Vatican Storylines: Those Who Are Resisting Benedict XVI

Chiesa ^ | January 19, 2006 | Sandro Magister

[NYer]

ROMA, January 19, 2006 – The first words of Benedict XVI’s first encyclical letter, almost the motto of his papacy, are “Deus Caritas Est,” God is love.

But not everyone in the upper levels of the Church is full of love and solidarity for this new pope. Resistance to his guidance is tenacious and widespread, and in some places it is on the rise. And almost all the resistance shields itself behind the protection of anonymity.

The only open and avowed resistance is that of the Neocatechumenal Way, which has opposed a papal directive issued last December, which struck at one of the movement’s cornerstones.

The Way, founded and directed by Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernández, both Spanish, is today the most vigorous of the new Catholic movements that emerged during the last half century. It is present in 900 dioceses on all the inhabited continents, and boasts the strength of a million followers in over 20,000 communities, with 3,000 priests and 5,000 religious. It has an international network of 63 “Redemptoris Mater” seminaries, which are thriving with new vocations, in contrast with the vacuum in many diocesan seminaries.

One of the factors in its numeric expansion is the elevated number of children that its families bring into the world, running to ten, twelve, or even more. Each year, scores of these families go on mission into faraway countries. Last January 12, 200 of these families departed all at once from Rome, with the personal blessing of Benedict XVI, who met them in a Nervi Hall that was crowded and pulsing with enthusiasm. Some of the families were going to Patagonia or Japan, but some others were going into the most dechristianized areas of Europe: France, Holland, the former East Germany.

With such a legacy of success, it is natural that the Neocatechumenals receive the support of a large number of bishops and cardinals. Two of these patrons – cardinal Crescenzio Sepe, prefect of the Vatican congregation for the propagation of the faith, and cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop of Washington – were at their side in Nervi Hall on January 12. But criticisms have also rained down upon the Neocatechumenals over the years, especially against their carving out a separate place for themselves in the Church, with their own secret catechism, their own rituals, and their own parallel hierarchy. But these criticisms were always overruled by the unconditional support given to them by John Paul II.

But that’s no longer the case with pope Ratzinger. There is one thing about the Neocatechumenals that the pope does not accept, and which touches the heart of Christian life: the unusual way in which they celebrate the Mass (1).

In effect, the Mass that every one of the 20,000 communities of the Way celebrates each Saturday evening – separately from the parishes and the other sister communities – follows the dictates of its founder Kiko Argüello much more closely than it does the liturgical canons that are universally valid for the Catholic Church.

Instead of the altar in the apse, at the center of the hall is a large square dinner table, around which the Neocatechumenals receive communion in a seated position.

Instead of hosts, a large loaf of unleavened wheat bread, made with two-thirds white flour and one-third whole wheat flour, is divided and eaten. The bread, which is baked for a quarter of an hour, is prepared according to very detailed guidelines established by Kiko.

The wine is drunk from cups, also in a sitting position.

The homily is replaced by spontaneous comments from those present, before and after the readings from the Gospel, the letters of Saint Paul, and the Old Testament.

Benedict XVI has ordered that all of this come to an end. He did this through a letter delivered in mid-December to the three main leaders of the Way: Kiko, Carmen, and the Italian priest Mario Pezzi. The letter was signed by cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican congregation for the liturgy, but from its very first lines it clearly states that these are “the decisions of the Holy Father.” Six unambiguous commands follow.

For example, regarding communion, the exact dispositions of the letter are these:

“On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. 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.” (2)

But instead of simply obeying, the Neocatechumenals disobeyed while asserting that they were perfectly obedient.

When Vatican analyst Andrea Tornielli first gave the news of the pope’s directions, the official spokesman and director of the Way in the United States, Giuseppe Gennarini, protested that in reality these orders amounted to an approval (3).

When on December 27 www.chiesa published Arinze’s letter in its entirety, Gennarini called the very authenticity of this letter into question. He added that “this does not change its nature of a confidential and internal instrumentum laboris (working instrument),” devoid of any normative force. He restated that the only valid norm is “the confirmation by the Holy Father of the liturgical praxis of the Way.” And by way of proof he cited the blessing that the pope would bestow a few days later upon the Neocatechumenal families leaving on mission, during the audience of January 12 (4).

