Talk:Neocatechumenal Way/Archive 3
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. |
This is an archive page (October 2007-April 2008).
You can go back to current Talk Page
Contents |
Language/irrelevant material
This article is currently in a sort of pidgin English, and seems to go off on a tangent in quite a few places. I've edited the article up to the Leadership section, cutting out the filler and redacting what's left with material from the statute. I will carry on with some more when I get a chance.
SG
Limiting the Recent developments section
I was wondering if anyone think it would be appropriate to limit this section to a year, perhaps a year and a half. Any thoughts?
Also this would not include the the official statements from the vatican, those are relatively few compared to the other. Ncwfl 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the recent developments section should be left the way it is for now. Perhaps changing it or making it briefer later on would suffice. But I feel it is important to inform readers about recent developments and where they were quoted from (to avoid the classic Modwenna comment about bermuda triangles and such...) Jdegi —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have re-worded, re-structured and corrected (due to spelling mistakes etc) the recently added paragraph in the criticism section. Jdegi 14:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Jdegi
Actually, I have decided to remove the new paragraph altogether, for it has NOTHING to do with criticism, rather it's a development and Cardinal Arinze did not criticise the Neocatechumenal way in any way...
Jdegi 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Jdegi
I have re-worded the part titled "challanges.... As a matter of fact that section contains criticisms expressed towards the Neocathecumenal way from inside the Church. I have inserted back the letter of Cardinal Arinze. This letter contains a set of requirements issued to the leadership and the followers of the Neocatechumenal way which they have to stricly comply with in a two years time (expiring in Dec. 2007) If not a criticism this is surely a challenge. Mynollo
That letter by Arinze is definitely not a challenge, the Roman Catholic Church did not challenge the Neo. It's a recent development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdegi (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well Joedgi your defition of challenge is confused. If in a letter like the one the pope sent to the Neocatechumenal leadeship (via cardinal Arinze), requests of corrections in the lithurgy are made, either that is a criticism or a challenge. Since a deadline is given to comply that can be seen as a challenge don't you think? Anyway call it as you want surely is the proof that some things have to be corrected...
Mynollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.13 (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, you're entitled to your own opinion. Cheers! --Jdegi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.198.248 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Archive
I have gone ahead and archived the page leaving the most current issues visible. Ncwfl 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow NCwfl, welcome back!! Jdegi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdegi (talk • contribs) 13:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Recent Developments
February 2008: Statutes approved [citation needed] as ad eternum?
In February 2008 the statutes were officially approved [citation needed] as ad eternum (Latin words meaning something like "for eternity"). -- This was posted by 81.84.64.141 (Portugal?). This will force a cleanup if a proper reference is found. --Gallitzin (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Propaganda concern
I have just made a correction about the Statutes. I want to bring this to the attention of the administrators as an example of some users using wikipedia as propaganda tool spreading false pieces of news. About the Statutes it is known that the five years period ad experimentum has expired in June. No official statement by the Church has been made so far about their extension or whatever else. Yet Jdegi had added the note that Kiko Arguello said they had been approved, trying to pass that off as an official final approval. That is simply FALSE!! No official statement has been made so far by the Church, yet this biased user insists in using wikipedia as his/her little tool of propaganda.
Mynollo
Mynollo, we'll all remember your words in a few weeks time. Yes, KIko Arguello has proclaimed that the Pope has given his approval, you'll hear about it very soon. Do not make the ignorant mistake of passing all my work off as propaganda. WHy did you undo the newly added information about the communities in the Middle East? This is vandalism. Keep off the page if you can't help vandalising it, thank you very much. 80.77.201.235 (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Jdegi
If you have a reason for removing the neocatechumenal way statistics in the middle east, as you have so far done twice, please discuss it here. Thank you 80.77.201.235 (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Jdegi
Kiko Arguello has been saying the same thing about the approval for the past 5 months and yet no official statement by the Church and the Pope has yet been made. Kiko Arguello is not the Pope (maybe you would like him to be) so his word has no official value my friend. To pass it off as such is an example of dishonest information, period. Don't even try to accuse me of vandalism. I didn't touch any part relative to the statistics of the NC (even though I am very skeptical of numbers given by the organizers as the Loreto meeting case teaches us). And when I make any change is always based on properly cited reliable sources.
