bona fide Catholics. But like all good Christians, we are no less persecuted. The persecution leveled against us is a sign that we are doing something right. User: Ladb2000

Kiko Argüello teachings are "ludicrous" (not fr. Enrico Zoffoli). Fr. Enrico Zoffoli (mostly known as "spiritual director" and "confessor") published some 100+ books in defense of Catholicism, Sacraments, Apologetics, Theology, etc. Most of his books had formal Bishops approval on publication, including Dizionario del cristianesimo (Dictionary of Christianity). Pope Paul VI quoted Zoffoli many times.

«...As the name states, the "Statutes" is the official recognition of the Way as a Catholic post-baptismal catechumenate and they describe how does it function, while the "Catechetical Directory" contains the method and the catechetical points of the Way.» This statement is largely incorrect. The Statutes is a temporary document by Pontifical Council for the Laity, which addresses a Catechetical Directory. Please read art. 11, 19, 28§2, etc, of the Statutes. The Catechetical Directory is yet unpublished. How could the Catholic Church "approve" by using only a temporary Statute referring to an unpublished document?

Anyways, it's not "only fr. Zoffoli". Other theologians published books and articles. Also, there are lots of pronouncements by Bishops and Cardinals, some of them already cited in the article. Criticisms about liturgy issues were definitively confirmed by letter of card.Arinze containing "decisions of the Holy Father" which, except a secondary (and temporary) indult about sign of peace, requires the Way to wipe out all liturgical abuses and begin again celebration of the Mass as standard Catholic liturgical books and documents admit. But on Jan.17, 2006 Kiko, Carmen and Pezzi stated (in a letter to Benedict XVI) that their errors were useful to "bring from sadness to joy", which is almost a declaration of disobedience.

Maybe the Neocatechumenal Way in the US is different (and less heretic) than Italian/Spanish one. Your bona fide is not discussed. This article only shows documents and sources. This article does not include criticisms from anti-Catholic sources (while, for example, Opus Dei and even Benedict XVI wikipedia articles do). Are you Neocatechumenals definitively sure that "persecution leveled against you" means that you are doing something right?

A generic "persecution" argument does not explain anything. Also heretics suffered persecution. Any guilty "suffers" persecution. All "persecution" to Neocatechumenals coming from Catholic hierarchy requires obedience. Arinze's "persecution" letter requires immediate obedience (not "granting two years" as of Kiko weird idea about obedience: everyone, reading the letter by Arinze, understands that Benedict XVI wants immediate stop, everyone knows that Benedict XVI conceded "not exceeding two years" only for rare -and most disobedient- communities).

--Zagor te nay 16:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anger

You have an axe to grind against the Way. The way you phrase what you say, the arguments that you use -- are all filled with a venomous anger. You call us disobedient. You call us heretical. You are going against the body of the Roman Catholic Church by making such bold claims. In my opinion, you and others like you, including misguided (but well-meaning) theologians such as Zoffoli have a very ignorant understanding of the Neocatechumenal Way.

I asked you this a long time ago, and you never gave me a satisfactory answer.

Have you ever been to a catechesis?

Have you ever attended a Eucharist?

Have you ever attended a Word Celebration?

Have you ever attended a a Convivance?

Have you ever been to a Redemptoris Mater seminary?

I have been a Roman Catholic for almost 22 years. In that time I have never swayed from my faith. What I say to you now is that the Neocatechumenal Way is the furthest thing from heresy. You attack our bad history, without recognizing the truth that the Medieval Church is the one that caused the Protestant Reformation. Our inability to stop selling indulgences, our inability to reconnect with the truth faith of the early Christian Church, and our unwillingness to listen to reformers such as Erasmus -- led to the present day fractures in the body of Christ (that is, the church) today.

I am not a Protestant, but I will say this, the Protestant understanding of living the faith -- of actually practicing what they preach -- would put most mainstream Catholics to shame. We do not read our Bible, and we fear the Word of God. We go to Church on Sunday and we recite from memory a Creed that most people do not even understand. Our Churches are becoming empty -- we are paying the price of our forefathers -- by losing ourselves in petty discussions over form and institutionalization.

The majority of the world's one billion Catholics go to Church once a week on Sunday, rarely read their Bible, and do not practice the faith as Jesus commanded us too. We are too busy. We want a sugar-coated pill every Sunday. We want the priest to tell us what we want to hear, but our hearts are lying. They are made of stone. We will not let the Word of the Lord penetrate us. We have, in short, become secular Catholics.

The Neocatechumenal Way is a Christian Initiation aimed at adult faith formation. We are not a sect. We are not a movement. We are not a ministry. Who is targeted by the Way? Those Catholics who have fallen away from the faith and those who seek an intimate adult faith in the Lord. I have nothing but respect and devotion for Pope Benedict XVI. He brought the Way to Bavaria when he was a Cardinal.

I understand and accept Arinze's letter. I understand the need for the Church not to be divided, and for the Way to serve the Roman Catholic Church in the best capacity possible, even with some modifications.

I have read Zoffoli, and I have read the criticisms of others -- that we are heretics, that we have bad history, that we are "like the worst protestant sects," etc. I am not convinced by any of these arguments. The Way is simply trying to get Catholics to practice what they preach and lead the Christian life as Christ commanded us. For this reason, I am disturbed when Enrico Zoffoli wrote that, "Unfortunately, it looks like that Neocatechumenals would not profess themselves as Catholics, but simply as Christians, similar to all protestants." What are we? Are Roman Catholics not by definition Christians? Should we be first Catholics and then Christians? I am sorry, but Father Zoffoli does not understand the nature of Christianity if he could be so petty about semantics.

I am not a heretic. My community is not a heretic. The people I know in the Way both here and abroad are not heretics. Kiko Arguello is not a heretic. What I see in these criticisms, is the unwillingness of certain segments of the Roman Catholic Church to accept the call of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are Christians and we are Roman Catholics. We believe in transubstantiation and in salvation by faith and by good works. The difference is, that we practice what we preach, whereas those who criticize us, it seems, come from the mainstream Church, and are tied down to petty institutionalism and moribund tradition. What good is petty "orthodoxy" if we do not have Christ within our hearts, within our minds, within our souls? We are dead without him. We are dead without his faith. And our faith is dead without good works.

