The Admirable, Perplexing and Revolutionary Eucharistic Practice of the Neocatechumenate

 Admirable

The Neocatechumenal Way organizes its entire week around the Eucharist. They celebrate in small communities weekly on Saturday evening, the vigil mass. This is a deeply counter-cultural practice. Consider: in our society Saturday evening is the fun night: for dinner out, party with family or friends, movie time.  Not for the Neocats: they gather to worship, they dress for the occasion, they give the entire evening. Additionally they prepare throughout the week. A small group will gather to "prepare the Word,"  traveling, sometimes a real distance, to ponder the scriptural readings and compose short admonitions or exhortations to introduce the readings. These may be a few sentences: an immense exertion of energy for a very small, but precious product, that hardly meets our American standards for efficiency. Others prepare by baking the bread (no simple task), purchasing wine and flowers for the altar. A lot of time and energy go into preparation. 

I admire this zeal and attention, but was unable to participate as it is  discordant with my own traditional Eucharistic sensibility. For me the Eucharist is a sacred event, prepared for me by the Church, in which I join in a receptive mode. It is NOT something I do; it is not my activity; it is my receptivity. This is not dull passivity, but an eagerness to listen, surrender, receive, respond. I walk into a sacred space and time and I absorb the grace. So I found within myself a powerful disinclination to prepare in any way. 

Perplexing

The understanding and practice of this Eucharist is discordant with Catholic tradition in two striking ways: sacrifice and the abiding physical Eucharistic presence.

Sacrifice.  I vividly recall our catechist saying the Eucharist is NOT a sacrifice. I questioned it because it is a clear contradiction of Catholic teaching. But I understand what they meant. In Kiko's catechesis, religion and sacrifice are understood in the Barthian sense of an effort to manipulate the deity. Given that understanding, of course, the mass is not our effort to control God, but His gracious intervention in saving us. In that context the statement is acceptable. But that is not the Catholic understanding of the word sacrifice. We have always used the term, not in contrast to pagan ritual, but in continuity with Old Testament temple sacrifice as received from Moses and a genuine communion with God. Temple sacrifice was itself a valid ritual, but preparatory for the perfect sacrifice on Calvary. Indeed, the renunciation of ritual sacrifice was a major part of the Protestant Reformation.

And so, there is a blind spot here. In other ways, Kiko has pierced deeply into the Hebraic roots of our faith. But here we see a Marcionite tendency, a failure to see Christ already in the many Old Testament passages about sacrifice. I understand that this liturgical approach was more the work of Carmen Hernandez, the co-founder, than Kiko himself. It lacks the spiritual depth, spark and precision that distinguishes Kiko in his music, icons, catechesis, and entire itinerary of formation. 

Carmen was herself trained in theology unlike Kiko, an artist, musician, and spiritual genius. Their liturgical practice reflects the fashion of their time, Vatican II, with the shift away from sacrifice, solemnity, silence, Latin, and the sacred towards a model of the Passover Seder, a meal, more informal and fraternal and familial, with some distance from the Temple ritual. 

So what we find is: a reverent but more relaxed, informal, fraternal atmosphere; no silence at all; no kneeling at all; location outside of consecrated Church and the perpetual Eucharistic presence; altar (of sacrifice) is replaced by the (banquet) table; sitting replaces kneeling/standing as posture of reception of communion.  To be sure there is, here, faith, devotion, worship, energy and love for Christ. But it is a different form: a loss of the sacrificial, the solemn, the sacred, the contemplative. It is a more active rite, with admonitions, echoes, lively songs, but a diminishment of the quiet, the receptive, the mysterious. It reflects, in short, the problematic tendencies of the post-Vatican II liturgical movement.

Enduring Physical Presence.  The historical direction of Catholic Eucharistic devotion has been an increased devotion to the presence of Christ, body and soul, humanity and divinity, in the physical Eucharist, in the tabernacle after the liturgical celebration. Along with devotion to Mary/saints and docility to the Magisterium,  this is THE distinguishing dimension of Catholic worship. It characterizes virtually all the saints, doctors and magisterial teaching. It informed in an essential manner baroque, counter-reformation and recent Catholicism. 

This sensibility is markedly absent from this new Way. Genuflection toward the tabernacle is largely absent when they do gather in Church. The tabernacle itself, and the Church itself as a sacred place, is entirely foreign to their normal liturgies which occur in smaller rooms around the parish complex. On the rare occasions that the communities gather together in the Church there is a loud, carnival atmosphere: children roaming around, adults talking together, a dim of noise, lots of commotion. This is not the sacred space so treasured in Catholic practice. Practice of quiet adoration or benediction of the Blessed Sacrament does not seem to be a common practice. 

