| |
I studied canon law at university, let me give two explanations. From a pastoral point of view, the Neocatechumenal can be defined as you want. Way, movement, group, charisma, a determination can describe it in a more or less beautiful. From a legal point of view - the only thing that the state must regulate - the Way is a private association of faithful . In fact there are two forms of associations of the faithful in the Church, under the current code (that of 1983, the first was different): public associations, which are those established by the Holy See for the whole Church or a regular for his diocese, and private associations, which are made by the believers themselves (with or without participation of the clergy), and which may or may not be recognized at a later time Authority. The Neocatechumenal , from a legal standpoint, is precisely a private association, having been founded by two faithful in the '60s, and had not yet been finally approved.
is good to separate the definitions emotional and pastoral, from the legal . A State may not make white what is black or that black is white.
from the considerations made by some Neocatechumenals, it appears that the Way can not be universally valid for all, or at least able to satisfy everyone, but only who is without faith and requires a process of "rehabilitation." If you have a mature faith thus does not need the method neocatecumenale, and can easily live as a Catholic. Remains to be seen with the criteria that qualify a faith Neocatechumenals mature enough not to need the Way ...
neocatecumenale to defend the method, the members say that there are people that sometimes it moves away at once to hear speak clearly of theology, tradition, exegesis, teaching, maybe even cursing. This is sad, but my experience is not (nor many others I know) and indeed, especially in those who had fasted for religious practice, to know exactly certain notions of catechism or theology, or otherwise, was always of great interest. However, if the plain speaking is not always effective, I hope glad that the resetting of Christian Initiation of Adults Neocatechumenal (but think it too long) leads to a master and a familiarity with the theology, Catholic exegesis and teaching, and not remain at the level of "charismatic" as is often sad to note.
The Neocatechumenals are often leverage on the approval of the Statutes of 2002. But the approval of the statutes is to be understood experimentally for and will expire in June 2007. It concerns only the statutes and not liturgical practice, the catechetical method , the practical methodology nor doctrinal content of catechetical directory, as expressed in the statute textually approved, requires a separate approval, which to date has not yet came (or were published fourteen volumes of the catechetical directory).
I remember a lecture by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, 1993, I found written on Viva Church (a publication still hostile to the Catholic Church itself, when I do not have the availability of other references, but for me I will open them at a later time ), where an application for a faithful regard to the doctrines contained in the "mamotreti," the cardinal replied: " We were assured that the contents of the directory has not expressed any doctrinal element that is different from the catechism, but it is only the description of a methodological practice. However, I hope, with God's help, we can come to a solution of the problems that put us these "guidelines" . You
sad to note that many members of the Neocatechumenal I do not know for what purpose, they said against all evidence that the approval of the statutes imply approval of the liturgy (which was finally forbidden by Arinze's letter of 1 'in December 2005) and the directory (which is still shown as yet to be verified).
emphasize that the Statutes of the Way are very terse and simple and in fact do not say anything important, if not a generic description of the private association of the faithful, called Neocatechumenal and presenting roses in the relationship with the church hierarchy (remains to be seen how and how much will actually applied by Neocatechumenals). There are described the practice, there are described the rituals, but some general rules and rules that are observed in the election of catechists and internal governance. As in all the statutes of associations, in fact. On
public confessions, it sadly wrong to give those who have watered down and bland image. The term confession does not indicate the sacrament of "reconciliation", but a part of it, that the mere accusation of sins (total or partial) that is carried on pressing questions catechists in front of the whole community on the occasion of 'Ballots'. According to St. Thomas Aquinas (in the third part of the Summa Theologica ) is always possible to "confess", regardless of the sacrament of penance or reconciliation. He even says that this practice, although it does not replace the sacrament, can be useful for example in the point of death, to raise the perfect contrition, the dying man that can not otherwise access the priest (the priest can only administer absolution).
About the " ballots " Neocatechumenals often say that the "ballots" would be equal to the Way RICA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults), but this is false .
must first be said that we respect the Way only the structure of RICA (with three ballots, and delivery of the Creed and the Our Father), but not the content . The RCIA as a "ballot" means simply a prayer during the Mass, which includes an invocation, an exorcism with some responsories, and the dismissal of the catechumens. I am familiar with this ritual, as I have participated in Rome. All this did not last long, very briefly, only time and a small prayer of the priest's sermons. It is not identical to the practice neocatecumenale.