Once again, I invite you to come to a catechesis, to hear what the Way has to offer, and then make your criticisms.

Peace. User:Ladb2000

It seems you didn't read the entire article and all citations. It's not me calling you as "disobedient". "Disobedient" comes from several Bishops and Cardinals. "Heretical" comes from proven orthodoxy theologians. "Approved" comes from Neocatechumenal propaganda (there is no official recognition yet).

Like lots of other Neocatechumenals, you call "anger", "misguided" and even "against the Roman Catholic Church" every non-praising statement about the Way. Funny: this behavior was already described in the article.

We don't need to put in the article our personal opinions and testimonials. Everything in the article is already documented by reliable sources and public documents.

If you "understand and accept Arinze's letter", then you are implicitly admitting that Neocatechumenal Mass was a "disobedient" liturgy until December 1, 2005. If you "understand and accept" Arinze's letter «containing Holy Father decisions», then you are saying that your community Mass has already reverted to standard Catholic Mass, wiping out what Benedict XVI dislikes ("seated", "cloth-covered", etc), you are saying your community is not a "closed door" community but participates to the Holy Mass of the parish community, you are saying that now homily will be reserved to priests and deacons, echoes will be rare and short and outside the Mass, etc.

You say Benedict XVI brought the Way to Bavaria. You are invited to document it (Neocatechumenal slogans are not enough to document it: has Benedict XVI ever written anything about introducing the Way in Bavaria?) But it won't change anything, because Benedict XVI, while encourages members of the Way, also requires them to be like any other Catholic (beginning with Liturgy). Every "blessing" from Benedict XVI includes always words about obedience to liturgical norms, etc.

I don't need to know what does happen in your life and in your community. Surely in Italy the Way is well known for problems and abuses (this is why most of the documents are in Italian; also, Kiko and Carmen and Pezzi letters and speeches are in Italian). On June 3, 2006, talking of the Way, a whining Kiko said to the Pope that Bishops "don't understand that they need" it (his speech is available only in Italian and German). -- Zagor te nay 15:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Some notes for those who fear the truth:

• A book by fr. Gino Conti was wiped out for the second time.
• Another censorship (fr. Pezzi dismissed by Comboni missionaries). Pezzi admitted it in a public interview, whose reference was already in the article. Fr. Pezzi, with Kiko and Carmen, is in the main equipe of the Way; with Kiko and Carmen signs letters to the Pope (cfr. letter of 17 Jan 2006), etc.

  • To Zagor te nay: I trust that you do not know the difference between dismissal (a process of exclusion) and secularization (a voluntary request of leaving the Institute, that must be approved by the Supreme moderator of the Institute and by its council), otherwise I would think that you meant to lie about the secularization of Fr. Mario Pezzi.USeditor 20:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Statute is not an approval. The Statute is a temporary (up to June 2007) guideline. The Statute is an incomplete guideline because it often refers to an unpublished Catechetical Directory (cf. Statute articles 11, 19, 28§2, etc).
• The most famous papal pronouncement about the Way is on a letter to mgr. Cordes on August 1990 (letter addressed to Cordes, not to Kiko), where he says "I acknowledge the Way" but these words are preceded by "having seen the documentation you sent me, welcoming the request address to me".
• The Statute was given by Pontifical Council for the Laity, not by John Paul II. Also, in the days following publication of the Statute, John Paul II did not mention in his Angelus and speeches. His first mention will come months after. Popes can change their mind about the Way.
• Popes can change their mind, if the Way doesn't obey to the Pope. Most recent documents show liturgy issues up to end of 2005.
• There are some serious concerns. Discussions about the Way are about heresies, obedience, liturgy... Only Roman Catholic hierarchy has the right to correct and guide the Way.
• "Factoid" about st. Pius from Pietrelcina is actually documented by fr. Enrico Zoffoli, in a book and public letters to some Italian Cardinals and Bishops. In the worst case, it's realistic that st. Pius, who was confessor for people from lots of countries (including U.S. people from nearest NATO base), knew something about Kiko movement in Madrid between 1964 and 1967.
• The temporary Statute was artificially elevated to highest "We're Approved" Neocatechumenal propaganda.
• Gennarini, the chief of the Way in the U.S., did actually give a "Neocatechumenal spin" interpretation, documented also by Jimmi Akin.
• Kiko, Carmen and Pezzi were thanking for "granting a period of two years", but Benedict XVI decisions about that "widespread manner" were timed «not exceeding two years». That is: Benedict XVI wants to solve quickly the problem, but Kiko, Carmen and Pezzi do not.
• "Note: the echoes were never put in place of the homily, or meant to sound like one": this valuable sentence tries to "explain" in Neocatechumenalspeak the "decision of the Holy Father" to require homily only from deacons and priests.
• On the exchange of peace, permission is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to continue «giving peace as done in the Early Church» - everyone can verify that the original text of Arinze's letter does not contain such words. Why do Neocatechumenals need a distort and falsified citation? Correct text was: «on the exchange of peace, permission is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to continue using the indult already granted, pending further instructions» (please note: indult - that is: special permission - and pending further instructions - that is: the indult is temporary).
• The "NPOV" tag was the last resort of some Neocatechumenal people fearing the truth.

Please stop this ugly "edit war". Wiping out documented sources won't change the facts. -- Zagor te nay 16:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To Zagor te nay: I am ready to stop this edit war unless you try to make a compromise. Please try to rephrase your statements and remove biased wording like "serious", at least in places where you don't cite any sources. For example: you keep bringing back the sentence: "There are anyway some serious concerns about its position in the Catholic Church". It says that concerns are "serious". Who can judge they are serious? Maybe they are "critical", or "minor"? Wouldn't it suffice to tell, that "there are concerns", and leaving judgement of seriousness of these concerns to the reader?