Although this is not articulated theologically, their liturgical practice implies a non-Catholic, Lutheran approach whereby Christ is seen as really, not just symbolically or even spiritually present, during the celebration from the consecration through communion but then disembodies from the species afterwards. There is no enduring, actual presence. To my knowledge they do not repose the unconsumed Body. The nature of the bread used (a large, dry, crumbly loaf) requires full consumption and and hardly lends itself to reposition or adoration. Within the logic of their liturgy, there would never be reposition of the sacrament, adoration, benediction or a durable presence.

Recently I was reading some of St. Charles de Focauld, a huge influence on Kiko and his immersion with the Gypsies and was struck by the intense, profound devotion of Charles to the Eucharistic presence. I am surprised that that is not reflected in any consistent or insistent manner in Kiko's catechesis. 

They self-describe as "The Way." This seems to be a reference both to the early Christian self-description and the famous "Camino" or "way" of pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostella in Spain. This important word suggests the Christian life as a pilgrimage, a constant movement forward into the Kingdom of God. This is of course entirely valid, but it needs to be complemented by another element essential to Catholic life: that of stability, continuity, permanence. The Eucharistic presence, as physical and enduring, in every parish Church, is the heart and soul of Catholic life. That sacred building becomes the center of life that flows out of and into it. Each Catholic, anywhere in the world, normally situates himself in a posture towards the local, parochial Church. This is normal Catholicism. The practice of this Way is an implicit but clear rejection of this model. As in so many reforms, we find here the desire to return to the pre-Constantinian Church which was fluid, mobile, pilgrim-like, and not established in a permanent, geographical manner. 

Kiko, though not as explicitly as some reformers, leans to an "originalism" that looks negatively on Church developments from Constantine on. And so their convivences often are held in hotels or centers rather than the parish itself. The Church  building itself is incidental as the tripod of Eucharist-Word-community does not depend upon it. It seems to be the model for a Church that is entirely disestablished and repressed, as in ancient Rome or China today. So it is strikingly discordant with classical Catholicism as we have received it.

Revolutionary

The Novus Ordo, the current shape of Catholic Eucharist, is a development out of the Tridentine rite. The Neocat liturgy is a revolution, a drastic transformation, really a new form or gestalt.

The core shape of the Eucharist is simple: the "take...eat...in memory of me." This in adoration of Christ's incarnation in his body and blood. This in context of reception of the Word. Eucharist is at once a meal, founded in the Last Super, echoing the Passover Seder, as it is a fulfillment of the temple sacrifice. It is both. The Tridentine ritual emphasizes the sacred, sacrificial, solemn nature of the act. The Novus Ordo was a step toward the meal aspect. But with this Way we find an extreme expression of the meal model with no remnant of the sacrificial-sacred-formal. It is a revolution!

This Way is flawlessly orthodox in its theology: there is here no denial of transubstantiation. But in restoring the banquet dimension and thoroughly abandoning the sacrificial-sacral or "temple" aspect it is startlingly discontinuous with centuries of Catholic worship. 

In the sumptuous smorgasboard  that is Catholic worship there are a wide variety of forms: ordinary parish mass, the Lain rite, the new "Anglican" ordinariate, high solemn mass with incense and chant...not to mentions Eastern rites and even the Coptic and Orthodox that are recognized as valid sacramentally. Since the Vatican has approved this new form, I accept that it is orthodox, valid and licit. But it is revolutionary!

The Problem

An authentic, orthodox, and fervent expression of Catholic faith, this Way operates, nevertheless,  practically and institutionally, in separation from normal, actual Catholic life. It is not a cult; but it is cult-like. It operates within its own structures with little interaction with the broader Church. It is a self-enclosed universe of cultic practices...study of the Word, Eucharist, convivences, pilgrimages (which often do connect with the broader Church as at World Youth Days), and an itinerary of steps over several decades...that draw upon Catholic resources but largely ignore the actual, institutional, mostly parochial Church of the present. 

This is a headache for the clergy and episcopacy. The unity of the Church is rooted in participation in the Eucharist. If you have within the one Church different groups with distinct liturgical practices you have in effect different Churches. In my location (Jersey City) you might have the parish, and a Neocat community and a Latin mass group. Particularly sensitive is the issue of the Easter Vigil. The two alternate communities greatly treasure their distinctive celebrations of this high point of the liturgical year; but the pastor rightly intends for this central event to unite the entire parish. This is a problem! Clearly there is a need to integrate this movement into the broader Church in a way that preserves its charism.

It is noteworthy that Pope Francis has suppressed the Latin community but indulges this Way. To be consistent he should be sterner with the later which is more dissonant with the Novus Ordo. There are several reasons for this. There is  mutual distrust and much disgust between this pontiff and the Latin community which is highly critical of him theologically. He views them as exemplary of the rigidity, clericalism and formalism he so despises; in contrast to the creativity and innovation of Kiko. Even more important, this Way is energetic in reaching out to the margins, the poor, and those in crisis. In general the lay renewal movements attract the educated, affluent and well-connected: Opus Dei, Legionnaires, Communion and Liberation, and Charismatic Renewal. Kiko started with the Gypsies and has an urgent love for the low--status, low-brow, low-income folk. It should be added that Kiko's charm, charism, filial loyalty and shrewd diplomacy have ingratiated himself with the Vatican, in strongest contrast with the embattled Latins.

