Thursday, February 13, 2014


At the center of the whole neo controversy is "the document", or, in this case, the lack of one. The "document" in question is permission from the Magisterium for the NCW to distribute and receive holy communion different than what is required by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). 

The only difference officially allowed is for the neo communicants to remain in their place to receive holy communion rather than process towards the minister as the rest of us do. This is allowed in Art. 13 of the NCW's 2008 approved statute. Nothing else is allowed. 

There are two major differences in the way the NCW distributes and receives holy communion:
  1. The priest distributes the sacred species before communicating himself.
  2. The communicants do not consume the host immediately upon reception but wait till all have received.

When the directive was first given to the NCW to conform their manner of distributing and receiving holy communion to the liturgical books (the GIRM) in 2005, Kiko, the leader of the NCW, famously objected: granting a period of two years for the adaptation of the manner of distributing the Communion of the Body and the Blood of the Lord: we have always shown to the many brothers who have emerged from hell, full of wounds and of self-loathing, that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and not only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and comes to serve them: “He will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them” (Lk 12:37). 

In this way, every time we celebrate the Eucharist we experience the power this sacrament has to draw them into the Passover of Christ, bringing them from sadness to joy, from darkness to light, from death to life… 

The Lord is preparing a people to evangelize the pagans. There are millions of people today who do not know Christ. The reality is that the Lord is calling us to evangelize as Christian communities that make the life of heaven present in our midst. 

- Kiko Argüello, Carmen Hernández, Fr. Mario Pezzi, Porto San Giorgio, January 17, 2006 

While, this all sounds quite beautiful, the short of it is that rather than comply, Kiko lectures Benedict that the Church has it wrong about holy communion, that his vision is the correct one, and that he will continue to do as he sees fit. And so he did, and still does. 

The audacity and disobedience of this reply is magnified by the fact that only five days previously Benedict had reminded the NCW that the instruction to conform to the liturgical books was "imparted to you in my name" and implored them to "attentively observe these norms that reflect what is provided for in the liturgical books approved by the Church." 

On Guam, the disobedience was greatly magnified by Archbishop Apuron's public rejection of the pope and a very public siding with Kiko, leaving the local Catholic faithful both shepherd-less and incredulous, wounding the church in a way that could only result in the angry backlash that, except for the brief protest in 2008, is only now beginning to show itself. 

For most of us, Kiko's refusal to comply and the Archbishop's siding with Kiko is incomprehensible. But it is time for us to understand that this isn't just simple disobedience

This is our problem: We "regular Catholics" see things as black and white. And even when some of us reject the church or a particular church teaching, we know we are rejecting it. 

Kiko however, like Luther, does not see himself as rejecting the church, but restoring it. It's just that the pope and the rest of us haven't caught up to him yet. Kiko sees the people in his "Way" as already at the "eschatological banquet", already participating in "the life of heaven." 

However, the Church sees the celebration of the Eucharist differently. It officially sees Holy Mass as an "earthly liturgy" and only a "foretaste" of the heavenly liturgy:

[CCC 1090] "In the earthly liturgy we share in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle." 

To take our place at table with "Christ...sitting at the right hand of God", as the Neo's do, is not ours yet to assign ourselves, at least not in the mind of the Church. The next part of CCC 1090 makes this clear:

"With all the warriors of the heavenly army we sing a hymn of glory to the Lord; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, until he, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with him in glory."

Thus we "hope for some part and fellowship with them", and "we eagerly await the Savior". The entry also reminds us that heaven, and the ultimate goal of sitting at the "eschatological banquet," is still something towards which we on earth still "journey as pilgrims". 

Thus our earthly demarcations between sanctuary and nave, between priest and people, between altar and table. And thus we process "as pilgrims" to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord. In short, WE AIN'T THERE YET.  

But because Kiko sees his "Way" and those in it, as already THERE, they make none of these distinctions. There is no sanctuary, altar, or even "priest". (This is why they insist on calling the priest, "presbyter," but we'll get to that another time.)

In fact, there is no Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. There is no Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the neo liturgy because there is no need to receive him under the appearances of bread and wine since they are already at table with Him, participating even now in the eschatological banquet.  

Kiko made this quite clear when he embraced Luther's concept of the "real presence": 

"Luther, who never doubted the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, rejected 'transubstantiation,' because it was bound to the Aristotelian-Thomistic concept of substance, which is foreign to the Church of the apostles and the Fathers . . .  (Il neocatecumenato. Un’iniziazione cristiana per adulti)

This is why our calls for "the document" are met with everything from blank stares to sneers. The neocatechumenals are already present at the eschatological banquet, they are "the elect". This is why they come into our churches and into our very Masses and tell us that we aren't true Christians. This is why they can laugh at, mock, and disregard the liturgical books. This is why Kiko can lecture the pope without the slightest compunction. This is why Archbishop Apuron can dispense with magisterial norms and directives, even though his office demands he be their guardian. 