Oh yes you have touched the statistics, it's on the history page that you've done it. You undid them for no apparent reason. And about the approval, so you're reaady to give heed to korazym, and not to what Kiko arguello says. You're biased man. If Kiko said that they're going to be approved, then it should well be on the page. Don't undo it simply coz you don't believe the announcment. It has been made, so it has to be written. 80.77.201.235 (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Jdegi
Oh then I have done it by mistake. I remember now, I was looking at history to see the changes I had done, I apologize, not totally familiar with the wikipedia tools yet. ( By the way I hadn't even read that part you mention)
And as far as regards the approval I believe wikipedia should report only official statments. On this matter no official statment has been made, I am not following Korazym I am following the Vatican Organs and media. Kiko Arguello has been talking about this approval for the past 5 months in all internal meetings of his movement. But official organs of the Church have not made any pronounciation yet. So as you can see it is of no value what Kiko says, he cannot approve himself, he is not he Pope. If he wants to do so, he should leave the Catholic Church and found his own Kikian Church dont' you think? By the way, enough with these petty arguments. Wikipedia has to provide correct and honest information. About the approval, only official statements should be reported, "rumors" do not qualify as such. I believe that any administrator if he/she had time to intervene, would acknowledge this simple common sense argument.
Kiko won't leave the catholic church to found his own kikian church as you so obviously wish he would. And ok I agree only official announcements should be written down. Then that includes 3,200 neocatechumenal way youth who answer the calling; it's official. Listen mynollo, while undoing the 3200 neocatechumenal way meeting thing, you're also undoing other work such as the statistics for the middle east in the statistics page. Kindly do not undo these again. Undo just the part of the neocatechumenal way meeting you don't agree with, not all the work done in several parts of the article!! Don't worry if you did it by mistake, these are things that happen. careful now... 80.77.201.235 (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)jdegi
I've removed the sentence that says that Kiko announced the approval of the statutes, since it's not YET official. It will be soon though. But anyway I've removed it. I think that the 3,200 neocatechumenal youth is after all official, it was announced by the organizers, whereas the korazym thing is an opinion. So it should stay, please let's discuss it here instead of undoing it and re doing it non stop.
80.77.201.235 (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Jdegi
Ok, let's reach a compromise. 3,200 remains in the title, but Korazym remains in the body. I would trust more Korazym on this, since, though supporting the Neocatechumenal way still keeps some independence and doesn't go with the organizers who of course are highly tempted by propaganda. Mynollo
Compromise reached :o) I'm happy we were able to reach it finally. Take care Bodo Gelbe; auf widerschen! 80.77.201.235 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Jdegi
I have deleted the other two sources you added for two reasons 1) all these other sources just report the numbers as given by the organizers, so they don't add new information. 2) adding a too long list of sources was making the text sound a little ridicolous.....
External Links
I think the list of links should contain also some important website of critics of the Neocatechumenal Way. As also mentioned in the text there are criticisms inside the Church about this movement and they should be properly referenced in the links. Of course there is some biased user who doesn't like to show these links because would like wikipedia to be its little tool of propaganda and keeps deleting them. I am trying hard to have a discussion on reasonable terms but seems a though task. Anyway I added the link and would like somebody to intervene and LOCK the list of links. Is there a way to avoid wikipedia being used as propaganda tool?? Mynollo
I just don't understand why first you add a link and then you want to lock it. I happen to realise that you always add negative material, including that link. Who's propaganda tool is it now? I don't see it at all a reasonable discussion if you first add, then expect the thing to be locked. I have changed the name of the link, because after checking the site, I realised it's not run by catholic priests. Enrico Zoffoli is dead, The Sunday times is the main paper of the UK, a protestant country with clearly anti-catholic views, the third link in the site is by an italian engineer. the fourth link IS NOT EVEN SIGNED. and the fifth link is also by the italian engineer. This is not balanced, and it is certainly biased mynollo!! I'll have to change the name, since it is DEFINITELY not run by catholic priests.
--Jdegi
Actually, what the page says is this: Questo sito è nato per l’impegno di un gruppo di sacerdoti, religiosi e laici that doesn't mean just italian catholic priests. Who's playing the innocent now? --Jdegi
Dear Jdegi you are misinformed that website is run by italian priests. That's just the english part of site. The rest, in italian contains all articles and comment by those italian priests (I guess you speak some italian, you can go to the homepage and check yourself) And don't play innocent here. The reason I want to lock it is because you have always removed it so far.