I think you don't have any respect to what other users write. You call your edits as facts, and all other edits as "censorships". Do you think that your content will suffice for this article alone? That no other user is needed to neutralise your opinions? How do you see the cooperation in this article?

Do you think that afer bringing back your version for a hundredth time the so called "censorship" will stop? Do you think that you convince every other contributor to your biased opinions?

I expect cooperation, not accusation of "censorship". Regards. Ghalas 16:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "make a compromise" mean? Statements can be rephrased, but this won't change facts. "Serious concerns": did you ever read Arinze's letter? Is it not a "serious" concern the homily by laity? is it not a "serious" concern the manner of receiving the Holy Communion? is it not a "serious" concern the long letters of Bishops and Cardinals?

How can you judge "not serious" Bishops and Cardinals and Popes?

You do not have respect for anything except praises for the Way. You wipe out documented news, and hate to hear the term "censorship".

This article contains documents and sources. You call those documents "opinions". Is this the standard Neocatechumenal Way method?

So, is your censorship "cooperation"? -- Zagor te nay 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You are very brutal in your attacks. And you are incredibly biased against the Way. I agree with Ghalas and ncwfl -- if you want to open up a cooperative dialogue about the Way that is fine. But if you are going to blatantly post up biased information or your own biases, then why shouldn't somebody delete what you put up there? You clothe yourself as the paragon of morality -- but you are a hypocrite. You do not ever listen to what other users have to say. Or you take their logic and twist it around for your ends. I am sorry, but it is one thing to put forward documented criticism of the Way, it is quite another to shun any and all suggestions. I want you to admit that you are against the Neocatechumenal Way. Admit it, because that is what are you showing. Furthermore, your interpretation of the Arinze letter is selective. My acceptance of the Arinze letter does not call into question the orthodoxy of the Way prior to the letter. My acceptance of the Arinze letter also takes into account the vagueness of the letter. The letter states that the homily is reserved for the priest, and that echoes are occassional. But it also states that the presbyter can make the decision as to whether or not the echoes can be said. Considering that the presbyters are Neocatechumenal Eucharists are primarily priests formed within the Redemptoris Mater seminary, are you really seriously thinking that we are going to have less echoes? That vagueness is in the very text of the Arinze letter. And for your information, yes, my community uses the standard prayers, we were never closed door to anyone (even before the Arinze letter we were not closed door), and we are cooperating with the dictates of the Arinze letter. Your biased anti-Neocatechumenal agenda is not only absurd, but it is the most vile and unchristian behavior that I have seen. You brook no compromise whatsoever. The only way to satisfy you, is for people like me to completely agree with you, and with the judgments and interpretations of certain members of the clergy, and cardinals and bishops. That is not something I will do. And if I have too, I will put my own bona fide testimonies on this article, to counter your slander.

Peace. User: Ladb2000

What does "brutal" mean? Does it mean insertions of documented news? Or does it mean people blatantly censoring documented news from this article?

What does "bias" mean? Does it mean adding a source for every statement? Or does it mean "cut & paste" from official Neocatechumenal propaganda?

-- Zagor te nay 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Examining the Arinze Letter

Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

Prot. 2520/03/L

From Vatican City, December 1, 2005

To the esteemed Mr. Kiko Argüello, Ms. Carmen Hernandez, and Rev. Father Mario Pezzi,

Following the conversations with this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist in the communities of the Neocatechumenal Way, in keeping with the guidelines issued in the meeting with you on November 11 of this year, I am to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions.

Holy Father's decisions.

In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the Neocatechumenal Way shall accept and follow the liturgical books approved by the Church, without omitting or adding anything. Furthermore, in regard to some elements the guidelines and clarifications are emphasized as follows:

Why does Benedict XVI explicitly require that the Way "shall accept and follow liturgical books"? Simple: Neocatechumenals (at least a great part) don't.

"Without omitting or adding anything": well, this means that Benedict XVI knows that Neocatechumenals add and omit things without permission from liturgical books...

1. Sunday is the “Dies Domini” as the Servant of God Pope John Paul II wished to illustrate in the Apostolic Letter on the Lord’s Day. Therefore the Neocatechumenal Way must enter into dialogue with the diocesan bishop in order to make it clear that the community of the Neocatechumenal Way is incorporated into the parish even in the context of the liturgical celebrations. At least one Sunday per month, the communities of the Neocatechumenal Way must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community.

Why does Benedict XVI explicitly require that the way "must enter into dialogue with the diocesan Bishop etc"? Why does he explicitly require "at least one Sunday per month"? Simple. Neocatechumenals (at least a great part) don't "enter into dialogue" (how can one obey to a Bishop without having any "dialogue" with him?)

At least one Sunday per month? This simply means that Neocatechumenals (or at least most of them) simply forgot their parishes (while calling themselves "Roman Catholic"). Using some room of a parish church doesn't mean "participate to parish community".

A. My take -- My community and many others I have seen, already did this before the Arinze letter.

This is good news, but -alas!- the behavior of most Neocatechumenals is the origin of such a letter.

2. As for any admonitions issued before the readings, these must be brief. Adherence must also be shown to what is set out in the “Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani” (nn. 105 and 128) and to the Praenotanda of the “Ordo Lectionum Missae” (nn. 15, 19, 38, 42).

B. My take -- The brevity of admonitions was always emphasized (in my community) before the Arinze letter.

This is good news. Praenotanda says "short" and only in case of "opportunity", and "well-prepared" and again "short", and only "sometimes"... This means that Benedict XVI knows that Neocatechumenals use large and frequent admonitions. A two-minutes reading can't be preceded by a 3+ minutes admonition.

3. The homily, because of its nature and importance, is reserved to the priest or deacon (cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 767 § 1). As for the occasional contribution of testimonies on the part of the lay faithful, the proper places and methods for these are indicated in the Interdicasterial Instruction “Ecclesiae de Mysterio,” which was approved “in specific form” by Pope John Paul II and published on August 15, 1997. In this document, sections 2 and 3 of article 3 read as follows:

Interesting: Benedict XVI is in need to require to Neocatechumenals that "homily is reserved to priest or deacon". This means that most Neocatechumenal communities have homilies by lay faithful.