And this is why they don't see themselves as separate from the Catholic Church, but it's fulfillment. The rest of us just aren't there yet. 


  1. To a Catholic outside the Neo, the Pope's instructions are openly defied and based on Kiko's comments, just plain rejected. So if their illicit practices with Holy Communion continue without any correction from the Magisgerium, who are you lessor Catholics to ask for proof? It is evident with comments like "the pope supports us" and "look at the fruits" that might makes right. They get so upset because people like Tim and all the other anons have no right to ask what is ordained from the heavens. The Holy Spirit calls us on in each our own way to settle this. Some will pray and others will fight for truth, but whatever the outcome, I hope we still remain as one.

    1. Anon 9:45AM Your defense of the neo's disobedience obviously is not based on facts but on comments from neos like "the pope supports us'!
      Why don't you, for yourself, read the document which came directly from Rome (in Pope Benedict's name) with the instructions to Kiko?

      When one is not following the prescribed rules, laws or expectations, then naturally, one will desperately grasp even a grocery list of excuses in the air if those excuses will serve his purpose for not conforming. BTW here we're refering to instructions from the Magisterium for the proper and prescribed reverent posture required of the Most Holy Eucharist, the actual Body and Blood of Jesus, the 2nd Person in God! Good grief! Does that fact alone not tell you, if you are a devout Catholic that there is something wrong with what Kiko espouses when it comes to the neo's "handling" of the Most Blessed Sacrament of Holy Eucharist?

      Remember this Scripture reference: "Every knee shall bend and every head shall bow down..." and that only refers to our response and posture for the name of Jesus! What more for HIS PRESENCE!!

      So, "persecution!" "persecution!" is that how the neo will respond, again? Open your eyes! Wake up!

    2. It's not easy to tell at first, but Anon at 9:45 appears to be critical of the neo's "might makes right" approach.

    3. Apologies to 9:45 to my misunderstanding of your point. My response was directed and meant for the neos position. I agree with your observation about the neo's mentality of: "might makes right." A mentality showing that The TRUTH is not something neos really care about (the neos standing and defending Kiko's errors) rather, what appears to be more importantto the neos is uniting in defense of Kiko's defiance of the Magisterium's instructions to Kiko. A blatant display of PRIDE.

    4. Thank you Tim for clarifying my views. 11:21 - no offense taken. I thank you for defending our faith and the Holy Eucharist. It reminding me of St. Tarcisus. I do apologize for not being clear, but I just wanted to point out that when one believes in the righteousness of their cause, nothing anyone says or does will mean a thing. Case and point defying the Pope's instructions and further twisting his words as a stamp of approval. I fear that the Neo (though most would already think this has happened) will separate entirely from the Catholic faith. The possibility saddens me and though a simple Catholic, I have come to the conclusion that I have no choice but to write my concerns to the Nuncio.

  2. Does anyone have any knowledge of a 400 page book of advice written by Kiko and Carmen and issued only to the catechist and no one else? Some of the instructions being, "do not tell them this, if you do they will quickly go away." Just wondering!

  3. I hope that Anonymous (February 13, 2014 at 9:45 AM) will clarify his/her stance. My initial reaction matched that of the comment by Anonymous (February 13, 2014 at 11:21 AM); I had read it as a defense of the NCW.

    After reading Tim's 11:25 AM comment, suggesting that maybe the original comment was critical of the NCW, I went back to re-read it. And, as Tim said, it really isn't easy to tell.

    At this point, it appears as though the 9:45 AM comment reflects the Catholic "both/and" mindset: It could be BOTH a defense AND a criticism. The commenter seems to refer to the NCW as something "ordained from the heavens" (defense) but also recognizes that "might makes right" is not an adequate response (criticism).

  4. Hello, I am 9:45. My comments were not an endorsement of the Neo but more of a disagreement with their defiance. Sorry again for not being clear, I just couldn't underatand the mentality of the Neo and their responses as to the nature of their receiving Holy Communion but when I read Kiko's comments, it seems to me that he is saying Jesus wants It this way and the rest of the church is wrong. Since they have not been stopped and since there are millions in the world, they feel embolden and justified.

    1. Hello, “9:45” — sorry for my very late response, but I want to thank you for your clarification. I posted my comment before your 12:24 message of appreciation to Tim showed up. I recognize that the more "passionate" NCW defenders who resort to insults and name-calling are very poor representatives of the members as a whole; I thought you were one of the polite ones. I’m glad Tim's comment sent me back to re-read your initial one and, even though my “analysis” was off, it’s good to know, via your subsequent posts, that you don’t endorse the NCW activities and, like so many of us, have a hard time understanding the mentality/mindset of Kiko and his followers.

