Friday, February 27, 2015


Relative to a several spats on this blog about the above question, here's the simple answer:

Yes, insofar as it adheres to its 2008 Statute.
No, insofar as it departs from its 2008 Statute.

We have covered this many times, but let's do it again. 

First, there are two Statutes. The 2002 "ad experimentum" Statute and the 2008 Statute which received Final Approval. 

The 2002 Statute permitted neo-communicants to receive and consume the sacred host while sitting. The 2008 Statute DOES NOT. 

Here is a side by side comparison:

As you can see, the 2002 Statute, written by Kiko, explicitly directs the people to sit down. And as you can further see, in 2008, the Church replaces this "praxis" by simply requiring the neocatechumens to celebrate according to the "approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite." 

Normally Rome does not outright condemn certain experimental practices, it speaks to what is right and expected. This is what Rome does here. There is no permit in the final statute to continue the "praxis" of sitting to consume no matter how much "rich fruit" has been supposedly born of it. 

The only exception permitted is for the neocatechumens, since the group is small, to remain in their place instead of processing towards the celebrant. 

The other "explicit concessions" are detailed more fully in a footnote. Those "concessions" are the exchange of the sign of peace before the offertory and the reception of communion under both species. (See footnote 49 below.)

(We might note here that the regular distribution of communion under both species is a specific exception made for the neocatechumenal way, and not for our regular parish masses.)

We know that Kiko Arguello publicly objected and refused to change this "praxis" when first directed to by the Congregation for Divine Worship on December 1, 2005. The incident became famous because Archbishop Apuron also publicly rejected the same order and even called into question the credential of the Congregation's Cardinal Prefect. This was a direct rejection of the authority of Rome by our Archbishop, and he has sided with Kiko ever since. 

As we know, and especially the neocatechumens know. Every time they celebrate the Eucharist, they violate their own Statute, the very thing that legitimizes the Way as Catholic. And they violate it not just in some small detail, they violate the very trust of the Church at the highest moment of what is supposed to be the Sacrament of Unity. In short, as soon as they distribute communion and receive and consume in the manner that they do (sitting down), they say NO to their own Statute, NO to the Church, and NO to communion with all of us. 

Individual members have been lied to by their leaders that they have a permit to depart from the liturgical books required by the Statute. They have NEVER produced that permission and as you have seen on this blog many times, they DISAPPEAR (Atoine Tajalle - Archbishop Apuron) when asked. 


Also, and I have blogged about this before, the Neocatechumenal official website is very deceptive about the difference between the two statutes. 

Go to the website by going to > New Evangelization > Neocatechumenal Way.

You will see the NCW logo but no active link to go further. The logo is hyperlinked but clicking on it will only take you to a blank screen. You have to right click on it to get to the right click menu and then you have to know to open the link in a new tab. Then you'll find the 2008 Statute.

Knowing the Kiko's this is not a mistake. It is purposely difficult to get to because it contains the dreaded instruction to follow the liturgical books which DOES NOT permit their "praxis"of consuming the sacred host while seated. 

By contrast, let's see how easy it is to get to the 2002 Statute which is the one the Kiko's want everyone to think is the correct "praxis". 



There it is. 

Seriously, to the good people of the Neocatechumenal Way, it is your duty, if you want to remain Catholic, to hold your leaders accountable to that which was entrusted to them (the 2008 Statute) by the Fathers of our Church. Simply ask them to show you the permit, the indult, the document, whatever you want to call it, which permits you to receive communion in the way you do. If they cannot produce it then you are participating in an "un-sacrament of disunity" and will continue to place yourself outside the Catholic Church if you continue. 

And if nothing else, then at least receive communion the way the Church instructs: consume the host "as soon as" you receive it (GIRM 161), then sit down. Then see how much your community still loves you. 

49 See Benedict XVI, Speech to the Neocatechumenal Communities on January 12, 2006, in Notitiae 41 (2005), 554–556; CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter of December 1, 2005 in Notitiae 41 (2005), 563–565; “Notification of the Congregation for Divine Worship on celebrations in groups of the Neocatechumenal Way,” L’Osservatore Romano, December 24, 1988: “The Congregation consents that among the adaptations foreseen by the instruction “Actio Pastoralis”, nn. 6-11, the groups of the above-mentioned “Way” may receive communion under two species, always with unleavened bread, and transfer “ad experimentum” the Rite of Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful.”

I have produced a version of this post in a downloadable PDF file which you can access here


  1. 161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it.

    If, however, Communion is given under both kinds, the rite prescribed in nos. 284-287 is to be followed

    286. If Communion of the Blood of Christ is carried out by communicants’ drinking from the chalice, each communicant, AFTER receiving the Body of Christ, moves to the minister of the chalice and stands facing him. The minister says, The Blood of Christ, the communicant replies, Amen, and the minister hands over the chalice, which the communicant raises to his or her mouth. Each communicant drinks a little from the chalice, hands it back to the minister, and then withdraws; the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator.

    1. When Communion Under Both Kinds May Be Given

      23. The revised Missale Romanum, third typical edition, significantly expands those opportunities when Holy Communion may be offered under both kinds. In addition to those instances specified by individual ritual books, the General Instruction states that Communion under both kinds may be permitted as follows:

      for Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate
      for the Deacon and others who perform some duty at Mass
      members of communities at the Conventual Mass or the "community" Mass, along with seminarians, and all those engaged in a retreat or taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering35
      24. The General Instruction then indicates that the Diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The Diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the Priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason.36

      In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.

      Norms established by the Diocesan Bishop must be observed wherever the Eucharist is celebrated in the diocese, "which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups."37

  2. To supplement Tim's answer to "Is the Neo Catholic", here's a very interesting website I found which treats the subject quite extensively, as well as other Neo-related errors. Interesting reading!