I don't like your tone. Besides, I thought we had agreed on the 3200 thing, so why did you change it AGAIN on the world youth day page? You want to lock it because you want your edits to stay. Fine, im not against that, but do discuss it here first. Now, im going to write that "according to the organizers, 3200 answered the call..." I'm trying to act by the compromise, so please respect what we've agreed upon. Thanks, --Jdegi
We agreed about the 3200 in the title, that is still there I believe, the korazym source has to be in the text as agreed. I respect my pacts as such.
Mynollo
I said on the world youth day section. By the way, check this out; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:193.175.8.13 that's an answer to your accusation that I removed the link you put up. as it transpires, your link is not allowed! I request that from now on, you stop using disdainful language when talking to me. I have proved time and again that I'm trying to discuss things, whereas you accuse me of playing innocent, saying that im removing your links. --Jdegi
I have checked the history and even if I am not totally familiar with it yet, it says that before your intervention the link was there (at 17:27 )after your intervention at 17.37 was not there anymore. Haven't I caught you redhanded here?... Mynollo
no actually you haven't. this is the same as when you "vandalised" the statistics claiming you didnt do it then realising that you did. I have provided you now with a link that shows you clearly who changed your site and that it's not allowed, YET you still insist it's me. come on mynollo, don't you think you're taking this to a personal level? --jdegi
Listen Jdegi I have proof you are clearly not telling the truth. Go to the history (I even have saved it on my hard disk to keep proof). At 17:27 the link I put was there, after your intervention at 17:37 was not there anymore. What you are talking about happened way before that time. So I can say I have proof that you are clearly lying now. On the contrary for the statistics thing that you mention, I already apologized for that, don't you remember? As I told you I am not familiar yet with the history, and I probably did it by clicking by mistake on the undo link in the history page (actually I just was looking for the previous stored versions of the wikipedia page, which now I have understood how to access.) The reason I told you I knew nothing about it , is because I hadn't realized I had done it and also because I am not interested in that part of the wiki page which I have not even read. When you explained it to me I realized how it could have happened. By the way I am not interested in the statistics part of the page (there is no external check on those, so one is forced to go with the numbers given by the organizers)
And you did it again! Very well done Jdegi, it's there clear in the history now. Now we know for sure that you (but I showed you proof before) that you dont tell the truth. How can we trust your contributions to wikipedia? Mynollo
well since you were clearly told by moderators that the link shouldn't be there, i thought it should be removed, however you did it again. ah well i'm sick and tired of squabbling. you can have the last word, it won't make a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.200.151 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Current Issues
There seem to be two strong issues currently.
The first is the issue with the 3,200 which are said to have stood up during the Loreto meeting with Kiko the day after the pope. Currently the main issue lies between contrasting sources mainly with Korazym supporting the belief that the numbers are inflated rather than being true figures. Many others any I have pointed out various sources which indicate that is was approx. 3,200 (figure in rounding giving it an error factor of around 50), the first of these is personal experience, I and many others were present at the meeting and know what was said, if personal experience doesn’t suffice (and in this case it seems to have not) there are also another 2 sources the first is Radio Vaticana http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/it1/Articolo.asp?c=152952 and Zenithttp://www.zenit.org/article-20409?l=english both with to myself and thousands of others appear as indisputable sources. Due to the previous agreement made above I will not be editing the section of those 2 particular details, I do however have the intention of revamping that entire section into a more Wikipedia style section.
The second issue is of the geocities page. The main reason it should not be on the page is that first of all it is an extremely unreliable source. I am perfectly fluent in Italian so I understand completely what is said and furthermore it is a self published page thus violating WP:SPS, resulting in numerous warnings from administrators and other Wikipedia users must assist in enforcing decisions made by the hierarchy. Ncwfl (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is simply your opinion which counts as anyone's else. I am italian and i can tell you that website is run by important and well known italian priests who have also published many books about the Neocatechumenal way (NC) , some of them quoted in the Literature section. It is also the italian website with highest google hits under "cammino neocatecumenale" search (after the official NC site). It is very likely that you are a member of NC using wikipedia for you little propaganda crusade. We are here to re-estabilish a more balanced and truthful information. Most of the information as the numbers you mention have a unique source, the organizers and leaders of the NC ( prone to propaganda) and since this organization is very closed to any external scrutiny any other independent and reliable source is very much needed to have a "closer to te truth"-picture of the NC.