§2 - “It is permitted to have a brief instruction that helps explain better the liturgy that is being celebrated, and even, in exceptional circumstances, a few testimonies, as long as these conform to the liturgical norms, are offered on the occasion of Eucharistic liturgies celebrated on particular days (for seminarians, the sick, etc.), and are thought truly helpful as an illustration of the regular homily delivered by the celebrating priest. These instructions and testimonies must not assume characteristics that might cause them to be confused with the homily.”

Noticeable: "it is permitted... on particular days". Without "confusing" it with the homily. This means that Neocatechumenals confusion is well-known.

§3 - “The possibility of ‘dialogue’ during the homily (cf. Directorium de Missis cum Pueris, no. 48) can be used occasionally and with prudence by the celebrating minister as a means of exposition, which does not transfer to others the duty of preaching.”

Careful attention must also be paid to the Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” no. 74.

Did you read #74 of Redemptionis Sacramentum? It says: when in need to have echoes, "have them outside the time of the Mass".

C. My take -- The Way (and in my community this was the rule not the exception) has always emphasized that the priest is the ONE who gives the homily. The echoes and admonitions were always supposed to be brief and were never supposed to be homilies. In fact, when people in my community made a mistake the priest called them out and said to them in no uneven terms, that the homily was reserved to him. There task, he said, was to state how the Word affected them. Note also the vagueness of the following line: "can be used occasionally and with prudence by the celebrating minister as a means of exposition, which does not transfer to others the duty of preaching." The prudence of the celebrating minister (considering that the majority of celebrating ministers were formed in Redemptoris Mater seminaries) indicates that echoes and admonitions will not be distubred much by the changes in this letter.

Oh, well. Homily: 10 minutes. Sum of all echoes and admonitions: 50-70 minutes. Could I say "the priest is the ONE who gives the homily"? Surely not. Could I say "will not be disturbed"? Surely not.

4. On the exchange of peace, permission is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to continue using the indult already granted, pending further instructions.

D. My take -- this is a validation of something we were using.

Your take. Continue use an indult (a permission) already granted, but... pending further instructions. This is not a validation: it's only an extension of a temporary permission (by the way, this is the minor problem of Neocatechumenal liturgies).

5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.

This does not need comments. The Way must revert "to the normal way" of the entire Church. Benedict XVI wants it immediately, but conceeds "a period of transition - not exceeding two years". From "abnormal" manner to a "normal" manner: quicker is better.

6. The Neocatechumenal Way must also make use of the other Eucharistic Prayers contained in the missal, and not only Eucharistic Prayer II.

Correcting another abuse. Please note that Eucharistic Prayer II is the shortest one, while the Neocatechumenal Mass is well known to be... the longest one. This means that Neocatechumenals love large liturgies, while reducing time for the most important part of the Mass.

In short, the Neocatechumenal Way, in its celebration of the Holy Mass, should follow the approved liturgical books, keeping in mind what is laid out above under the numbers 1,2,3,4,5, and 6.

Again, "non-approved" Neocatechumenal liturgies must revert to "approved" liturgical books.

Acknowledging the favors that the Lord has bestowed upon the Church through the many activities of the Neocatechumenal Way, I take this occasion to extend to you my best regards.

+ Francis Card. Arinze Prefect

---

Esteemed Mr. ARGÜELLO Kiko, Ms. HERNANDEZ Carmen, Rev. Fr. PEZZI Mario Via dei Gonzaga, 205 ROMA

E. My take -- We are already using those prayers and we will revert to the standard Eucharistic celebration.

User: Ladb2000

My take -- "we will revert": when, why, how? Why not now? Why do you still hate the standard Eucharistic celebration? "Why not now?" -- Zagor te nay 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Zagor, you stated that "Any guilty "suffers" persecution", well my only response to this is, was Jesus Christ guilty when they persecuted him? What about Galileo when he spoke of heliocentricism? And Saint Joan of Arc just to quote a few of the "guilty" persecuted people.

I only meant that "persecution" does not mean "you're right".

• The validity of the criticisms which you bring up, I have spoken with an Admin regarding the matter and they said that geocities is not a valid source for documents; if you wish you can ask them too. Also some of the references posted are completely invalid, not only because of them being hosted on geocities, because once the Holy See gives an official statement upon a certain issue or topic, then what any other theologian says (could be a simple layman or even a cardinal) is futile since the church is the head of all decisions and criticisms.

The validity of the criticisms comes by validity of sources. That is: documents from the Holy See, pronouncements of Bishops, etc. Search Wikipedia for "www.geocities.com", you'll find 16500+ articles linking to geocities: are all those articles "completely invalid"?

• Also a small question why do you think the Holy See gave two years to revert to the normal way of celebrating mass? Why not make it an instant change? Also do you know what an echo is composed of? How about a homily, can you surly say that you know about the abuses present, if any? Bishops and Cardinals are not infallible; they are human to and succumb to their own ideas. And seriously asking “when, why, how” to point E? is it nessecary? it will be switched when a statement from the pope is released, not his lackeys, and when it is not open for interpretation (ie. All bases are covered), you refer to the letter as a stick with which we are beaten, if so it has not hindered the progression and expansion of the Way, everyday there continue to be catechesis that are being given! The Way is expanding the only way it will stop is if the pope proclaim void. And when he does he will have destroyed one of the best things since the Second Vatican Council. There is absolutely nothing you can add to this except that there are "known heresies" and that there is censoring of certain outdated articles and letters written by a bunch of dead or confused people. If there are heresies feel free to name them explicitly here, no sources are necessary unless they seem to be completely ballistic and I can assure you that I will have and official document which will oppose any of your statements.

Maybe they think that an instant change would have encouraged Kiko to create a schismatic sect.

Fr. Zoffoli and other report that the Way contains lots of heretical statements. Read the sources, instead of accusing "biases".

