Neocatechumenal Way and the Eucharist

(On use of the phrase "The Way." For me, Jesus Christ alone is The Way; and The Way to Him is the Catholic Church. However constant repetition of "The Neocatechumenal Way" will become tiresome. So, in deference to Kiko's own self-description, I will refer to this movement, this renewal, this itinerary as The Way, even as I myself see it more modestly as "a way...to Christ in His Church.")

The Neocatechumenal Way is the most vigorous, creative, zealous renewal movement in the Church. It is an authentically novel and yet genuine expression of Catholic orthodoxy. Fiercerly counter-cultural, it is a retrieval and synthesis of some of the richest treasures of the ancient and contemporary Church. Many of it elements, even standing on their own, are pregnant with promise: the music, icons, scrutinies, practice of penance, profound engagement with the Word, candid confrontation with Death and Resurrection, eagerness to ask forgiveness and admit judgment, and many others. Its singular, significant weakness is its understanding and practice of the Eucharist. To be sure, their doctrine is orthodox and their loyalty to hierarchy and magisterium is fierce. Furthermore, their zealous practice of the Liturgy of the Word, with the admonitions and echoes, is a marvelous advance beyond late Tridentine and even Vatican II practice. The problem is a weakened sense of the Liturgy of the Eucharist as sacrifice and abiding substance and consequently a distance from regular parish live. Developed at the time of the Council, their liturgy represents problematic aspects of the liturgical renewal at that time: a focus upon the Eucharist as celebration and (Passover) meal and an aversion to sacrifice, substance and corollaries of silence, adoration and kneeling. Because the Eucharist is the very heart and soul of our Catholic faith, a weakness here can have grave consequences and must be considered.

1. Their catechesis (as I received it over 10 years ago) clearly contrasts the Eucharist with sacrifice, understood as pagan, sinful man's attempt to manipulate the Divine. Correctly, they understand Eucharist as the New Passover Meal whereby the Lord passes over us and brings us from Death into Life. This is in itself unobjectionable if understood correctly. But the Catholic tradition has always seen the mass as a sacrifice, the ultimate and final sacrifice of Christ by Christ, in line with  Old Testament temple sacrifice which was itself a valid communion with God. Their more reductive understanding of sacrifice in its negative aspect has the effect of breaking the continuity between the sacrifices of the two covenants and implies a quasi-Marcionite disparagement of Judaism, at least in its temple sacrifice. This is all the more striking in that Kiko has a rich, deep appreciation of the Jewish roots of our faith in many ways. His view of sacrifice and liturgy is an exception and a blind spot. When I myself walked The Camino ("The Way") to Santiago de Compestela, I spent time reading Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, canonical works largely ignored today, and became aware of the Judaic fascination with sacrifice. This appreciation of the positive face of sacrifice is missing from "The Way."

2.  Liturgical reform in the 1960s emphasized liturgy as encounter and event but downplayed it as substantial presence. The important concept of "transubstantiation" fell into disfavor among fashionable liturgists. (The entire ontological vocabulary of substance, form, essence and act was disparaged in the anti-metaphysical emotivism that is still with us!) Tridentine Catholicism organized itself around the persisting, substantial presence of Jesus' very self in the small, modest host. Surely it needed and received in the Council a push beyond individualistic "Jesus and Me" piety and a retrieval of the communal and eventful reality of the Eucharistic Act itself.  The practice and teaching of the post-Council dual-pontificate clearly, forcefully, magisterially maintained  a synthesis of these realities: Eucharist as event-encounter and Eucharist as abiding-substantial-presence; as personal and communal union; as meal and sacrifice; as solemn and celebrative. The mystical-sacramental intuition of God's distinctive, physical, continuous presence in the reserved Eucharist is hardly denied, but is very weak in the Way. This expresses itself in practical, consequential ways: noisiness in Church, inattention to the tabernacle, absence of silence and kneeling, heightened attention to the real-meal wine and bread with a diminshed sense of sacredness or "difference." To be sure, the pastor at a local neo-cat parish labors to silence the congregation in the Eucharistic presence but with little success because the overall culture and catechesis is largely indifferent. Those of us who came of age before the Council were forcefully punished for disrespect in Church; we knew that the best day of our life was the day we received our first holy communion; we practiced adoration, "visits" and 40-hour-devotion. Think of St. Elizabeth Seton on the eve of her conversion, sitting in an Episcopalian Church and praying to the Eucharist housed across the street. By contrast, I attended a neo-cat convenience at an Eastern Church monastery which had an exquisite chapel adjacent to our meeting room. The catechists were unaware or indifferent as they made no reference to it and issued no encouragement to visit, rest and pray in The Presence. From what I can see, the ongoing physical presence in the Host is part of the "null curriculum" of The Way.

3.  Catholic life organizes itself around its center: the Eucharist, particularly the Sunday mass but also daily mass and the constant tabernacle presence. And so, the establishment of an "alternate Eucharistic rite" is consequential. Such a move carries an implicit schismatic tendency. What Sunday morning liturgy does for the parish and the normal Catholic the Saturday evening worship does for the communities of The Way. We have, in fact, two distinct worshiping communities. This split takes an extreme form in the Easter Vigil which is literally an all-night vigil separated off from the parish. That the two communities celebrate the Resurrection in separation represents a "schism in worship."