The audience did, in fact, take place. And so did the blessing. But there was also a second, ringing summons to obedience from Benedict XVI:

“Recently the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments imparted to you, in my name, some norms concerning the Eucharistic celebration, after the trial period that had been granted by the servant of God John Paul II. I am certain that these norms, which draw upon the provisions of the liturgical books approved by the Church, will meet with attentive compliance from you.” (5)

There was no comment from the directors of the Way after this second call from the pope. But word was given to the 20,000 communities to continue as before.

* * *
A second form of resistance to Benedict XVI manifests itself in the indiscreet comments on the conclave that elected him (6).

Here anonymity reigns, in part because of the serious canonical penalties incurred by cardinals who violate the secrecy of conclave, penalties that can even include excommunication. But the intentions of these indiscretions are clear: to show that the election of Ratzinger on April 19 was not at all equitable, that it was in doubt until the very end, that it was unduly favored by the fact that he was the dean of the college of cardinals, that he is in the pocket of Opus Dei, that the time is ripe for a new pope, preferably a Latin American, and that, in short, Benedict XVI should submit himself to these inherent limitations.

This is, in fact, what the most widespread reconstructions of the conclave say.

The first of these, in chronological order – it was made public by “Corriere della Sera” and by the historian Alberto Melloni – points to cardinal Carlo Maria Martini as both the antagonist and the deus ex machina of Ratzinger’s election. By first taking votes away from Ratzinger and then clearing the way for him, Martini is supposed to have reconfigured “an even more dreadful politically motivated solution,” which was manipulated, while Karol Wojtyla was still alive, by a movement “with adequate liquidity” engaged in “a takeover bid for the papacy itself.” For this movement, read Opus Dei.

The second reconstruction – initially circulated by Tornielli in “il Giornale” and by Lucio Brunelli in the geopolitics monthly “Limes,” then again by Gerson Camarotti of Brazil in “O Globo,” and finally, a few days ago, by Paul Elie in the United States in the January-February edition of “The Atlantic Monthly” (7) – builds upon the previous one by placing beside Martini, as the other prominent antagonist, Argentine cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio. The latter is said to have received as many as 40 votes: not enough to stop Ratzinger in his tracks, but enough to reduce considerably the scale of his success. And this success, in any case, is imagined to bear the infamous mark of the campaign on his behalf carried out by Opus Dei.

Both “Limes” and “O Globo” indicate a single cardinal as the source of their respective revelations. In reality, these emanate from a continuous chorus in many voices, both within the curia and outside of it, the only common denominator of which is an aversion for pope Ratzinger.

As for the campaigns before the conclave, these are material for the scrapbooks. For example, cardinal Sepe openly pointed, for years, to the papal election of cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, archbishop of Mexico City.

* * *
Then there is also in the Vatican a third and more passive form of resistance to Benedict XVI. During the first months of his pontificate, the pope essentially concentrated upon the liturgical celebrations and upon the bare word: homilies, Angelus messages, catecheses, speeches, and now his encyclical. But in order for these words to be spread all over the world, they at least need to be translated and diffused in the main languages.

Well then, a speech of primary importance like the one Benedict XVI addressed to the Roman curia on December 22, two-thirds of which was dedicated to the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the relationship between the Church and the modern world, was for eight days available on the Vatican website only in its Italian version. It was then accompanied by the French, then a few days later by the Spanish, then the English, then by the German version. So, almost a month after the event, the last of the six versions into which papal documents are normally translated – the Portuguese version – is still missing (8). And the same thing has happened in the case of almost all the other texts.

And yet the Vatican is the most polyglot state in the world, brimming over with translators, and it has an overabundance of organs dedicated to social communications. They were useless, at least in this matter. Even more than that – they were harmful.

Not even Benedict XVI could refrain from publicly manifesting his disappointment for the bad functioning of the system of translations. On Wednesday, January 18, in announcing to the faithful that his first encyclical would be published on the following January 25, he let slip the word “finally.” And he lamented the fact that “some time has passed before the text was ready and translated.”

