WHY IT MATTERS

By Tim Rohr

There is no denying the tumult which eventually follows in the wake of the introduction of the Neocatechumenal Way into a region. What is happening on Guam is just another chapter, and a short one at that, compared to the long string of clashes that have plagued dioceses and parishes around the world. 

Neocatechumenals will always point to their fruits to validate their Way. But they are the same fruits that almost any other religion will claim. In fact, Guam's non-Catholic churches are filled with former Catholics who will speak of having found God, of coming to know the Bible for the first time, and of how their marriages were saved, how their families were bettered, how they were able to overcome addictions, and how they would be dead now if not for their new faith, etc. 

So the NCW is not unique in that regard. But if the NCW is producing all this good, then why the long and growing tumult, the never ending clashes with authority, the social implosion, and eventually the threats which you have seen on this blog. The host of an Italian blog which has also chosen to challenge the NCW wrote to me not long ago expressing amazement that I would identify myself in this debate. She explained that in Italy they literally fear for their lives, and that there have been physical altercations - which is something I am now beginning to understand.

What other group within our Church wages such a vicious war and why? Why is it that they simply do not say "let's agree to disagree"and move on? Why the subterfuge? The secretive missions to take opponents down personally? The smear campaigns? The pseudonyms? The constant stream of insults to people and their culture - the clamor of which has reached such a pitch that the pope himself felt called to address this publicly? The answer would be NONE.

So why the Neocatechumenal Way? The easy answers would be power, money, greed. And there is plenty of that. There always is. But the father of lies is never that obvious. In fact, if one understands the classic nature of spiritual combat, the false bait of the "more obvious" is SOP for the Evil One. For what the Evil One is after is what he has always been after, and it's not just the destruction of souls. It is the destruction of Christ. 

Because Jesus Christ is God Himself, Satan can never reach or harm him. So he attacks the only thing he can: His Real Presence, or more specifically, our belief in it.

It has been that way from the moment Christ drew a blood red line in the sand in John 6 and said "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood..." Here, scripture records the first major division in the followers of Jesus. And it is instructive, I think, that it is precisely at 666 (John 6:66) that scripture says: "and they walked with him no more." And Satan smiled.

So why the tumult? Why the separation from the parish, the rejection of the sanctuary, the repudiation of liturgical norms, the aggressive disdain for others (as catalogued by several bishops), and the self-authenticating parallel hierarchy? These are not just unusual practices. These are manifestations of a fundamental difference of belief. And NOWHERE is that fundamental difference made more manifest than in the obstinate refusal to receive communion like the rest of us.

We have already catalogued how often and how sternly the Church has asked, ordered, directed, and even begged the neocatechumens to conform in this regard. And they have not. They do not. And they will not. 

Following Kevin Camacho's letter in the PDN the other day, I posted one question: "Do you sit to consume the consecrated bread or don't you?"

The long string of insults and hostile comments which followed is instructive. What is wrong with a simple yes or no? It is the same question I have personally asked many neocatechumens, including the Archbishop, and was met either with silence or a lecture. See it for yourself played out on the PDN's website.

Jose Martinez, after engaging several diversionary comments and standard insults, also began to ask the same question. Of course THEY know why we are asking. And WE know why they don't want to answer. But Jose kept on it and finally an answer was produced:

Debbie Torres

i am not Kevin, but i will answer Tim Rohr's no brainer question w/ a question first. What does it matter if you are sitting or standing consuming the "Body and Blood of Christ"? Really ? The Pope allows us to sit and if you do not believe this, go to Rome and ask him yourself ! BTW, most importantly you need to be in a "state of grace" aka, in communion with your brothers and sisters,reconciliation, no blog hatred or anger, ill will especially to the youth lol. Goodness Tim !

Ms. Torres' combative reply is an answer in itself. And of course, no neo-answer is complete without a personal judgement of the state of my soul. But let us deal with the meat of the matter: 1) the neos in fact sit to consume, 2) it doesn't matter that they do, and 3) they believe the pope let's them. 

1. The question is why do they still sit to consume when, since 2005, the Holy See has instructed them not to. 

2. If it didn't matter, then why did the Holy See itself affirm several times the need for the NCW to conform its communion rite to the liturgical books.

