Wednesday, August 19, 2015

SHOW US YOUR CATECHETICAL DIRECTORY


The NCW statutes may have been approved but we're the 13 catechetocal volumes reviewed?

Can anyone answer this?

Sorry, but you sound like a plant. Anyone who can refer to the exact number of volumes must already know the answer to the question you are asking and you're probably trying to set me up. However, for the sake of those who don't know, I will answer.

Kiko and Carmen have assembled their "stream of consciousness" teachings into 13 volumes of typewritten pages. The volumes are tomes in themselves, some numbering over 450 pages each. A true testament to the propaganda maxim: "Baffle them with bull___."

The volumes are referred to as the "Neocatechumenal Way-Catechetical Directory for Teams of Catechists", and only Catechists are supposed to have copies.

However, over the years individual volumes have been rustled away and one of the volumes, Volume 1, is publicly available.

As part of the “ad experimentum” process (2002-2007) of making the NCW kosher with the Church, the NCW was required to submit its Statute and its Directory to Vatican authorities for review.

While both the Statute (2008) and the Directory (2011) eventually received “approval,” it is grossly misleading to simply say so.

Neither the Statute nor the Directory AS SUBMITTED were approved. The Vatican spent five years correcting and amending both, before versions acceptable to the Church (meaning before they could be considered Catholic) could be approved.

One of the main things that the final Statute eliminated from the previous Statute was the practice of sitting while receiving communion. We have demonstrated this before on this blog but will do so again here:



As you can see, in the 2002 Statute, the one written by Kiko and Carmen, not only is mention made of the practice of sitting to receive communion, Kiko goes on to justify it by using Jesus to back up the practice and justifies it further by saying how much fruit it has borne. 

The practice is essential to Kiko's theology because he does not believe that Jesus Christ is ACTUALLY present in the Eucharist, but ONLY in "the community." Thus the emphasis on the communal reception of communion: sitting and consuming all at the same time. 

This is also why no one kneels at the "Elevation" during their "eucharists" as you can see from the pictures below. No need to kneel if Jesus isn't uniquely present IN the consecrated bread and wine. In fact, as you can see, the lay people present not only do not kneel, they cross their arms, put their hands in their pockets, etc. 




However, as you can see from the version the Church wrote (2008) and NOT Kiko and Carmen's version, the Church completely IGNORES the practice of sitting to receive the Eucharist and simply mandates that the NCW follow "the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite," permitting only the concessions noted in Footnote 49: permission to receive the Eucharist under both species and to move the Rite of Peace to before the offertory. 

This mandate from the Vatican to "follow the approved liturgical books" was actually implemented in 2005 and Kiko immediately said he would not obey it. And, infamously, our own archbishop publicly challenged the authority of the pope to require "us" to do so. ("Us" is how Apuron refers to the Neocatechumenal Way.)

Of course Kiko STILL DOES NOT OBEY the mandate and neither does our archbishop. 

I point all this out (again) to make the point that it is quite obvious that IT DOESN'T MATTER what the Vatican has approved, Kiko and his heretics are going to do whatever they want anyway. This becomes important when discussing the Catechetical Directory and answering the above question. 

First, no one can get a copy except those volumes (mostly in Italian) which have been smuggled out of the NCW. And second, it wouldn't matter even if the entire approved version was publicly available. The Kikos, as evidenced by how they still celebrate the Eucharist, ignore what the Church wants and do whatever they want and teach whatever they want.

Many times our views on this blog have been challenged by the Kikos and we have replied simply: "Show us where you teach that or don't teach that." Show us your catechetical directory. There has never been a reply. 

19 comments:

  1. there's an old vatican information service article that says the following:

    "Subsequently, following due consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by a decree of 26 December 2010, the council gave approval to the publication of the Catechetical Directory as a valid and binding instrument for the catechesis of the Neo-Catechumenal Way."

    however, i've never been able to find this "decree of 26 december 2010" from the cdf. with much of neocat teaching conducted in secret, but also knowing their track record of not abiding by the corrections made by vatican, the reasonable thing for Catholics to do is to be cautious or, best, to stay away.

    also during my retreat a couple weeks ago, i came across a book called "ecclesial movements and communities" by brian leahy. sure enough, it devotes a paragraph on pope benedict's instruction to them to follow the liturgical books--all the way to cardinal arinze's instruction which apuron famously disrespected. it doesn't say, however, how faithful the neocats are to that mandate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello rey d, the decree is printed at the beginning of Volume one of the Catechetical Directory. You can access the first part of it here:

      http://tempsend.com/AE914E3B39

      You might also like to read Kiko's letter (the Introductory Note) that follows the Decree. Its a real blast. Here he tells us that in his teaching "truth is not to be found in the individual phrase, but in the general context". That's encouraging isn't it?