Arguments like "I was there" let me tell you are ridicolous. One has to go with reliable sources, one has Zenit (and others) who simply repeat the figures given by the organizers and Korazym, which by the way supports the NC (read the article) which reports differently doing estimates "on the field". Both sources have to be shown for a principle of honest information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.13 (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Mynollo
By the way the current form of the loreto meeting session after your intervention can be endorsed. Mynollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.13 (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Claiming propaganda is an old dagger that has become dull, and its only purpose serves to insult the receiver and that rarely works.
- In regards to the geocities page, I attempted to be as neutral as possible in my argument stating solely what is said from Wikipedia. The unreliability of the website is based on the fact it is a self published web page and by the guidelines issued by wikipedia it is automatically deemed as unreliable. This being said even if there were a page that supported the way (such as the page accompanying the geocities one) I would remove it leaving only the pages that have a traceable and accurate source (IE the Vatican and the official page).
- Just as you said, I agree in saying that personal experiences do not count thus announcing the 2 sources. Radio Vaticana and Zenit are both extremely prominent and well-known new organizations thus the information given, is in fact relatively accurate.
- On a small note, please don't forget to sign in with your user name and sign when you post on the talk page, it simplifies things a great deal. Thank You.
I know it is a geocities page, but as I told you is very reliable, since it is run by catholic priests authors of important (not self-published) books and publications about the Neocatechumenal way (even quoted in the literature section of this page). So I think that it is very appropriate to show this link and in this case an exception can be made. I think wikipedia criteria are just general guidelines to avoid interventions by occasional users for advertising, spamming etc. So "cum grano salis" I think that this website (the one with highest google hits on "cammino neocatecumenale" search) is entitled to be linked here.
Mynollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynollo (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
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 bishops and 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 Mynollo, 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 Ncwfl (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree on your last statement, following your reasoning wikipedia should not report criticisms well supported by documentations. So Escriva biography should be simply an hagiography and not report any criticism or controversy?. Criticisms must be there and controversy as well, of course we are talking about well documented criticisms. People who read wikipedia need to have a full picture of the NC way, and on basis of a complete information form their opinion. It is not you who decides what is accidental, illusory or personal. We are talking about theologians reporting their analysis of NC teachings and catechesis. I am sure everybody would like to read also their side of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynollo (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Alleged Heresies in the Neocatechumenal Way
Thesis here are taken from Kiko and Carmen "catechesis documents" with the page numbers in brackets.
"The overwhelming majority of the Neocatechumenals do not seem to be aware of these errors and draw from the Way only the good purged of the dross of evident and serious dogmatic aberrations" - Father Enrico Zoffoli[1]
Rejection of mass as sacrifice (the Church, at the altar, does not offer to God any Victim)
According to Kiko, "the sacrificial and priestly ideas" would be in fact derived from paganism (p. 322); "the idea of sacrifice" would mean "going back to the Old Testament"
Carmen is convinced that "the sacrificial ideas, that Israel had had and had elevated, reintroduced themselves in the Christian Eucharist" (p. 333).[2]
Sin is not an offense of God
he claims that man cannot "steal from God his glory..."; he "cannot hurt God (...), because in that case God would be vulnerable and would not be God..." (p.182)
Man can't avoid evil
"man cannot but do good because he is separated from God, because he has sinned and has remained radically powerless and incapable, to the mercy of demons. He has remained a slave of the Evil one. The Evil one is his lord. For this it useless to give advice, or to give a demanding sermon. Man cannot do good (...). You cannot obey the law; the law tells you to love, to resist evil, but you cannot: you do what the Evil one wants." (p. 130. See p. 135).[3]
Jesus Christ is not at all an ideal of life
"Jesus Christ is not at all an ideal of life. Jesus Christ did not come to give us an example or to teach us to fulfil the law" (p. 125).[4]
No priests needed (everyone is a priest)
"We do not even have priests in the sense of persons who are separate from all because in our name they get in contact with the divinity. Because our priest, he who intercedes for us, is Christ. Moreover, since we are His Body, we are all priests. ... In the New Testament, the word "priest" is not used except in reference to Christ; instead it speaks of ministers and presbyters..." (p. 56s). [5]
I suggest that this should not be deleted, if deleted I suggest to start a new article called "Criticism of Neocatechumenal Way", there is a lot of criticism of Neocatechumenal Way, they are accused of being
- sect
- brainwashing people
- heresies
This allegations have to be addressed, If not here I suggest new article to be created. Kiko cathecism is nothing to do with cathecism of catholic church.
