Reposted by Tim Rohr

Posted by Classic Catholic 

The Neocatechumenal Way: a case study in the “Last Supper” Theory of liturgical design

Growing up within the Neocatechumenal Way, I was immersed in a specific and rigid liturgical narrative that defined the assembly of the faithful as the only true temple of the Holy Spirit. The theology of the Way is built upon a rejection of what they term "natural religiosity," a concept they view as a pagan intrusion into the Christian faith. 

To them, the development of stone altars, sacred architecture, and fixed temples represented a departure from the primitive, itinerant church of the first centuries. They taught us that the early Christians celebrated a simple liturgy around a common table, mirroring the Last Supper, and that the use of rugs in their contemporary halls was a deliberate sign of a pilgrim people who possessed no stable place on earth. 

By stripping away the traditional accouterments of the Catholic Church, they claimed to be restoring an authentic, pre-Constantinian worship that favored spontaneous contemplation and communal experience over the "dead stones" of pagan Roman “Sacrifice”.

However, as I watched the Way expand and gain financial resources, I witnessed a profound contradiction emerge between this stated theology and their actual practice. Despite their insistence that the assembly is the only temple and that fixed sacred spaces are anti-Christian, the movement began to establish its own permanent chapels and "Domus" centers. 

These structures are not the temporary, neutral spaces their theology would suggest. Instead, they are highly specific, brutalist-modernist octagons designed in the round, featuring a massive stone table at the center and amphitheater-style seating. Every wall is meticulously decorated with icons in the unmistakable style of their founder, Kiko Argüello. 

This immediate pivot toward the construction of elaborate, permanent sacred spaces reveals an inherent insincerity in their critique of "natural religion." If they truly believed that stone altars and decorative temples were contrary to the Gospel, they would have remained in the simple, multipurpose rooms they initially championed.

This contradiction serves as more than just a critique of the movement's consistency; it provides a logical lens through which to view the history of the wider Church. The Neocatechumenal Way argues that the early Church was suppressed by the imposition of "natural religiosity" and Roman paganism once the Church gained legal status. Yet, the Way’s own behavior suggests the opposite. 

The moment they were given the permission and the money, they built temples that perfectly matched their specific theology. If the early Church had actually practiced a liturgy in the form of a communal table-fellowship in the round, we would expect to see that theology reflected in the archaeological record the moment Christians were free to build. If the "primitive" model were a circle, the first great churches of the fourth century would have been built as amphitheaters or circular dining halls.

But when we examine the historical artifacts and the earliest ruins of Christian architecture, we do not find "churches in the round." Instead, we find the basilica: a linear, directional building that points the assembly toward an altar and a sacred East. 

Therefore, this historical absence confirms that the NCW's "primitive" liturgy is a modern invention rather than a restoration. The early Christians did not build in the round because their theology was not centered on the closed circle of the community, but on the sacrifice of the altar and the expectation of the returning Christ. 

The fact that even a movement so ideologically opposed to "temples" eventually succumbed to the human necessity of building them proves that the shift toward sacred architecture in the early Church was not a pagan corruption, but a natural and authentic expression of the Faith that the Neocatechumenal Way has failed to “discover.”

See the original post for comments