Apart from the slowness, it emerges that Benedict XVI was not pleased with some of the translations of the encyclical, which he himself had to correct.

__________


(1) On the liturgical practice of the Neocatechumenal Way, see on this site:

> Bad History, Bad Guide. The Strange Liturgy of the Neocatechumenals (24.1.2005)


(2) You can find the complete text of the December 1, 2005 letter from cardinal Francis Arinze to Kiko Argüello, Carmen Hernández, and Mario Pezzi here:

> Liturgy: Benedict XVI Brings the Neocatechumenals Back to the Right Way (27.12.2005)


(3) See Giuseppe Gennarini’s reply to “il Giornale,” published on December 27, 2005:

> “Ho letto con molta sorpresa e dolore...”


(4) More precisely, after Cardinal Arinze’s letter was made public by www.chiesa, Gennarini intervened to comment upon it twice. He gave an interview to the international news agency Zenit, which was released on January 1, 2006:

> Neocatechumenate on the Holy See's Guidelines

He also wrote a long letter posted online on January 6, on www.jimmyakin.org:

> “Dear Mr. Akin, I have read...”

At the conclusion of his letter, Gennarini fixed in four points the interpretation that the Neocatechumenal Way gave to the Vatican dispositions. In practice, the interpretation invalidates these guidelines. Here are its four points:

“1. This is a private letter whose real contents are known only by Cardinal Arinze, Kiko Argüello, Carmen Hernández and Father Mario Pezzi. Any use of a private document to enforce a public policy is completely illegitimate and improper.

“2. If someone of the above mentioned people should confirm that the contents of this letter are authentic, this does not change its nature of a confidential and internal instrumentum laboris (working instrument). To consider this letter as having the strength of a norm would be as if we considered the Instrumentum Laboris of the Synod on the Eucharist as the final Document of the Synod.

“3. The iter established by the Holy See regarding the Neocatechumenal Way foresees that every decision must be approved conjunctly by the Inter-Dicasterial Commisssion (Pontifical Institute for the Laity, faith, Liturgy, Clergy and Catechesis, Catholic Education). This letter is just a moment of the proceedings of the Interdicasterial.

“4. The only document approved conjunctly until now are the Statutes, which are much more explicit than the contents of the letter. At the end of the ad experimentum period all the Five Congregations will issue the official decisions. What is for now the actual norm is the confirmation by the Holy Father of the liturgical praxis of the Way.”


(5) Benedict XVI’s complete address to the Neocatechumenals, on January 12, 2006:

> “Grazie all’adesione fedele ad ogni direttiva della Chiesa... [Thanks to your faithful adherence to all of the Church‘s directives...]”

The previous day, in a press release, the Way again repeated that “the Holy See has approved the liturgical practices of the Neocatechumenal Way.”


(6) See on this website, in regard to the conclave of 2005:

> The Vatican Codes: This Is How I Rewrite My Conclave (7.10.2005)

> What Really Happened at the Conclave (2.5.2005)


(7) On the reconstruction in “The Atlantic Monthly,” see the critical review by Alejandro Bermudez in his blog “Catholic Outsider,” January 12, 2006:

> The Atlantic and how Benedict was elected


(8) The day after the pope’s December 22 address to the curia, www.chiesa released the ample section of this dedicated to Vatican Council II, in Italian and in the English version taken from the agency “Asia News”:

> Pope Ratzinger Certifies the Council – The Real One (23.12.2005)

The Vatican’s English translation of the entire discourse, made available a number of days later, is the following:

> “Your Eminences, Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate...”


(9) The complete text of the announcement, available only in Italian:

> Annuncio dell’enciclica “Deus Caritas Est”

[trisham]

Second, they are clearly not schismatic. The Pope's statements, if nothing else, cannot help but make that clear, and you have no business contending you can override his statements about them. He determines who is schismatic or not, and where he has ruled you cannot contradict, or you are guilty of the same thing you wish to accuse them of.

