Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way
The serious consequences of an anomalous ratification

A reader writes:
Object: Informations about the Neocatechumenal Way”
In the opening catechesis I had several negative sensations, which were amplified by the final sharing.
Reading these pages, I noticed that many people shared my feelings, that were so grim as to make me believe that the Antichrist will enter the Church by this way.
After reading that the Vatican ratified the Statutes of the Neocathecumenal Way, I would like to ask you: How is it possible that nobody seems to notice something that is easily perceivable, not even the Holy Father?


Between many recent e-mails concerning the NCW we received, we decided to publish this one, removing the reader’s personal data for privacy reasons, but taking it into account because it is emblematic of the relations between the NCW and the Church, especially in its final question, that focuses on the deeply anomalous punctum dolens of the present situation. This anomaly makes our position an inconvenient one, because our steady commitment—that is parallel to the unvaried danger which threatens the integrity of the Church itself—opposes the NCW despite the ratification of its Statutes by the Pontifical Council for the Laity.

No matter how anomalous(1) this ratification was: it conferred to the NCW a role inside the Church—played with aggressiveness and strong leverages—that permits it to continue the work of penetration into the vital core of the Church itself in order to transform it at all levels: Parishes, Hierarchies, Curial and Press Organisms and Cultural Organizations. We cannot underestimate either the huge income originated by the production of sacred furnishings, symbols, icons, para-religious gift items (whose production has some standards that permit to all the communities to work independently and to give job to many people, stimulating their participation). We have also to add the parallel income—managed as a lobby—originated by the construction of Churches, Centers, Seminars belonging to the NCW or to other religious institutions, all of which are marked with the style of Kiko’s “New Aesthetic” that introduced and continues introducing a new theology, a new syncretistic symbology, taking advantage of the silence or even the connivence of some bishops, who should instead be the ‘guardians‘ of the Catholic faith.

Let’s come back to the punctum dolens mentioned in the last part of the e-mail: it is clear that the ratification and the following attitude of the Pope (despite the corrections he did) allows many people who nurture strong doubts about the NCW—between them, the reader who wrote us—to remain in it or even to begin participating to it.

Since we mentioned the Pope, we limit ourselves to say that, when he’s not proclaiming dogmas of faith, his infallibility is not guaranteed: that permits us to dissent from him, whit the highest respect and with well-founded reasons based on the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, without losing communion with him nor with the Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot even rule out the hypothesis that he is not correctly informed by those who have the interest to make him believe that the irregularities of the NCW have been amended. This is what his Vicar Monsignor Vallini—according to our fonts—constantly repeats to all those who express critics and complaints about the diocesan pastoral, that is deeply rooted in the NCW’s doctrines. On the other hand, paradoxically, Monsignor Vallini thunders with utter blame against the groups and priests who ask him for permission to celebrate the Mass according with the papal directions of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificorum: So he disobeys them and shapes more and more the Pope’s Diocese on the model of the “New Church” which moves forward, being completely closed to the motions of restoration promoted by the very same Pontiff and supported by many Catholics.

In the present situation, many Christians feel as prisoners in what should be and is no more their own home, while the Pope asserts that “the Church is everybody’s home.” We wonder if in the word ‘everybody’ we must include the heretics. The disappointed Christians are forced to undertake an endless diaspora to find Parishes that are not contaminated by Kiko’s new doctrine—artfully camouflaged as ‘Catholic Church’—or even by the modernistic doctrine which dominates the hegemonic culture depending on the ‘spirit of the Council’.

The oases of sane doctrine and spirituality are rare and most of them are not easy to reach. If we didn’t trust the Grace and the Power of the Lord, we would say that they risk to disappear. This is the present situation of the Catholic Church.

Being proven and recognized that nothing has changed nor will it change in the NCW—at least until it is ruled by by such powerful initiators—our duty to correct the mistakes of many naive believers who pay heed to authoritative ‘pastoral choices’ arises strong and clear, and it is encouraged by the following statement, that we cite without comments:

«In the treasure of Revelation there are essential doctrines which all Christians, by the very fact of their title as such, are bound to know and defend. [...] The true children of Holy Church at such times [of heresy] are those who walk in the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls that, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions that are neither necessary nor desirable». (Dom Prosper Guéranger, OSB, The Liturgical Year, Volume 4: Septuagesima, reading for feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, February 9, pp.379-80)

(1) The anomaly is double:

  1. It lacks of the contextual or preemptive approval of the texts which the Statutes make reference to in the Second Article: «The Neocatechumenal Way is implemented in the dioceses [...] “according with the lines proposed by the initiators,” contained in the present Statute and in the Orientations for the Teams of Catechists», that form the contents of the so-called ‘Neocathecumenal evangelization’ and its relative practices, which are merely initiatic steps covered by secrecy. Is it admissible the presence of an ‘initiatic’ secrecy of Gnostic matrix inside the Catholic Church, whose revelation is in the full light of day and within everyone’s grasp?

     January 17, 2010. Today - nigro notanda lapillo (1), as our Fathers defined the most ominous days -, we had news about the Vatican release of the "Direttorio Catechetico" (Catechetical directory) of the Neocatechumenal Way that now include corrections by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Neocatechumenal Way Statutes largely referred to the unpublished "Direttorio"). This event is the actual confirmation of at least two important facts: first, "corrections" means that for more than 40 years people in the Way were instructed on the basis of wrong, incomplete or ambiguous doctrines; second, that the doctrines of the Way have now to be published to make the formal statement an actual one, wiping out that cult-styled aura of secrecy that has no meaning in the Roman Catholic Church.
    (1) A "black-stone markable" day - i.e., ominous.

  2. The Thirteenth Article modifies—without holding the authority to do it, since the ratification of the Statutes falls within the competences of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, whereas Liturgy is ruled by the Congregation of the Divine Cult—a prescription already ratified by the Congregation of the Divine Cult on December 1st, 2005, mentioned by the Pope in a public audience as “rules ordained in my name.” This is the only cryptical reference to the letter written by the Cardinal Arinze, of which we have no more notices—even if it is cited in the note number 49 to the third comma of the article—so that it remains nullified by the ratification of the Statutes according with the terms of the mentioned article, that is the fruit of nerve-racking and exasperating negotiations and the consequent compromise—as

| home |

| top |