Sunday, January 10, 2016


A friend sent the following comment by "Diana" to me yesterday. As usual, we can make use of her ignorance for the instruction of others. And whereas I usually respond directly to Diana, this time I want to speak directly to all those who are in the Neocatechumenal Way who know in their hearts that something is not "quite right." 

Let us use Diana's comparison of the NCW liturgy with the Traditional Latin Mass. According to Diana, permission to celebrate "the Eucharist the way they do" was given by the Vatican. Yet, as we know, there has never been a document stating so. (Apparently Apuron is still looking for it...)

By contrast, the freedom to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass was promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI on July 7, 2007, by the Moto Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. It was sent to all the world's bishops with an accompanying personal letter from the pope with further instructions about its implementation, and was published on the Vatican website where it remains today. 

By contrast, Diana tells us that permission for their particular way of celebrating the Eucharist was given to the NCW and if we "don't believe the NCW, that's not their problem." Notice, Diana, does not even refer to the one document which was published by the Vatican on the NCW: the Statute. She doesn't reference it because the permission to celebrate their form of the liturgy is NOT in the statute. 

So my neocatechumenal friends who know that "something is not quite right." May I appeal to your hearts and intelligence. The Holy Catholic Church has one way of doing things and the Neocatechumenal Way has another. Which one do you think is right? Which one is authoritative? A Moto Proprio from the pope himself? Or a vague permission no one has ever seen? 

For those who don't know, a Moto Proprio is ranked as the highest form of authoritative papal pronouncements. 

Going on.

Diana says that if you go to their "Mass" we need to respect their rules. Well, yes you do. Because it IS "their" Mass and it is "their" rules. It is not the Mass of the Holy Catholic Church and it is not the rules of the Holy Catholic Church which must be respected. It is a different church with different rules. This is why she refers to them as "OUR rules." They are not the rules of Rome - which for the Traditional Latin Mass were delineated by the pope himself. They are the rules of Kiko. 

And that's perfectly fine. I have no problem with people who want to be Baptist, Jehovahs, or neocats. And if I go to their "church" then I must respect "their rules."  The difference of course is that Kiko's religion pretends to be Catholic so that it can suck off of our resources, not to mention its people. 

Diana goes on to say that "this same rule applies to those who go to the Traditional Latin Mass and who want to receive communion in the hand." I believe her reference to "this same rule" means the supposed respecting of "rules" for particular forms of the liturgy. In that case, she would be right, communion in the hand is not permitted at the TLM, and I'll explain why in a minute. 

But the difference is this. The "rules" governing the celebration of the TLM come from the Church itself and are officially and publicly promulgated. The rules governing the celebration of the NCW liturgy are also officially and publicly promulgated in its Statute but the NCW does not obey them. 

The NCW does NOT obey its Statute because it obeys alternate rules handed down by Kiko. Diana said this herself a few posts back, saying that the permission was "read" by Pius who is close to Giuseppe Gennarini who is close to Kiko. That's it. The end. And, according to Diana, if you don't believe them, then that's YOUR problem.

Also, as mentioned then and I will repeat now, the NCW hierarchy, its chain of authority, completely leaves out the bishop and is therefore NOT an apostolic church, one of the four signs of the True Church. 

This is why I have personally asked our own bishop to officially and publicly promulgate the permissions he says exists for the celebration of the neocat liturgy. If the permission exists then he has the authority and the responsibility to do so. YET HE NEVER HAS. 

Diana's reference to the practice of the Early Christians is a standard Kikoism. Kiko justifies everything he does by saying the Early Christians did this or that - even if they really didn't. The Church officially calls this attempt to restore everything to the practices of the early Christians "archaeologism," and CONDEMNS it. In fact, the pope calls it WICKED:
"The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example to want the altar restored to its ancient form of a table; to want black eliminated from liturgical colors, and pictures and statues eliminated from our churches (as Kiko does) ; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer (see Kiko's "crucifixes"); to condemn polyphonic chants, even though they conform to the regulations of the Apostolic See...This attitude is an attempt to revive the "archaeologism" to which the pseudo-synod of Pistoia gave rise; it seeks also to reintroduce the pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it and which the Church, in her capacity of watchful guardian of "the Deposit of Faith" entrusted to her by her divine Founder, has rightly condemned. It is a wicked movement that tends to paralyze the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father." - Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 66-68. 
Why is it "wicked?" Because it denies the authority of "the keys." Jesus gave "the keys" to Peter. If a successor to Peter decided at some point in the history of the church that reception of the communion in the hand was to be forbidden, then he had the authority to do so: 
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." - Mt. 18:18
Pope Paul VI, in his instruction MEMORIALE DOMINI (1969) traces how the Church moved from the early practice of communion in the hand to communion on the tongue. As usual, Church practices develop gradually along with a deeper realization of the sacred mysteries:
"...with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant."
MEMORIALE DOMINI is the last official word from the universal Magisterium of the Church on the reception of communion. The instruction permits communion in the hand only under certain conditions and makes VERY CLEAR that communion on the tongue IS and MUST REMAIN the norm:
"This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist."
The fact that "this method" was NOT "retained" generally and in some places (like the American church) was essentially outlawed, is a testament to the wayward arrogance (or at least willful ignorance) of so many of our "religious leaders," whose disobedience has led to a generation of empty churches (while filling up non-Catholic ones). 

This leads us back to the practice of communion on the tongue ONLY at the TLM. As just demonstrated, the practice at the TLM is not only faithful to the Missal under which it is to be celebrated as per Summorum Pontificum (the Missal of Pius V as revised by John XXIII), but is also faithful to the later instruction of Paul VI in 1969. 

While it is true that certain bishops and particular bishops' conferences have given more latitude for communion in the hand, it is also true that the practice has led to the greater irreverence and unbelief in the Real Presence that Paul VI warned about in MEMORIALE DOMINI. 

It has also led to the "Mass of Kiko Arguello." 

Recommendations by JungleWatch