Long?
I guess it's just me, but it seems a long way to tell that 100,000 youth get together every year. Pledge to go to church on Sunday or somehow follow one or more church rules. Lots of statutes to accomplish this. Whew. Student7 (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well it's not that they gather every year, just that this year there happened to be around 100,000 youth at the meeting with Kiko in Loreto. This doesn't happen every year, it was in special occasion of the meeting with the pope in loreto. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the second part, any chance for some clarification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncwfl (talk • contribs) 06:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
German Reference
The website that was cited is: http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/TED/Articolo.asp?c=198318
I am not sure if anybody bothered to translate the actual German from the website before citing it as a source. The crucial segment of the paragraph (which refers and quotes Bishop Clemens) says the following:
Bishop Josef Clemens, secretary of the Pontifical Council of the Laity, expects the definitive recognition of the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way "in a short time".
I think the citation regarding approval of the statutes should be changed accordingly to reflect what Bishop Clemens was actually quoted as saying. User ChristeVita
Balance of Opinion
Is there anyway for their to be a balanced opinion in this article? I agree wholeheartedly that this article needs cleaning up, but they way it reads right now, is too give a negative perspective on the Way. There are whole sections that cite as their sources "rumors" and my earlier correction of the statement made by Bishop Josef Clemens (the Secretary of the Pontifical Council of the Laity) has been completed eliminated from the text.
The Neocatechumenal Way has done much good throughout the world and within the Roman Catholic Church. I find it disturbing that this article is constantly a battleground between those who vehemently oppose the Way and those who passionately support it. If the ideal is neutrality, then that has to be a standard that is followed uniformly. All I see in the article in its current form is an incredibly biased piece of anti-Neocatechumenal Way propaganda. And as it stands this article in unacceptable. Furthermore, the headings of each section imply a negative connotation (i.e. The Statutes: A Partial Approval or Liturgy Problems).
For the record, it is my understanding that the Neocatechumenal Way (and particularly the Statutes) have already been approved. What is not on record is the official approval ceremony. But as I understand it, with certain crucial modifications, the Neocatechumenal Way (and its Statutes) have been approved. The validity of this is bolstered by Bishop Josef Clemens' statements to the effect that he feels the Way will be officially recognized in 'a short time'.
The Letter to the Neocatechumenal Communities by Francis Cardinal Arinze is also being mischaracterized by labeling it under the rubric of "Liturgy Problems." These are issues that must be resolved, and all people who contribute to this article must respectfully find a way to create an article that does not disparage the good the Way has done and that does not base itself on rumors and slander.
User ChristeVita
Thank you very much Ncwfl. The article looks much better. ChristeVita —Preceding comment was added at 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Note on Sources
I have noticed that several sources are not being translated before they are cited. The Italian source (used to bolster the claim that Josef Clemens is opposed to the Way) actually affirms his belief that he expects the Statutes to be approved shortly. The remainder of that article is an unapologetically biased diatribe against the Way. These sources must 1) be translated before they are cited and 2)if they are cited they must acknowledge their explicit bias against the Way rather than passing it off as the opinions of the Church, Bishops, or Theologians.
ChristeVita —Preceding comment comment added at 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Concerning new section and reverting
You cannot submit extremely large sections without giving a chance for others to explore and correct any mistakes they find. If you notice, my edits did not consist of reverting it back to the phase where my last edit left it, but I explored the changes made to the previous sections and found them completely inappropriate and slanderous. Under no definition would it apply as vandalism. I have always attempted to seem neutral in my presentation of "The Way" agreeing on many things in order to balance the POV of the article.
Ncwfl (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
|
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. |