  5. ATTENTION THOSE WHO DO NOT APPRECIATE THE NCW!! H the holy father has called to Rome the Archbishop of Philadelphia. He is a very supportive bishop of the neo-catechumens all way in Philidelphia and Denver. The holy father Francis wants to evangelize through the movements in the church using the laity more than clerics

    1. Maybe it is time for the story of Daniel and the scandal in the Lions' Den to be published.

    2. to anonymous 2.2pm: What the heck are you talking about? Could you please rephrase in proper English, so we can make sense of your gibberish.

    3. Sorry Frenchie, I cannot elaborate on it. If you have been following the blog, then you ,might have some idea. I am pretty sure that mouths would be dropping when published. Wish I could say more!

    4. To Anonymous author of " Attention to those who don't appreciate NCW"...
      If I get your point, The Archbishop of Philadelphia would be a "backer" of the NCW and as such has been called to Rome by Pope Francis. For what purpose you do not say, but you seem to imply that there would be a link with this supposed backing by the Archbishop of Philadelphia and the fact that Pope Francis would like to evangelize through laity rather than through the usual clerical approach.....Hence the support of both the Pope as well as the Archbishop for the NCW?
      I do not know where and how you have come to such conclusion; but lets try to review the nonsense that you seem to take as holy scripture.
      First, lets look at Archbishop Chaput, since this is his name. Far from being a Bishop known to look for new ways, the Archbishop is mostly known for his strong orthodoxy on almost all subjects regarding the teachings and the rites of our Church.
      As far as I know he has not allowed for the development of the NCW in Philadelphia, while he has not discourage the existing chapters in his archdiocese, as long as they follow the proper decorum.
      You mention Denver where the Archbishop was in post prior to Philadelphia.
      Indeed the Archdiocese of Denver has a sizable community of NCW as well as a Seminary "Redemptoris Mater" which was started by his predecessor in 2006 and authorized to continue in 2008 by Archbishop Chaput, as long as certain conditions where fulfilled. The main one being that the education of the priest of Redemptoris Mater would have to be done through the existing Seminary of St John Vianey. A huge "if", since the Archbishop also took the precaution of adding his "four pillars of teaching" upon his arrival, which leaves no doubt about the approach he preaches.
      To close this chapter the two seminarians that graduated from Redemptoris since its creation in Denver, where not authorized to leave the diocese, and have been assigned to local parishes. (a far cry of the intent of NCW)
      As you see, there is what you would call a preponderance of evidence, that would suggest that the Archbishop is far from being a strong supporter of NCW.
      Another interesting point regarding this Archbishop, is that he was the one selected by Benedict, to write a report on the Diocese of Toowoomba in Australia, where the Bishop was taking great liberties with the rites of communion and confession. It is believed that this report led to the final removal of Bishop Morris from his post by the Pope.
      Finally lets finish with Pope Francis. I will not go "ad nauseum " on this subject since Tim and many participants in this blog have already highlighted the strong and many contradictions on the claims from Kikko and his followers regarding the Pope, and the official position of the Holy See a this time.
      Needless to say that your claims are at least grossly inflated and that it makes your statement appear as if you are grabbing at straws.
      I am afraid that the average reader of this blog will take your claims for what they are, a bunch of poorly laid out propaganda arguments.

    5. Where's the Like button when you need it? I'm liking this Frenchie guy.

    6. Actually frenchie, Archbishop Chaput has allowed an RMS Seminary in Philadelphia. This is the reference:


    8. Obviously Anon at 10:28 pm did not bother to read Frenchie's comment, rather offered a knee jerk reply. Not only did Frenchie acknowledge the seminary, he also revealed the caveat that seem to be suppressed in Anon's proclamation.

    9. Egg on my face! Anon at 10:28 referrs to PA while Frenchie aknowledges the seminary in CO. Mea Culpa.

  6. The significance of this appointment of the Archbishop of Philadelphia to Rome signifies it is time for you to stop splashing in your own little puddle... The holy father realizes the importance of these movements of the lady in the church.

  7. I've gone to several programs in the past held at the neo seminary to be musically entertained and to enjoy the eats and I enjoyed it, indeed! However, it did not mean I was going to abandon my Catholic Faith and Church for Kiko's movement, nor did it mean I agreed with it!

    You see, THE FULLNESS OF THE TRUTH is with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, no matter what other religions say, or how movements deny or disregard it, as does The Magisterium, Pope Francis Iwho is that Apostolic Successor of Peter who acknowledges where THAT FULLNESS OF THE TRUTH is Deposited -- which is why our Pope is the Leader of This Roman Catholic Church, and, although he may be charitably kind and courteous to members of the movement is not in the neo movement! So, this must be the True Catholic Church, with the Real Apostolic Leader!

  8. To paraphrase the old Wendy's commercial "where's the document?"