Based on the testimonies and the reading of the various texts of the Way, however, there are several additions to the "ballots" Neocatechumenals. For example, the practice of holding questionnaires and being interviewed the same with the so-called "obligation" to respond . Sorry to say, but such a practice is a form of public confession he who is chosen by lot to read his answers accuses his sins.
There are various justifications for example that this method makes the members more connected to the community and increases the brotherhood and closeness (but the same arguments to qualify a sectarian behavior: if everyone is aware of my worst sins, if I move away from the community could retaliate by making them aware of). Others have said accusingly that whoever is ashamed of themselves as sinners in front of the brothers is a bad Christian, and did not understand the value of the Church of the sacrament of penance, according to the teachings of Hernández:
was introduced by the Church just around the fifth-sixth century (since you think so far the only forgiveness of sins would be the same baptism, in spite of the Gospel is read "If you forgive the sins are forgiven and who not forgive them, they are retained ", Jn 20:23);took place publicly in the early centuries only to remove the "excommunication" as anti-excommunication excommunication and were known at the time the only forms of punishment for sin, not "grace" and "loss of the state of grace", ie the first church had only a hole "outside" and not a hole "inside."
this idiocy, in vogue in the 70s at liturgists as heretics Bouyer, have had the demerit of having moved the ecclesial theology by the concept of 'mystical body', the concept of "assembly". Sad are the words of Hernandez, while critical of the auricular confession as a form of "privatization of the sacrament" as such would have to be (in her) Community. But this is a serious mistake: the sacrament is "the Church", not "Community" that is celebrated by the Church through the minister acting in persona Christi , namely in the person of the Head of the Church, and all of the members joined him. A sacrament celebrated by one or two people (one put "private", an auricular confession) has the same degree of ecclesial nature of a sacrament celebrated in front of a million people (such as the Mass at Marienfeld). The reasoning is simple: the celebrant is always Christ, that is the whole mystical body.
witnessing but a conversion to materiam (especially in the Way): the symbol (the assembly) becomes meaningless (the Church). But the assembly is not the Church: they were also all in God's grace and not excommunicated latae sententiae (something very uncommon, especially today), a portion would be small and numerous the Church, which also includes absent, and blessed purgatory, Mary, angels and Jesus
the light of what was said originally, we understand why the insistence on the assembly of the Way. If the Way aims to address the misfits and those who have no more faith, to use tangible symbols may be more useful than a lot of theory. Provided that you take are not committed blunders and abuse, however, if one by dint of hearing people say that the Church is the community, in the end, instead of understanding that you are using a symbol, he thinks that the church is really small group of people in the community. Unfortunately, these errors and blunders are all that is almost systematically done, confirming that something has gone wrong in the Way.
regard to public confession to be said that historically it is not practically never existed, and the very rare cases (very limited, and behavior can be ascribed to "Seven") have unfortunately been enhanced in recent years by some progressive theologians in the mood for exotic novelties. The modern liturgical confuse it with the generic accusation of sin, but that is an apostolic tradition (the Confiteor , so to speak, where you recognize sinners generation). The confession of particular sins, however, is always achieved through a headset, and private. It is indeed a grave sin of scandal to the advertising of their moral conduct, liability of any severity. It is also - of course - contrary to the practice of the Church, which houses the internal forum as a place only known by God, by imposing the confessional secrecy (even to those who listen confession without being a priest) is that the penitent to confessor usque ad sanguinis effusionem (at the cost of losing the feathers).
It is therefore absolutely impossible the possibility of a charge in front of third persons, as well as entirely unjustifiable. Even in the case of collective reconciliation of penitents (in cases of imminent danger of death) not There has never, nor was there ever a case of a public accusation of sins with possible referral to the private confession later. The possibility of general public without the individual private confession does not relieve you from having to confess the sins forgiven privately as soon as possible reconciliation with the collective (in some places in Latin America this possibility is misused for the opposite reason: many people carry in a hurry without having to hear individual confessions).
The public confessions are one of the most serious abuses of the Way , and absolutely to be remedied urgently. Back to
RICA: RICA to apply the categories of "ballots" of the Way, useless and even misleading. The RICA is an expression of an ancient practice in the Church, the initiation adults. It was abandoned for the simple reason that the Church, firmly established, had become the universal religion and baptism began to be administered once, in the first days of life of children. A preparation for the baptism had become useless then for two reasons: there were no more catechumens, as it already was born Catholic, and was not a path to get to baptism, since it was given in childhood by educating the family.