• Regarding Kiko's "whining", how many parishes have full masses (in Italy)? There are parishes in Italy that ten years ago used to have 5 masses all filled with people, and now there is one with the church half empty. This is the reality of the church today if you are unable to see it then you should stop spending you time on foolish internet sites and actually try going to church for once. Even the pope has stated that there is a crisis in the modern church. The article is going to contain wording which differs from the letter but everything is open for interpretation, if you disagree then you should go back to a standard high school English class and pay attention, literature has always been open to interpretation, look at the U.S. Constitution, why are there 8 people in the U.S. supreme court? Because literature evolves, and anything is open to interpretation.

Also a few things which tickled my fancy:

• Bias : a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice;
• Brutal: savage; cruel; inhuman, rude; coarse, harsh; ferocious: brutal criticism; brutal weather;
• Persecution: a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs;

Ncwfl 23:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias: tendency of Neocatechumenals to prejudicially consider any criticism as "brutal persecution".

Brutal: tendency of Neocatechumenals to wipe out every criticism from this article, instead of adding more sources and honestly rephrasing what they don't like.

Persecution: Neocatechumenals have some sort of persecution complex, and say that persecution means "we're right".

-- Zagor te nay 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well actually those definistions were just for my ammusement but if you wish to argue them then it fine with me.

• Bias: Before the insertion of the first sections by RotalAdvocate can you not say that most of the page contained information agaisnt (outlining faults) the Way? Over 70% of the information was against;
• Brutal: you accuse us of brutality, I used to edit sections constantly before resorting to reverting the page, but someone kept changing it back. Whos being more brutal us or you, I dont know;
• Persecution: We claim were persecuted, but if there was something so bad about the Way it would have been stopped before it could expand such as it has;

Ncwfl 22:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Criticisms

The removal is necessary, in order to keep the information presented fair. There is first of all a juridical perspective: the personal opinions of the 11 bishops and 2 priests quoted, contrast, in matters not subject to personal judgment, with the constant, authoritative and final words of the Holy See, and therefore, generate confusion and misunderstanding.
Canon Law requires the Supreme Authority of the Church to define the Catholic character of any association. This websites as it was presented by so called Zagor, undermines the official Vatican position regarding the Neocatechumenal Way; it presents for 80% of its content, personal opinions and critiques, contrary to the official position of the Vatican (that is, I repeat, the only legal authority who has definitory powers), and ingenerate the false idea in the reader that the Neocatechumenal Way, could be a reality not approved, or dangerous or mistaken.
Furthermore, it is philosophically erroneous, in an encyclopedia, trying to define the essence of a reality so wide spread in the Catholic world, through the words of its detractors. If you want to define the Necocatechumenal Way, you must keep only its inward nature and true substance, rejecting what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, and personal. If you want to spread critiques to the Neocatechumenal Way, you are free to do so, but not in a page that must contain its essential definition and only facts relevant to its substance.
You may want to review also the Undue weight rule WP:NPOV#Undue weight USeditor 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is wikipedia. You think that the removel was necessary, and show your opinions about it.

The removal is necessary. This is not an opinion, since your presentation of the Neocatechumenal Way is biased, having “a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology (see Bias in NPOW)”. Unlike you, I quote the Popes, official spokespersons from the Holy See, and documents issued by the Vatican.

First, you shouldn't apply censorship on known sources. You Neocatechumenals should face the truth.

I beg to newly raise the issue of bias against the Neocatechumenal Way here. I do not understand your “you Neocatechumenals” wording, that appears to be dictated by a personal anger and preconceptions. I am a Christian faithful stating official documents of the Vatican and the Popes. You are the one that is discriminating against the Neocatechumenal Way. This cannot be accepted on Wikipedia, and must not be accepted between faithful of the Catholic Church. This discrimination, which appears from your statement, is equally present in all your presentation of the Neocatechumenal Way: I utterly reject it and will fight against it in any possible forum. However, I am very willing and happy to review the “truth” the “Neocatechumenals" “should face”.

The "geocities argument" is quite unfair. What's better: a citation of a document by only date and author, or a citation of a document by date, author and a link to the original text?

It is interesting that it is you who are mentioning the “fairness” issue…. However, we are not dealing in the field of "what's better", but of "what is true". In the Catholic Church, the validity of any statement does not depend on where the statement is found (i.e. internet, geocities, books, interviews, etc.) but on its author. As such, your comments about where the “citation is found” are immaterial, because the original text, may not originate from a such an authoritative source as another. However, the “geocities” websites issue, has not been raised by me. You could create hundred of websites with the same statements, but their validity would always be the same, because it depends on their author: I quote the Popes, the Vatican and the majority of priests and bishops: you quote two priests and 11 bishops.

The "official Vatican position" is contained in its documents, already cited in the article. No "approval" document exists; only a temporary (and incomplete) Statute has been approved by a Pontifical Council; no "Catechetical Directory" has been approved (neither published).

I beg to differ with your statement, that may be attributed to an incomplete knowledge of the issue. You affirm that there are no “approval documents"; this is a lie. I will fight against it in any possible forum. To read the official document of approval of the Neocatechumenal Way issued by the Holy See you may want to follow the link to: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_pc_laity_doc_20020701_cammino-neocatecumenale_en.html