So long as the Holy Father continues to work with them and recognize them, they are not schismatic.

"Benedict XVI has ordered that all of this come to an end. He did this through a letter delivered in mid-December to the three main leaders of the Way: Kiko, Carmen, and the Italian priest Mario Pezzi. The letter was signed by cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican congregation for the liturgy, but from its very first lines it clearly states that these are “the decisions of the Holy Father.” Six unambiguous commands follow.

For example, regarding communion, the exact dispositions of the letter are these:

“On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. 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.” (2)

But instead of simply obeying, the Neocatechumenals disobeyed while asserting that they were perfectly obedient."

***************

In my opinion, the situation described above is a schism. While Pope Benedict may be trying to work with them and bring them back into the fold, they are still currently in schism.

schism

One entry found for schism.

Main Entry: schism

Pronunciation: 'si-z&m, 'ski- also 'shi-; among clergy usually 'si-

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English scisme, from Middle French cisme, from Late Latin schismat-, schisma, from Greek, cleft, division, from schizein to split -- more at SHED

1 : DIVISION, SEPARATION; also : DISCORD, DISHARMONY

2 a : formal division in or separation from a church or religious body b : the offense of promoting schism

[Theophane]

Here is the definition of schism in the Code of Canon Law (1983):

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

[patent]

>>>>In my opinion, the situation described above is a schism. While Pope Benedict may be trying to work with them and bring them back into the fold, they are still currently in schism. If that's all it took to be in schism nearly all of us would be in schism at some level. There have been alot of unambiguous commands from the Pope's I've failed to live up to - I'm a proven repeated sinner.

You provided a dictionary definition of schism. That's fine, but which part of it do you think they fail? The first "1 : DIVISION, SEPARATION; also : DISCORD, DISHARMONY" is one we nearly all meet at some point. Its also entirely too vague to actually be applied. The second, "2 a : formal division in or separation from a church or religious body b : the offense of promoting schism" is clearly not met here, as there is no formal seperation. The Pope clearly recognizes them as inside the Church. I don't know why you guys insist on throwing the schism word so recklessly when the Pope clearly disagrees. He defines the issue, not us.

patent

[tiki]

I have truly been concerned about a friend of mine as her antisemitism has grown every day. I sort of excommunicated her from my life for a while but then when her family talked to me and expressed their extreme concern for her I made the promise to love her where she is and that they should too and hope for the best. Her daughter is helping her to moderate a little, teensy bit and the last time I was with her she managed to avoid talking religion with me.

Her niece, OTH, has gone even further saying that her aunt, basically isn't holy enough. The niece moved to Phoenix and is completely immersing herself in the SSPX.

[Antoninus]

Should it not be "Benedicat," Antoninus?

You are 100% right. My fingers are as disobedient as an American bishop!

[Desdemona]

Strictly speaking, ummm, I can program the music, but a proper Gregorian Chant choir is actually a schola and we ladies would not be included.

[bornacatholic]

Pope Torquemada would tend to signal a change in the way the Papacy would be exercised :)

First Day...

I'd fillet Fellay

I'd give a faithful Irish Catholic from Southie five minutes to use a shillelagh on Schillebeeckx and see if Schille is silly or serious once the heat is on.

I'd let a cranky Catholic campesino tie a plow to the sorry ass of "Liberation Theology" toss-pot, Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez,and make him turn-over 15 acres while Ol' G.G. sings "L'Internationale" in pig Latin and all the Catholic kids get to pelt him with rotten tomatoes (provided, for free, by Hugo Chavez)

I'd send Fr. Robert Nugent to a Dude Ranch on Brokeback Mountain telling him Popes don't let their cowboys grow-up to be boyfriends and that unless he repents, and I mean Pronto, Tonto, he's just another goat playing grab-ass with Satan .

VOTF would be given the Phone number to the local Episcopalian Church and told to bugger-off

Then, I 'd break for 6:00 am Mass

[bornacatholic]

Southern by choice.