Today, many Christians have apostatized (formally or practically), and most do not baptize their children, it is useful to revisit this practice back since they reappeared with what the catechumens (not those of the Way, eh!)
The lack of catechumenate until recently was not a bad thing: they make up with the preparation Confirmation, and a fervent Christian life and shared that lasted the whole life. Today catechumenate is reserved, as before, only to candidates' entry in the Catholic religion, that is, those who still have not received baptism.
Who by the grace of God has already received baptism can not and should return catechumen. It should not, because there can be prepared to receive what already received, can not, because the catechumenate is formally an "order", a class of people who are outside the Church, but joined in voting at least to it, and when one starts with a formal ceremony.
The Neocatechumenal wanted to copy the practice of the catechumenate, proposing it for those who had already baptized. But being members of the Way does not mean being the catechumens , although there is so called (that's why in order to qualify members of the Way is the best term Neocatechumenals instead of "neocatechumens" or "catechumens").
also considers highly inappropriate to pose to those who have not yet received the grace of Baptism and the character of the Sons of God, by those already baptized. Those who have been baptized deserves to be encouraged and supported in the dignity that has not to be degraded "not Catholic" ambiguous in practice, plus doing some bizarre commingling: the catechumens could not attend Mass, but only readings, nor could they have roles in the church, while compensating for this Neocatechumenals with participation in a Mass with a number of cuts according to the degrees of Neocatechumenate and admit Neocatechumenals to have active roles, such as a catechist.
Quest'ammaccata copy of Christian does not make much sense, I think it might well be replaced by a different approach, the rediscovery of confirmation, ie confirmation of its discovery of Catholics, and not something that has already worked, "ex opere operato" . But of course this will not be discovered with catechesis containing a swarm of appalling errors and heresies.
In any case I think it's highly inappropriate to mimic the rites of the Church (applies to the sacraments, for the RICA, etc.. Etc..), And reform according to their taste, removing this because "it makes little sense," that "it is bad", that "it will be later."
is finally noted that in the past the attitude of many Neocatechumenals was totalitarian, not possible and as humble as can happen today nicely shows that (always with the risk of hitting a few cases of person who uses a pure form, a hypocritical etiquette, a language "policy" to give the impression of humility that there is not). The Way was presented as the elite of Catholicism, or at least how to be worthy of the name, by degrading others shapeless mass of lemmings from "Mass on Sundays and stop." Obviously there is much more than the Neocatechumenal a thousand ways of being Catholic are so healthy and full, without attending Argüello and followers with attached catechesis and songs. If the saints of the past (and recent past) have become saints without RICA and without the Way, the Way means that, once cleansed of all the errors and abuses, could be useful but not essential.
would be great to reflect and explain that the Christian life is a life consistent with Christ and not to a group , and that the term "itinerary of Christian formation valid for the man of today "is non-exclusive, is not the practice for the man of today.
witnessing but a conversion to materiam (especially in the Way): the symbol (the assembly) becomes meaningless (the Church). But the assembly is not the Church: they were also all in God's grace and not excommunicated latae sententiae (something very uncommon, especially today), a portion would be small and numerous the Church, which also includes absent, and blessed purgatory, Mary, angels and Jesus
the light of what was said originally, we understand why the insistence on the assembly of the Way. If the Way aims to address the misfits and those who have no more faith, to use tangible symbols may be more useful than a lot of theory. Provided that you take are not committed blunders and abuse, however, if one by dint of hearing people say that the Church is the community, in the end, instead of understanding that you are using a symbol, he thinks that the church is really small group of people in the community. Unfortunately, these errors and blunders are all that is almost systematically done, confirming that something has gone wrong in the Way.
regard to public confession to be said that historically it is not practically never existed, and the very rare cases (very limited, and behavior can be ascribed to "Seven") have unfortunately been enhanced in recent years by some progressive theologians in the mood for exotic novelties. The modern liturgical confuse it with the generic accusation of sin, but that is an apostolic tradition (the Confiteor , so to speak, where you recognize sinners generation). The confession of particular sins, however, is always achieved through a headset, and private. It is indeed a grave sin of scandal to the advertising of their moral conduct, liability of any severity. It is also - of course - contrary to the practice of the Church, which houses the internal forum as a place only known by God, by imposing the confessional secrecy (even to those who listen confession without being a priest) is that the penitent to confessor usque ad sanguinis effusionem (at the cost of losing the feathers).