In this document anyone can clearly read that the Neocatechumenal Way has been approved by the Holy See. To furthermore confirm this fact, you may want to read, again, what John Paul II said to the Neocatechumenal Way on September 21, 2002: Our meeting today expresses your joy over the recent approval of the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way by the Holy See. I am glad that this process, which began more than five years ago, has been brought to completion through an intense effort of consultation, reflection and dialogue. I want now to mention in a special way Cardinal James Francis Stafford, to whom I express my gratitude for the commitment and care with which the Pontifical Council for the Laity accompanied the international leadership team of the Way in this process. I would like to emphasize the importance of the recently approved Statutes for the present and future life of the Neocatechumenal Way. Indeed, above all, this norm stresses once again the ecclesial character of the Neocatechumenal Way which, as I said a few years ago, is "an effective means of Catholic formation for society and for the present time" (Papal Letter Ogni qualvolta to Bishop Paul Joseph Cordes, Vice-President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity [today Archbishop and President of the Pontifical Council "Cor Unum"], 30 August 1990; ORE, 7/14 August 2002, p. 4). The Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way also describe the essential aspects of this itinerary, offered to the faithful in their parish communities who want to revive their faith, and to adults who are preparing to receive the sacrament of Baptism. Above all, however, the Statutes establish the fundamental tasks of the various persons responsible for providing this itinerary of formation in the Neocatechumenal communities: the priests, the catechists, the families on mission and the teams responsible at every level. Thus the Statutes must be for the Neocatechumenal Way a "clear and sure rule of life" (Letter to Cardinal James F. Stafford, 5 April 2001, n. 2; ORE, 2 May 2001, p. 5), a fundamental point of reference so that this process of formation, that aims to bring the faithful to a mature faith, may be realized in a way that is in accord with the teaching and discipline of the Church. The approval of the Statutes marks the beginning of a new phase in the life of the Way. The Church now expects of you an even greater and more generous dedication to the new evangelization and to the service of the local Churches and parishes. Therefore, priests and catechists of the Way, you are responsible for ensuring that the Statutes are faithfully put into practice in all their aspects so that they become true leaven for a new missionary zeal. The Statutes are likewise an important help to all the Pastors of the Church, particularly the diocesan Bishops who are entrusted with the pastoral care and especially, the Christian initiation of the people in their diocese "In their fatherly and careful accompaniment of the Neocatechumenal communities" (Decree of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, 29 June 2002; ORE, 31 July 2002, p. 11), the diocesan Ordinaries will be able to find in the Statutes the basic principles for realizing the Neocatechumenal Way in fidelity to its original plan. You may find this information on the “Osservatore Romano – Weekly Edition N. 40 of October 2, 2002, page 5.

You also state that the approval is "ad experimentum”. In order to understand what this means in canonical language, and to understand the position the Holy See has taken on the “ad experimentum” issue, you may want to read what Cardinal Stafford (FYI back then president of the Pontifical Council for Laity) stated in the occasion of the approval of the Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way: Furthermore, the approval of the Statutes has been granted ad experimentum for five years. This commits the Pontifical Council for the Laity not only to fulfill carefully the mandate entrusted by the Supreme Pontiff, but also "to continue accompanying the Way in the future" (cf. John Paul II, Autograph Letter, op. cit., n. 3), and continue the dialogue with the initiators of the Way to discern and verify the application of the Statutes to the practice of the Way. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_pc_laity_doc_20020630_stafford-porto-san-giorgio_en.html

You statement is, therefore deeply biased, and cannot be used as a useful Wikipedia source.

There is also "Arinze's letter" reporting "decisions of the Holy Father".

You may know that the Neocatechumenal Way has welcomed these decisions and is following them (if necessary, I can provide the link).

You can't sustain your opinions by adding other opinions. You can't name "contrast" the difference betweeen encouragements and official documents. It's also unfair to "count" the cited pronouncements (11+2) as if they were the only existing in the world.

Are you accusing me of being unfair? I utterly reject this preposterous accusation! I am not talking about "encouragements”. I am trying to raise this wikipedia issue to a level that may conform to the standards dictated by intellectual decency, good sense and obedience to the Church! During 40 years of existence of the Neocatechumenal Way the Supreme Authority of the Church has always supported this experience – if you contest this fact, I can prove you the contrary – and only in extremely rare cases local bishops (i.e. Clifton in England) have closed their doors to this new reality. The fact that some Italian bishops (as quoted by you) have written letters or issued decrees to regulate the Neocatechumenal Way in their diocese, is within their canonical right and power, and as far as I know, the NC communities have always abided by their decisions.

Your method against criticisms could be used against the Way. No Bishop ever wrote "the Way does not contain heretical positions".

I am appalled by this accusation. You perhaps do not know that there is a Vatican congregation (Doctrine of the Faith) that is exactly in charge of defend those points of Christian doctrine and tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines. For your information, this Congregation is now led by His eminence Cardinal William Joseph Levada, but before him it was led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). In all these years, Cardinal Ratzinger reviewed more than once the catechesis given in the Neocatechumenal Way (if necessary, I can provide the link….) and never issued any note, decree, or other document against it. It is the task of the local bishops to protect the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed. The definition of the faith however, is demanded to the Holy See. You are right in saying that “no Bishop ever wrote "the Way does not contain heretical positions", because it does not!

No approval document exists yet.

Please, do not make me repeat what I said before!!!

And your praising the Way should be considered "prejudicial" as well.

I am not praising the Neocatechumenal Way. Unlike you I am thoroughly objective in my presentation. I am stating the official documents of the Church, i.e. Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI and the Vatican Congregation. I am neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to it, because I report the official position issued in public documents by the Holy See, and by the agencies controlling this new reality. You are trying to present with an undue weight, a peripheral, personal and minoritarian point of view, that has been by the highest authority of the Church rejected as false. You are trying to give it the appearance of a valid presentation of this reality when it is in clear contrast with the authority in the Church.

Please note that the article does not contain "anti-Catholic" sources (like lots of other Catholic-related articles in wikipedia).

How does this affect the argument I am trying to present? It would not give you any more credibility to add anti-catholic sources to your campaign against the Neocatechumenal Way.

Deletion of sources from a wikipedia article won't change the facts. Instead of deleting what you don't like, you shuld add some consistent document and wikify and explain terms.

What we are dealing with, is not a matter of deleting what you do not like. It’s a matter of being faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. I am bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church. The Popes have declared the validity of the Neocatechumenal Way clearly since many years, and the Holy See is constantly accompanying the Neocatechumenal Way in the future, to promote the New Evangelization. Any contrary statement being false, will be constantly challenged, and its presentation as a valid statement modified accordingly.