3. Ms. Torres only believes that the pope lets them because that's what she's been told. 

First, let's talk about why this matters. It matters because the Church teaches that the "law of prayer is the law of belief" (lex orandi lex credendi). How we pray is not only an expression of what we believe, it is also a formator of what we believe IN. 

The first Christians were Jews. It would have been natural for them to assume the celebration of the Eucharist to be no different than the celebration of the Passover or the Sabbath ritual. The fact that many if not most did not understand the bread and wine to be the actual and real body and blood of their Savior, is seen very early in the Church's history, as evidenced in Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11. 

As a good parent, the Church, through time, instructed her children by first modifying their behavior and then backing it with catechesis. And when catechesis might be lacking, there was still the lesson by example: behavior. The fact that the Church eventually came to kneel and receive on the tongue is an example of how our Church responds to the deepening of doctrine. 

Kneeling before a monarch is normal etiquette for the reception of earthly kings. How much more so for the King of Kings! For if it is incumbent upon us, as Paul says, that "At the name of Jesus every knee shall bend", how much more so at the moment we receive him - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - into our very selves?

Knowing the fundamental truth of "lex orandi lex credendi", Paul VI was well aware of the corruption of belief in the Real Presence that would follow the indult to receive in the hand:

When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people's hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine. MEMORIALE DOMINI

Read the whole document and see how this pope was torn severely at having been pressed to make this decision. Nevertheless, he permitted it to the "small number of episcopal conferences". The small number quickly became a great number, and with it, as predicted, has come the "loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

So, in answer to Ms. Torres, THIS is why it matters. And while the Church has permitted us to stand, it has NEVER permitted us to sit. So let us pose the same question to them: Why does it matter that they INSIST on sitting? And INSIST is to put it lightly. Sitting to receive has been at the center of this controversy from the beginning. While Kiko did not formally reject any of the other modifications imposed upon his Way both in its liturgical practice and its catechesis, he FORMALLY rejected this one, and so did Archbishop Apuron, and publicly and vehemently so. 

Why?

Why, Ms. Torres (and all the others)? Why, if it does not matter (your words), why then do you not simply stand or kneel like the rest of us? Why is it SO IMPORTANT to SIT to consume the consecrated bread, the Body of Christ? Why? Why is this the epicenter of contention? 

Answer:

Because Kiko too understands lex orandi lex credendi and he has a very different "credendi". His "credendi" is that his eucharist is NOT a participation in the One Sacrifice of Christ, which is why the Church formally calls our Eucharist the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Rather, Kiko's eucharist is a "feast". This is why his bread has to be different. This is why they have to sit to consume. To kneel or even to stand negates his theology, his credendi. His bread is NOT Jesus Christ himself. Christ is simply present in the community because in Kiko's credendi it is the community that makes Christ present. 

This is why it MATTERS. At the root of the thing is a fundamental difference in theology and thus a different church. Lex orandi lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief. Thus if you pray different then you believe different. The Mass is the highest form of prayer, and the very summit of that highest form of prayer is Holy Communion. Thus to receive differently is to believe differently. And the Neocatechumenal Way RECEIVES DIFFERENTLY. 

Let's speak briefly to the the third point: that the pope knows, and in their mind, permits it. Parents often know that their children have strayed before they find the opportune moment to address them on it, particularly older children. The church is no different. The salvation of each and every soul is not just the pope's concern, but his total responsibility. How and when to address error with the least damage is a constant challenge for the church in every age. It is not uncommon to hear of Rome disciplining a wayward theologian only after many years of patient waiting or attempting to reconcile the problem quietly. 

But beyond that, the rationale that "we are getting away with it", or that the pope knows and doesn't stop us. Goodness! What does that say about spiritual maturity? In fact, what does that say about the leadership of the Neocatechumenal Way?

We cannot blame the likes of Ms. Torres for this. She, like so many others, is only repeating what she has heard her leaders tell her. We can understand her allegiance to those leaders, particularly if she has found personal consolation amongst them. And we can also understand that she and others simply may not know why "it matters" because she was never instructed properly as a Catholic to begin with, which, sadly, is too often the case. 

But the fact is IT DOES MATTER. Rome has called on you and called on you, and perhaps, like the father of the prodigal son, even wept for you. Rome does not negate your charism. Rome does not impugn your good. Rome simply asks that you return to the One Table, and, in communion with the rest of the Church, receive communion with the rest of the Church. 

Will you?