It is therefore absolutely impossible the possibility of a charge in front of third persons, as well as entirely unjustifiable. Even in the case of collective reconciliation of penitents (in cases of imminent danger of death) not There has never, nor was there ever a case of a public accusation of sins with possible referral to the private confession later. The possibility of general public without the individual private confession does not relieve you from having to confess the sins forgiven privately as soon as possible reconciliation with the collective (in some places in Latin America this possibility is misused for the opposite reason: many people carry in a hurry without having to hear individual confessions).
The public confessions are one of the most serious abuses of the Way , and absolutely to be remedied urgently. Back to
RICA: RICA to apply the categories of "ballots" of the Way, useless and even misleading. The RICA is an expression of an ancient practice in the Church, the initiation adults. It was abandoned for the simple reason that the Church, firmly established, had become the universal religion and baptism began to be administered once, in the first days of life of children. A preparation for the baptism had become useless then for two reasons: there were no more catechumens, as it already was born Catholic, and was not a path to get to baptism, since it was given in childhood by educating the family.
Today, many Christians have apostatized (formally or practically), and most do not baptize their children, it is useful to revisit this practice back since they reappeared with what the catechumens (not those of the Way, eh!)
The lack of catechumenate until recently was not a bad thing: they make up with the preparation Confirmation, and a fervent Christian life and shared that lasted the whole life. Today catechumenate is reserved, as before, only to candidates' entry in the Catholic religion, that is, those who still have not received baptism.
Who by the grace of God has already received baptism can not and should return catechumen. It should not, because there can be prepared to receive what already received, can not, because the catechumenate is formally an "order", a class of people who are outside the Church, but joined in voting at least to it, and when one starts with a formal ceremony.
The Neocatechumenal wanted to copy the practice of the catechumenate, proposing it for those who had already baptized. But being members of the Way does not mean being the catechumens , although there is so called (that's why in order to qualify members of the Way is the best term Neocatechumenals instead of "neocatechumens" or "catechumens").
also considers highly inappropriate to pose to those who have not yet received the grace of Baptism and the character of the Sons of God, by those already baptized. Those who have been baptized deserves to be encouraged and supported in the dignity that has not to be degraded "not Catholic" ambiguous in practice, plus doing some bizarre commingling: the catechumens could not attend Mass, but only readings, nor could they have roles in the church, while compensating for this Neocatechumenals with participation in a Mass with a number of cuts according to the degrees of Neocatechumenate and admit Neocatechumenals to have active roles, such as a catechist.
Quest'ammaccata copy of Christian does not make much sense, I think it might well be replaced by a different approach, the rediscovery of confirmation, ie confirmation of its discovery of Catholics, and not something that has already worked, "ex opere operato" . But of course this will not be discovered with catechesis containing a swarm of appalling errors and heresies.
In any case I think it's highly inappropriate to mimic the rites of the Church (applies to the sacraments, for the RICA, etc.. Etc..), And reform according to their taste, removing this because "it makes little sense," that "it is bad", that "it will be later."
is finally noted that in the past the attitude of many Neocatechumenals was totalitarian, not possible and as humble as can happen today nicely shows that (always with the risk of hitting a few cases of person who uses a pure form, a hypocritical etiquette, a language "policy" to give the impression of humility that there is not). The Way was presented as the elite of Catholicism, or at least how to be worthy of the name, by degrading others shapeless mass of lemmings from "Mass on Sundays and stop." Obviously there is much more than the Neocatechumenal a thousand ways of being Catholic are so healthy and full, without attending Argüello and followers with attached catechesis and songs. If the saints of the past (and recent past) have become saints without RICA and without the Way, the Way means that, once cleansed of all the errors and abuses, could be useful but not essential.
would be great to reflect and explain that the Christian life is a life consistent with Christ and not to a group , and that the term "itinerary of Christian formation valid for the man of today "is non-exclusive, is not the practice for the man of today.
Three new Redemptoris Mater seminaries, one in Pakistan 