In 2005 Cardinal Arinze, on behalf of Pope Benedict, gave the Kiko and Carmen specific directions to pull their practice closer to the norm. In particular, they directed that once monthly they join the ordinary parish mass on a Sunday. This struck me at the time as a prudent, moderate step towards the needed integration practice. Apparently this directive has been entirely ignored: neither retracted nor implemented. I have been told that their Saturday night liturgies are open to the parish so this requirement is somehow satisfied. In fact, the liturgies are of their nature inclusive and self-enclosed and it is highly improbable that any non-participant parishioner would attend or feel comfortable in doing so. This  has struck me as an mistaken obstinance in a separatist direction.

The Future

Two inevitable and relatively immanent developments on our horizon promise to effect the relationship between this association and the broader Church: the death of Kiko and the increasing influence of Neocat priests within the diocese.

Kiko, now aged 83, will not be here forever. His electric charisma places him, in my view, with the very greatest, most creative, influential saints like Francis, Ignatius, Benedict and Dominic. The power flows directly from him, through his responsibles and catechists into the communities. With his eventual demise there will be no one to fill his shoes and his movement will be institutionalized. Due to his extraordinary influence, this Way has been a lay movement, with clergy sidelined regarding teaching but available always for the sacraments. This may change: without Kiko the lay leaders may cede more influence to the priests.

This is even more likely since these same priests will be exercising greater influence within each diocese. This Saturday our Archdiocese of Newark will ordain 5 men, 4 of them from this Way. In recent years, they have probably averaged close to 50% of our ordinations. Clearly they are destined for much influence in the Archdiocese.  Interestingly, they are trained theologically in our diocesan seminary but receive their personal/spiritual formation in their own seminaries. So they have a foot in both worlds: their Way and the broader Church. Given their mainstream theological training, their pastoral responsibility for the broader institutional Church, and their solidarity with other priests, they should be motivated to reconcile the two poles. 

Conclusion

The sect-like tendency of this liturgy springs from deeper spiritual roots: Kiko/Carmen show an extreme, unbalanced negativity in regard to: First, natural religion which is viewed as a sinful effort to manipulate God, void of good values. Thus their rejection of sacrifice. Second, the post-Constantinian Church which they see, as did the Reformers, as a corruption of the original, innocent simplicity of the apostolic Church. Third, our society/culture is seen as a godless kingdom of darkness, bereft of redeeming values. This is a striking contrast with the more positive attitude of Vatican II and the mainline Church since WWII. And lastly, the current institutional Church, including the parish as we know it,  is seen as historically corrupted and inadequately renunciatory of the world. 

(Aside: this pronounced negativity may have personal roots: Kiko experienced in his youth a fall into disbelief and a nihilistic temptation to despair and suicide; Carmen seems to have been traumatized by a rejection from an order of missionary sisters.)

Notwithstanding this weakness, this Way is the most powerful, promising stream of Catholic renewal due to it's engagement with the Word, it's patient and extended itinerary of formation, its strong communal life, its probing spiritual exercises, and its fierce spirit. It's singular weakness is its Eucharistic practice with its separatist propensity and its discontinuity with Catholic practice and understanding. It is in need of renewal in these last two dimensions. 

It strongly resembles in main form the Charismatic Renewal: centering in the personal encounter with Jesus Christ, profound engagement with the Word, evocation of the Holy Spirit, strong communities of spiritual intimacy, heightened sense of the viciousness of the world and the devil and the weakness of the flesh, basic fidelity to the Church, a rich and novel variety of spiritual exercises and activities, a receptivity to what is best in the Protestant traditions, and a lively spirit of song-filled praise. This Way is if anything even more rigorous, intense and sustained. But the Charismatic Renewal did not make the mistake of tampering with the Eucharist. Their liturgy is that of the mainstream Church, with the addition of praise-and-worship music, more passionate preaching, and sometimes words of prophesy after communion. Their distinctive practice is the prayer meeting which demonstrates the same strengths as does Kiko's Way:  passionate praise especially in lively music, eager reception of the Word, personal witness and testimonies, and fellowship. It would be promising if this Way could  reconfigure their strong elements, around the Tripod, with a more vigorously Catholic practice of the Eucharist.

Let us pray that this Way continue to flourish, within the Church, in the Spirit of the Spanish mystics, with all its spiritual gifts, priestly vocations, large families, countercultural witness, and lives of quiet, humble, Nazareth-like adoration! And that their practice of the Eucharist may  draw even more deeply from its historic Catholic roots and engage synergistically with the broader Church.