      He also concludes this little gem with his oft repeated claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit - in fact, to be the mouth piece of God. Again, I'm sure that fills you with confidence.

      If you want the links to the other parts of the first volume, I'm sure that could be arranged.

      Delete
    2. thanks, anon. wow, talk about problematic. i've seen snippets of that text as shared by tim and by chuck. makes you wonder why the cdf allowed its approval as it is. for some reason the cdf was satisfied with the mere visual framing of the pages by citations from the catechism.

      kiko doesn't hide the fact that the plan all along is to break down the parish model and replace it with his vision of small communities. he sounds elitist too--"real Christians," "sacrament of salvation."

      Delete
    3. Actually what you have there is more scam. It's not the approved version. Kiko did a cut and past job with the CDF letter and the Catechism references. But the text of Kiko's teachings is the original, not the one amended by Rome.

      Delete
    4. i see. that makes more sense because it would be odd for the cdf to have given approval to that content as it's presented. because i'm not a theologian and i can already see problems with it!

      Delete
    5. It's rather funny. The letter from the CDF is dated 2010. Kiko's "introduction" referring to the following as the "corrected text" is dated 1999.

      Delete
    6. Yes, it makes you wonder what happened in the intervening decade. And what the "corrected" version of 1999 actually contained. The fact that this mess is going on should have every true Catholic's blood up. Its an embarrassment and a sacrilege.

      Delete
    7. Actually what follows is the 1999 "corrected version", but it is NOT the version the Vatican permitted to be published in 2010.

      Delete
    8. Ah, I see. So is there anywhere we can find the actual directory that was approved for publication? I would be very curious as to the amendments to the text made by the Vatican.

      Delete
    9. The question is why is not publicly available in the first place. I believe it has to do with a certain Cardinal in the Vatican. I've mentioned him before but will probably do a post later. But no, don't know where you can find a copy of the approved directory. I don't think the neo catechists even know, since they use the unapproved one.

      Delete
    10. So. Let get this straight. One goes to the community gathering. Then they READ from Kiko and Carmens stream of consciousness? Wait a minute. Fell asleep. Who the hell cares about their stream of consciousness? 13 Volumes of stream of consiousness? Uhhm, maybe NO. PS I have the available Volume one. That's money not well invested, that's for sure.

      Delete
  2. Actually, their reply has always been something like, 'well, we've been doing it and Vatican hasn't stopped us. If you have a problem with it, then write to them.'

    ReplyDelete
  3. Instructions by the pope carries no weight as Kiko and followers arrogantly ignore and defy the pope. Rome, why bother giving instructions if there are no consequences for disobedience? Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. But Kiko is a master of bull--t. He knows how to take a few words by the Pope, words the pope uses to address many groups, and turn them into something that sounds like a Papal Bull...well "bull" is not far from the truth.

      In any event, we have clear evidence that they don't give a rip what the pope says. They do what they want. So we then we must do what we want: STOP THEM.

      Delete
  4. No Tim, I am not a plant! I am not trying to set you up. I know there are 13 volumes but have no idea if they were approved that is why I asked the question.

    -Breakfast at Tiffany's

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. But very hard to determine when comments are anonymous. The same question had been asked before and when I answered "yes", I was then asked who was I to question Rome's approval. But as you see there is more to the story. And your comment gave me a chance to tell it. Thanks, Breakfast. :)

      Delete
    2. Something big coming for NCW....patience people~ hey, where's HAROLD? Hey, where's LUIS? Hey, Where's FABULOSO?? Lost and gone forever...where are those other guys the MISSIONARIES? Never a Word from those presbyters INCARDINATED in Agana Church... VERY strange. INDEED. Philidelphia where the POPE is going said the are RELEASED for NEO projects...hmmmmm. What happened to the ORDINARIES who requested them????? Hey, Tony, who are the bishops who REQUESTED...we want to know...otherwise, we just think it is another LIE...they were requested BS!!!

      Delete
    3. Yes, gone forever, but not from the Agana payroll. We have to pay for these guys to be on vacation for the rest of their lives...and ours too.

      Delete
    4. Tim, wouldn't you think that people would realize this? They don't because no one except their communities ever knew them. So few attended the ordinations except the clappers. Even the music was done by RMS not the Cathedral. They shoudl have been Archdiocesan celebrations. They weren't. Oh, except for the local boy. Ahem. Never mind.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch