Tuesday, September 2, 2014


David Rak drak@brick.net via gmail.com 

to Jungle

You are wrong and continue to be. We heeded the Holy Father's directive. We receive it standing at our place as put forward in the Statutes.

As I said, go to a full Catechesis or go to a Eucharist because they are a valid Mass of the parish.

I will pray for you.  It's unfortunate you have this hatred for something you don't know.

All the communities I know always work for communion with the pastor and within the parish.




Dear David,

You are wrong and continue to be. The church does not distinguish between receiving and consuming because before the Neocatechumenal Way and its conniving leadership it never expected to have to. When the Church, in your Statute, ordered you to receive the Eucharistic Lord, STANDING, it presumed upon the intelligence and sincerity of heart of your leadership. The Church did not assume that you would separate the act of receiving and consuming. She expected you to actually know that the word "receive" meant to "receive into your body", NOT simply onto the hand for later consumption.

If receiving and consuming are separate acts, then all of us, not just the Neo's, should be permitted to take the consecrated bread back to our pews and consume whenever we want to. In fact, since the Archbishop permits the Neos to separate receiving and consuming, and there is NO specific permission in your Statute to do so, we "regular" Catholics should just start taking the host back to our pews or maybe even stash it away for later. 

Of course, our priests, those who are responsible, would not allow this. But then we could protest, as you do: "show us where it says not to do this." And of course, it (the liturgical books) does not say NOT to do this, because the Church presumes on our intelligence and sincerity of heart. 

This practice makes your "Mass" illicit. I did not say "invalid". Perhaps you know the difference? However, we must also question validity given what we know about Kiko's objection to the Mass as a "Sacrifice". But we'll leave that for another time. 

Also, I have no "hatred" for the Neocatechumenal Way or its members. I FULLY SUPPORT the Neocatechumenal Way as constituted by the FINAL Statute given it by the Church. What I "hate" is the kind of subterfuge and lies you employ to concoct for yourselves exceptions like the one which allows you to separate the reception of the Body of Christ and its ultimate consumption. 

Lastly, this constant defense that no one knows anything unless they go through your program is in direct opposition to how the Catholic Church handles genunine inquiries. The Church, at least the one I belong to, has taken great pains throughout the centuries, to hammer into words and examinable documents every facet of what we believe. 

The Church, in its wisdom, knew from early on that the "oral tradition" lay exposed to charlatans and false teachers. This was the original impetus for what we now call the New Testament and the many writings of the Fathers, which were followed by the many writings of the popes, saints, and doctors of the Church. To sequester documentation and information from the faithful and make it available only orally and only through the mouths of self-appointed leaders is gnosticism.

Thanks for the prayers. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch