A TWO-FER

As I was saying yesterday, most of the time, all I have to do is go to sleep and in the morning another Neo has left a comment which affords me "another opportunity to allow the Neocats to impugn themselves with their own words."

In yesterday's case, I got a two-fer, as the same Anonymous Neo left a reply to my reply to his comment (follow that?)  It's a long comment, so we'll take it one paragraph at a time:

Thank you for allowing a post of my own. At any rate, I didn't go to that website because they oppose post-Vatican II. I went to it simply because of the photos they have of the altar, and in my last post, that is where I directed your attention to. The altar is the same altar that the Neocatechumenal Way uses. There is no cross on the altar, but the cross is beside the lectern, and the Pope was celebrating Mass on that altar.

As mentioned, the "website" referenced by our commenter regularly knocks the NCW, and the particular picture referenced, featured a rather mocking caption: Pope John Paul II celebrating a "NEOCAT WAY" Mass! So as I said: "No intelligent Neocat in his right mind would want to send anyone to this blog", and my observation still stands.

Anonymous Neo then refers to the table as an altar. Either he's not an attentive Neo or he's using the word altar to mask what the Neo really teaches:

We Christians do not have altars...because the holy stone is Christ, the only cornerstone. That's why we can celebrate the Eucharist on a suitable table and we can celebrate in a square, in the countryside or wherever it is suitable. We don't have a particular place where exclusively we should celebrate our worship. ("Kiko's Catechism," Vol. 1, pgs 51-52)

Here of course we see not only why the Neo eschews the idea of celebrating the Mass on a consecrated altar, which the Catechism says is the symbol of Christ himself (CCC 1383), but abandons the church building altogether, in direct contradiction to Canon Law of course:

Can.  932 §1. The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise; in such a case the celebration must be done in a decent place. §2. The eucharistic sacrifice must be carried out on a dedicated or blessed altar...

The Code goes on to direct how the "eucharistic sacrifice" is to be offered when not offered on a dedicated or blessed altar, but of course the condition of when "necessity requires" has already been established. But then Church law to Kiko is what the Constitution is to Obama, isn't it.

Anonymous Neo goes on:

I agree with your comparison of the Way's altar to the Pope kissing the Qu'ran. You see, the Pope was making a point to the Muslim world. What he did silenced the entire Muslim world because not one of their imans or mullahs had the courage to kiss the Holy Bible. In the same way, the Pope celebrating Mass on the Way's altar was also making a point. The focus should always be on the body and blood of Christ on the altar, not on the candles, the flowers, the altar coverings, or even the cross. The focus is always on the body and blood because that is Christ's REAL body and blood. So, why are you looking around at where they put the cross?

Ummm, maybe because the GENERAL INSTRUCTION TO THE ROMAN MISSAL REQUIRES IT (GIRM 308)? But then again, what is church law to Kiko? These are just "external matters". But also notice that Anonymous Neo defaults to calling it a "cross". Notice that I had asked where is the crucifix? The GIRM does not require a cross to be on or near the altar but a CRUCIFIX: ...there is to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, a cross clearly visible to the assembled people. (But, then again, these are just "external matters"!)

Also notice the word "visible" and see the VERY VISIBLE crucifix upon the altar at which Pope Francis is celebrating the "eucharistic sacrifice." I used the words "eucharistic sacrifice" again here because those words are particularly grating to the Neocats, whose "pope" rejects the idea that the eucharist is a sacrifice.

It's a bit difficult for Kiko to dance around it and still play nice with the Vatican, since the church clearly defines the Eucharist as a "sacrifice" (CCC 1360), so Kiko has to add a qualifier:

But in this period sacrifice is understood much more in a pagan way than in a Christian one. (Kiko's Catechism, Vol 1, pg. 349)

The "period" Kiko refers to is the Middle Ages, supposedly the bane of authentic Christianity. On the previous page, Kiko tries to make his case for refuting the idea of sacrifice by mixing up animal sacrifice (which is why he says "pagan way"), with the celebration of the Eucharist, and to do so, he craftily erects a "middle-aged" straw man:

...in the middle ages people began to argue about sacrifice, some of them would argue about things that had a very different meaning in the primitive Eucharist. 

In pagan religion sacrifice, "sacrum facere," "to do what is sacred," is to propitiate the divinity through sacrifices of animals or of things. This is not the meaning of sacrifice, neither in Christianity nor in the Eucharist. (Kiko's Catechism, Vol 1., pg. 348)

Alas, poor St. Francis and St. Benedict, they were so confused, not having Kiko to enlighten them.

Anonymous Neo continues:

As for the statutes, it appears that you are fussing over the altar being at the center of the church, when it states: This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the "MANNER of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books." 

The manner in which the Way had been distributing the body and blood of Christ in the past was by sitting down. This is what has changed. Those in the Way are following the Statues in that the manner in which they are now receiving the body and blood of Christ is by standing up. God bless.

Ah, you see, we are "fussing".  Never mind that the GIRM also requires that the altar should be "fixed and dedicated" (GIRM 299), but beyond that, Anonymous Neo actually believes that the manner in which "those in the Way" receive communion comports with their Statute when they stand to "receive".

If by "receiving the body" you mean immediately consume - as required by the liturgical books: As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it (GIRM 161); then Anonymous Neo would be correct. But of course Neo communicants DO NOT consume "the whole of it" as "soon as the communicant receives the host." They sit down while still holding it, and at least in one community in Agana, they chat it up with their neighbors with the Body of Christ still in their hands.

It is here that we see the NCW, or at least its leadership, at its most insolent. The NCW leaders have taken the word "receive" and reinterpreted it (think Tower of Babel) it to fit their end. Imagine a wide receiver in football, whose job it is to "receive" the football from the quarterback, and upon catching it, just stands there. The only reason to catch the football is to get that football into the end zone ASAP.

What else can we say, such insolence and brazen disobedience is why you are increasingly seen as a parallel church with your own magisterium. The fact that Archbishop Apuron has championed your errors is an EXTREMELY GRAVE MATTER, and the fact that he has persecuted priests like Father Paul, who have stood up to those errors is EVEN GRAVER.

I look forward to more material.