Were I Pope, I'd contract with NASCAR to soup-up the Popemobile and Lynyrd Skynyrd and the Allman Brothers would be in my CD collection and I'd make it a point to praise Brother Sam Phillips of Sun Records for his slapback delay innovation and any attempt to end the Muscle Shoals Sound would be roundly and soundly denounced and condemned. As the Pope, I'd love Gregorian Chant,Mozart, and Vivaldi, but, a guy's gotta kick-back for some cold brews, a few glasses of good red wine and some different music every now and then :)

[bornacatholic]

http://sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/jews_guilty_of_deicide.htm

[Frank Sheed]

I hate to be pedantic but I vividly recall that line as the priest turned and blessed us before instructing us to "Ite Missa Est!"

I don't see the Latin Mass much nowadays. I sure pray that this Holy Father makes the Tridentine a separate Rite or Prelature within the Church.

F

[bornacatholic]

Oh, I am sorry to hear that. THe SSPX Schism is the home for many formerly-Catholic antisemites. It is the sspx doctrine the Jews are cursed. I call that Calvinism in Fiddlebacks.

Other than prayer,not much can be done to penetrate the hateful ideology. The Holy Spirit must change their hearts and that requires their cooperation with Grace.

[trisham]

I'd always heard it was "Southern by the grace of God". :)

[patent]

>>>>http://sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/jews_guilty_of_deicide.htm

I see the link is to the SSPX, and that made me realize my post wasn't clear. I was referring to the Neocatechumal Way, not the SSPX. I had understood you to refer to both as schismatic/heretical. I would agree that the official SSPX is schismatic, and some are heretical. I disagree about the NW, as I've yet to see proof they are either schismatic or heretical.

patent

[Convert from ECUSA]

ROFL! I love it!

[bornacatholic]

1 Timothy Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear.

* The Pope is using the language of romance and being quite gentle with them. Fine. He is Pope.

I ain't. I am calling a schismatic spade a schismatic spade. I see no virtue in pretending what clearly is isn't. The Pope said "do this." They said "nope."

Romans 16: 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. 18 For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent.

*IMO, we laymen in America have been feminized and far too many are fearful of calling a spade a spade.

[trisham]

If that's all it took to be in schism nearly all of us would be in schism at some level. There have been alot of unambiguous commands from the Pope's I've failed to live up to - I'm a proven repeated sinner.

I see what you mean. Perhaps this will be of use:

From a search of The Holy See:

"Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271"

www.vatican

You provided a dictionary definition of schism. That's fine, but which part of it do you think they fail? The first "1 : DIVISION, SEPARATION; also : DISCORD, DISHARMONY" is one we nearly all meet at some point. Its also entirely too vague to actually be applied. The second, "2 a : formal division in or separation from a church or religious body b : the offense of promoting schism" is clearly not met here, as there is no formal seperation. The Pope clearly recognizes them as inside the Church. I don't know why you guys insist on throwing the schism word so recklessly when the Pope clearly disagrees. He defines the issue, not us.

Yes, I agree that this is defined by the Pope. I should have consulted a more appropriate source.

From The Holy See:

"2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11"

www.vatican

There is a difference between the sins of an individual, and the persistent defiance of a group which has officially separated itself from the Church.

[bornacatholic]

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=44140&eng=y

[trisham]

But with Benedict XVI, playtime is over.

And it’s coming to an end for the liturgical abuses practiced throughout the Church. In this regard, pope Joseph Ratzinger’s document in conclusion of the synod of the Eucharist will be of great interest.

*************

Glory be. This is one amazing Pope.

[Diva]

Watch this space for further announcements!

Hey I wanna be in charge of somthin! How about the Congregation of Pseudo-Catholic Movements?

[Diva]

but a proper Gregorian Chant choir is actually a schola and we ladies would not be included.

Actual statement of a progressive female theology student upon being asked her thoughts on Benedict XVI's election: "Now women will just be candlesticks on the altar!" To avoid being a candlestick this is what I do sometimes when our schola sings. I drop into my best tenor range and sing with them. Ninenot - Cal used to let me rehearse with the guys on Wednesdays, as long as I could sing in their octave he didn't care. It's only when Father is in the choir loft that I have to be careful. ; )