The link was not working at first, then it was, then it was not again. Here is the content for anyone who is likewise frustrated:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/01/index.html
The Way?
The Neocatechumenal Way comes up here from time to time. It is popular here and there in the US - I understand that it has grown, in particular among Hispanics. The Pope has praised it, as he has many of the "New Movements" in the Church, but questions about it abound. The secrecy of its catechism and the shape of its liturgy being foremost.
An article from an Italian paper about the Way
The statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way were approved by the Holy See in 2002 on an "ad experimentum" basis for five years. The bishops are entrusted with the task of watching over their application.
Various bishops have expressed reservations, even recently: for example, that of Brescia, Giulio Sanguineti. In 2004, he wrote in a letter that "we must avoid that the eucharist celebrated in the Neocatechumenal communities be perceived as the 'true' eucharist in comparison with the one celebrated for all the faithful."
Other bishops are instead, and in growing numbers, enthusiasts of the Way. They admire its power of propagation and the flowering of vocations.
John Paul II is one of their most convicted admirers. In the Vatican, they receive strong support from Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe, prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.
///end///
Note the line, "The bishops are entrusted with the task of watching over their application." The bishops, of course, would do a great job of keeping the Faith safe from any signs of corrosion? Would that be because they are so good at "pastoral care?" They would protect against dogmatic corruption by being good pastors instead??
The usual argument about Vatican II and its horrific aftermath is, that the council was pastoral rather than dogmatic. After 40 years of this delusion, however, one has to doubt whether the council was even pastoral! Its agents (of the "New Springtime," or whatever silly name they want to call it now) exhibit a decidedly anti-pastoral hatred toward traditional Catholics.
While such nonsense as "the Way" gets full backing inasmuch as it has no restrictions placed upon its operation, traditional Catholics have patiently looked toward Ecclesia Dei for scraps off the rich man's table like so many Lazaruses. And what good does Ecclesia Dei do?
At the Una Voce 1999 General Assembly in Rome, Msgr. Perl, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, made a public speech denouncing traditional Catholics. When it came to question time, he refused to answer politely-formulated questions and just walked out in a huff. Michael Davies said that he once mentioned to Perl the distress Una Voce members felt at the fact that the Commission that is supposed to represent the interests of traditional Catholics did virtually nothing to help them. Perl's reply was that the Commission in no way represents traditional Catholics, but only the Conciliar Holy See (of Vatican II). Just goes to show who's side the Commission is really on!
Wait a minute. Did I really see that? Let me read it again: Perl's reply was that the Commission in no way represents traditional Catholics, but only the Conciliar Holy See. The Commission in no way represents traditional Catholics? Well, then what kind of Catholics ARE represented? Not the faithful but the Conciliar Holy See? Why, are the men who work in that office not Catholics?
This sort of thing was no "con job" on JPII. He saw it in all its glory. And he let it continue, even while he supported such termites as "the Way" and Focolore and Renew 2000. Who's conning who here??