-- Zagor te nay 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

USeditor 18:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

NO! Date and author would not be enough, ISBN number would be requested as well (though ISBN is not required but looks good) and a page number, not only that, but it is extremely advisable to actually write where the information is taken from (ie. copy it word for word onto a reference section). And regarding a statue there is something that you must understand, When the Statues were Approved by JPII it was written that it was an experiment, meaning that those were the official statues and that no bishop or anyone else but the pope could change anything regarding the Way. In order for it to grow by it self without much interference, much like a science project regarding studying the effects of a Magnesium strip placed into Hydrochloric Acid. That is the meaning of the 5 experimental years. It is important to know how to read documents from the Vatican. And yes the vaticans opinion is present in ITS documents and the Vatican does not place them on Geocities.

Ncwfl 23:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So your "anti-geocities war" means that a reader can verify a book printed in Italy more easily than a link? How does one understand that your hysteric statement means "correct method" instead of "defend at any cost Neocatechumenal Way" ? Did you already start wiping out geocities links from the 16560+ English wikipedia articles containing at least one? -- Zagor te nay 12:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Does the fact that geocities.com is cited in 16560 / 1499693 = 1.1% of articles on Wikipedia make this source verifiable? Another question: how many of these 1.1% are featured articles? The definition of verifiable source is at Wikipedia:Verifiability. It states that no user homepage is a valid source for Wikipedia: "...self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Why would geocities not fall into this "largely not acceptable" group of sources? Regards. Ghalas 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

An Invitation

I agree with Ncwfl, USeditor, and Ghalas. You do not seem to be very open to any possibility that the Way is good or that it may not actually be heretical. Relying on the opinions of theologians and bishops alone does not plainly make the Neocatechumenal Way heretical...you are citing opinions. I have repeated this again and again but you do not seem to listen.

But again Zagor te nay, I will ask you a series of questions you have avoided answering...

Have you ever been to a catechesis?

Have you ever attended a Eucharist?

Have you ever attended a Word Celebration?

Have you ever attended a a Convivance?

Have you ever been to a Redemptoris Mater seminary?

Please answer. Because if you have been to these, then perhaps I might be able to discuss with you the criticisms. My own feeling seems to be that you have never gone to any of these events. User: Ladb2000

My personal experience is not a source for wikipedia.

But if it was, I could largely explain how many heretical statements there were in the catechesis I've been, how many liturgical abuses I saw in different Neocatechumenal Masses and Word Celebrations, how many times catechists and neocaths accused "misunderstandings" and "bias", and how dangerous are those low-quality seminar students going to and coming from R.M. seminaries. Maybe Italy and Austria are not interesting for you. In this article I only wrote what is publicly verifiable. -- Zagor te nay 12:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Zagor=0 NCW=1 Please procede this is bound to be interesting Ncwfl 15:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

D'oh... was it a typo? maybe you wanted to score Zagor:1, NCW:0. -- Zagor te nay 13:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well actually it was meant as a joke to the wonderful response you gave to the Invitation, so you possibly couldn’t be awarded a point for such a simplistic response. Also due to the fact that you have failed to give any response to USeditors response to the belief of the need of removing the information, also which I should add is a beautiful response and to find a superior argument to his it would have to come directly from god.

the neocatechumenal way and the need of adult christian formation in the roman catholic church.

THE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY

THE PEACE OF CHRIST AND THE LOVE OF GOD AND THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE HOLY SPIRIT BE WITH YOU!

The NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY IS A NECESSITY IN OUR CHURCH and it HAS brought MANY PEOPLE BACK to the church and i have seen many great things in the way and I can say that it has come DIRECTLY FROM GOD , FROM JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD: THE LORD HAS CALLED US TO LIVE A WAY OF CONVERSION , THROUGH WHICH WE ARE COMING TO DISCOVER THE IMMENSE RICHES OF OUR FAITH IN A POST-BAPTISMAL CATECHUMENATE. DURING THIS CATECHUMENATE , GRADUALLY, STAGE BY STAGE ,STEP BY STEP, WE ARE DESCENDING TO THE WATERS OF ETERNAL REGENERATION, SO THAT THE BAPTISM THE CHURCH HAS CONFERRED ON US IN THE PAST , MAY BY OUR ADHEREENCE TO IT , A SACRAMENT OF SALVATION , GOOD NEWS FOR ALL MEN.

I AM A DREADFULL SINNER AND MAY THE LORD HAVE MERCY ON ME ,AND HERE I MAKE MY POINT WE ARE ALL DREADFULL SINNERS AND NEED CONSTANT FORGIVENESS.

BUT NEVERTHELESS , NO MATTER WHAT RELIGION WE ARE OR WHAT SINS WE'VE COMMITED, THE LORD LOVES US ALL EQUALLY.

PEACE

Removal of Tags

I went ahead and removed the tags from the top of the page seeing as now the site quotes official documnets, if you wish to add them again the please leave a message giving a reason for doing so. Thanks,

Ncwfl 03:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal - New Definition of Neocatechumenal Way and Archiving of discussion.

• I propose to present a new definition of the Neocatechumenal Way in place of the paragraph "Kiko Argüello and the Formation of the Neocatechumenal Way" that may follow its definition according to public authoritative documents and not personal opinions. The Pontifical Council for Laity in its decree of approval of the Statute, condensate very well the beginning of the Neocatechumenal Way with these words that I propose to use, substituting the first five paragraph of the present text:

The Neocatechumenal Way began in 1964 among the slum dwellers of Palomeras Altas, in Madrid, through the work of Mr Francisco (Kiko) Argüello and Miss Carmen Hernández, who, at the request of those same poor people among whom they were living, began to announce to them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. With the passage of time, this kerygma was made concrete in a catechetical synthesis, based on the tripod Word of God-Liturgy-Community, which seeks to lead people to fraternal communion and to a mature faith. This new catechetical experience, born in the wake of the renewal brought about by the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, was received with lively interest by the then Archbishop of Madrid, his Excellence Mons. Casimiro Morcillo, who encouraged the initiators of the Way to spread it to the parishes which may request it. This experience of evangelization thus spread gradually throughout the archdiocese of Madrid and other Spanish dioceses. In 1968, the initiators of the Neocatechumenal Way came to Rome and went to live in the Borghetto Latino. With the permission of His Eminence Cardinal Angelo Dell’Aqua, the then Vicar General of His Holiness for the City of Rome and District, they began the first catechesis in the parish of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament and the Holy Canadian Martyrs. Since that date the Way has spread to dioceses throughout the world and even to mission countries. If you concur with this text, please let me know.