4.  The liturgical separation is related to a broader, more pervasive aversion to traditional, parochial Catholic institution and history. Like many reforms, this Way looks back to the origins and tends to devalue "ordinary" Catholic practice and habit as developed over the centuries. This is more implied than stated. The Way is developing an alternate culture, in opposition to Western modernity in crisis, and understandably views the regular Church as weak and compromised. It is ironic that Kiko, who shows a genius for appreciating and incorporating sundry elements of Christian life into his itinerary, has created a program that is tight, rigid and tends to close in on itself. Imagine that at a single large retreat center, a variety of different groups are holding meetings: Evangelicals, Charismatic Catholics, Catholic Workers, Knights of Columbis, Communion and Liberation and Neo-Cats. The first five might find each other interesting and spend time together in dialogue; their leaders might even encourage such. This would hardly occur to the catechists who are focused intensely on their agenda and inattentive to anything else. It is unlikely that they would participate in a diocesan men's rally or something like that. Of course every renewal tends to enthusiasm and separation but a balanced Catholic with solid formation or a good priest can synthesize the "institutional" with the "charismatic." But most who participate in The Way lack formation: the very purpose of the itinerary is formation for the baptized but un-evangelized and un-catechized. Notwithstanding the respect for priesthood and sacrament, the catechetical program is lay-based, highly structured and immune to clerical intervention (for better and for worse.) The parochial Church, weak and compromised as it is, is in desperate need of the invigorating resources offered by The Way; but the separation in worship is an obstacle. It is like a marriage in which husband-wife love each other, but sleep in separate beds and never visit each other: they have to get together once in while...no?

5.  My understanding is that about 10 years ago the Vatican directed that those walking in The Way attend the normal parish liturgy at least monthly. My impression is that leadership assented verbally but has basically ignored this directive. The communal liturgies still happen every single Saturday evening and I suspect that few attend parish mass, even monthly. (Perhaps I am wrong: maybe those more advanced on the Journey have developed a Eucharist hunger that brings them to daily mass and even adoration. I hope so! If my judgement is rash, I will rush to ask forgiveness!) Again, to my knowledge, Kiko and Carmen are obstinate in maintenance of  a separate rite that is total and extrinsic to parish worship. (If this judgment is rash, I will rush to ask forgiveness!) This Way has probably aroused more resentment from our clergy than all the other lay renewal movements put together. This may  be that they are Christ-like victims persecuted by a jealous, controlling, Spirit-resisting clergy. But more likely it is  because their liturgy directly competes with the clergy over what is most sacred to them: the very Eucharist itself. The rite of Kiko/Carmen is in its own way reverent, vibrant, engaging and beautiful even as it restores lost dimensions of worship from the early Church and Scripture. It has much to offer the broader Church. The Eucharist in its very simplicity finds a rich diversity of expressions: Latin mass, charismatic, guitar or high mass, and (my favorite) the simple, no-frills 25-minute-daily-mass-with-3-minute homily. The Way is and will be an immense enrichment of the Church as it overcomes this separateness.

6.  I am hopeful that this centrifugal impetus to schism-in-worship will be overcome by stronger, centripetal, Catholic forces. First, Kiko and his companions remain fiercely, refreshingly loyal to the hierarchy/magisterium and are good example for mainstream priests. Secondly, Kiko is right that the parochial Church is weak in the face of a modernity that is hostile and formidable and so is in desperate need of renewal. Thirdly, the rich resources in The Way are an immense, precious gift to the Church. The forth source of hope is practical and institutional. This Way is sending many men into the priesthood. By a happy arrangement, these seminarians follow a double path of formation: spiritually they are groomed in their own residences under the charism of Kiko; but intellectually they learn their theology in local diocesan seminaries. The institution of the seminary, which is often criticized, is a most stable, reliable pillar of the Catholic edifice: wherever in the world you go, in spite of diversities of personality, culture and ideology, you will reliably find, at Sunday morning mass, a reasonably accurate presentation of our Faith. This is amazing and surely a sign that our Lord is with His Church. Furthermore, after ordination, these priests serve in regular parishes, even as they may be made available eventually for service of The Way. So, these young priests who are carrying the charism of The Way, are also under the influence of reliable theological faculties and diocesan priests in all their flawed, mundane splendor, While The Way's founders and their generation remain resistant and defensive of their understanding of the integrity of their charism, the emergent generation of priests may well, patiently and gradually, reconcile the two communities of worship, the charism of the Way and the valid, parochial concerns of the clergy. Why couldn't the communities celebrate every other Saturday night and join the parish on the other weekends. Why couldn't the communities celebrate the 2-3 hour Easter vigil in union with the parish and then continue (welcoming others) through the evening with music, praise, readings, echoes and celebration? The Way and the Church is a marriage-made-in-heaven, but it is a troubled marriage. Hopefully both sides will recognize unacknowledged presumption and judgment, ask for forgiveness and be united! Husband and wife will be joined together in the conjugal bed...at least some of the time!