• Also, I propose to archive the old discussions.

Thanks. USeditor 22:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me do as you wish! Ncwfl 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. For me also ok. Ghalas 12:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will proceed.USeditor 13:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal - New Definition of Nature and Mission of the Neocatechumenal Way.

I propose to change this paragraph as follows:

The Neocatechumenal Way is at the service of the bishops and pastors as an itinerary for the rediscovery of Baptism and an ongoing education in the faith, offered to the faithful who want to rediscover and relive in their lives the riches of Christian initiation by participating in this process of conversion and catechesis. As the Holy Father wrote, in this process an important help can be offered by "a post-baptismal catechesis in the form of the catechumenate by presenting again some elements from the "Rite of the Christian Initiation of Adults' with the purpose of allowing a person to grasp and live the immense and extraordinary richness and responsibility of the Baptism he has received" (Christifideles laici, n. 61).

The Neocatechumenal Way - whose itinerary is lived in parishes and in small communities made up of people of different ages and social conditions - has the ultimate goal of gradually bringing the faithful to intimacy with Jesus Christ, making them active subjects of the Church and credible witnesses of the Good News of our Saviour everywhere. The Neocatechumenal Way is also an instrument for the Christian initiation of adults who are preparing themselves to receive Baptism. USeditor 13:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Notes" on Vatican Document

It's hardly necessary to comment on such unfundamented ways the Vatican resolution issued by Cardinal Arinze. If you want to give some further considerations on the topic, do so based on actual reliable sources in a orderly fashion, not on some loose "notes" after the statements at hand.

The expressions of love and spiritual connection with the Way, although beautiful or interesting should not be present in a talk page whose sole purpose is debating the facts. Neither should the opposite feelings.

Based on this, and on prior discussion not yet resolved on this talk page (like the actual adulteration of terms in the letter), i'm putting the NPOV tag back on.

(Antonius Block 14:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC))

Neocatechumenal Propaganda

• Description of the Way contains too much POV and seems a "Copy-and-Paste" from official Neocatechumenal slogans.
  • Interesting; according to the so called zagor_te_nay the documents issued by the Vatican (i.e. the Pontifical council for Laity) are "official neocatechumenal slogans". USeditor 05:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• "Literature" section contains an excessive amount of unimportant documents and books. As for other sections of this article, it seems a Copy-and-Paste of some Spanish-language listing.
  • It seems to me that in the presented list there are some books that are not so pertinent; however, I do not understand why if it would be allowed to quote the publication of the two Italian priests that expressed concerns against the Noecatechumenal Way, would not be allowed to present many Spanish priests who wrote favorably.... USeditor 05:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Added again the "critiques" sections and documents. Some people working on this article seem not to like the truth. Expect some censorship and rollback.

-- Zagor te nay 15:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all before you claim Neocatechumenal Propaganda you should try and respond to the response by Useditor since you seem to not have any response to his superbly crafted response, in which he states official documents from the Vatican and you seem to come up empty in front of his response which has been posted over 10 days ago. The list of books may seem to be derived from a Spanish resource but they serve to prove a point, that the number of books which approve and support the Neocatechumenal Way are much greater in number than the ones that oppose it. Also I invite you to outline every point which you believe have POV in the current article and I will show you the parts in the documents you wish to insert which contain a much stronger and clear POV. And as useditor stated I am neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to it, because I report the official position issued in public documents by the Holy See, and by the agencies controlling this new reality. You are trying to present with an undue weight, a peripheral, personal and minoritarian point of view, that has been by the highest authority of the Church rejected as false. You are trying to give it the appearance of a valid presentation of this reality when it is in clear contrast with the authority in the Church.. Now please go work on an adequate response to Useditors response to yours.

A small note I agree with the archiving of the Talk page to its current length making it much easier to read.

Continuing with our vocabulary list

Truth: conformity with fact or reality; verity. Ncwfl 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neocatechumenal Liturgy and Vatican Letter

I removed the comments on the homily and "echoes". I believe that the letter should be inserted in a larger section of the article, on the subject of Neocatechumenal Liturgy, which is the main cause of controversy regarding it's practices, and where the definitions of "echoes" and such analogous terms could be given from the Neocatechumenal Way perspective, in order that the laity not connected to it could understand the subject at hand.

(Antonius Block 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

Neocatechumenal Way

We still need to do some more work on this article folks. And I think we need to expand it a little more.

Ladb2000

• Is there anything you had in mind?

Ncwfl

We need to really explain what the Neocatechumenal Way is all about as objectively as possible (I know it's hard to do, but we need to do that). I agree with 99.9% of the removals because to be perfectly honest--that wasn't even close to being objective criticism. Some of it was just plain wrong. We don't negate Catholic dogma--the reality is--we are Roman Catholics, nothing less and nothing more. I do not doubt the faith of Father Zoffoli or, for that matter, of any other critics of the Neocatechumenal Way. What I do question is their interpretation. I do not know why (or where) they came up with a lot of the critiques they came up with. There is really no substance to 99% of what they say.

In terms of what we should potentially add, here are some ideas. We need to put some more stuff about how the Way has touched people's lives and how it draws upon the traditions of the "primitive Church" (early Christian Church). And I think we need to stream-line the arrticle, and I really think we also have to put up the Arinze letter in total. It speaks for itself, what it changes isn't really massive, and what it changes is also vague (a lot of leeway is left to the priest). The article is fine as it is right now--but these are some modifcations that we might want to keep in mind.

Ladb2000