Jump to content

Talk:Neocatechumenal Way/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Hello all. I am an italian user, and I am interested in contributing to this article. Unfortunately my english is not good enough to directly do this, but maybe I can translate something from italian, to help you into this discussion. Ask me, and I'll (try to) translate... --Jean85 (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ncwfl, I didn't like how you trimmed out all the "criticism"; I though that it has to be trimmed a little, but not totaly eliminated like you did. I hope you'll restore a summary of what you've removed. --Jean (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WYD08 Sydney

[edit]

You may be interested in including the speech by Cardinal Pell the day after the WYD papal mass. (30,000 - 40,000 present)

--203.59.16.36 (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nahuati

[edit]

I did some research and found out that this is an ancient mayan language. Now im unsure of whats in nah:Neocatecumenalquixtianohui but if someone put it i think it should stay, but i would like some sort of confirmation as to what it is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncwfl (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bots re added it. Ncwfl (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry, innocent until proven guilty :D I say it should stay, it's been added to the other neocatechumenal way articles as well. 80.77.200.24 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)jdegi[reply]

BDW I'm back, I had given up on this page since people were just hell bent on smearing the way but now apparently it's in good order, finally the statutes have confirmed what we've been fighting on this page for years! A big "hi!" to everyone. I was in WYD sydney, twas amazin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdegi (talk • contribs) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I removed this link after visiting it, because the page is obviously maintained by some religious fanatics, and written in a very difficult to understand way. I am not trying to remove criticism of the organisation, I just think that there are probably better written pages (I have seen some in french, but many years ago), which could better help someone to understand the criticism. Feel free to put back the link if you really think it is necessary, and if you can't find any more coherent page. 92.132.214.102 (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I am Maltese myself and I honestly never fathomed the reason as to why that link was put up in the first place.

80.77.196.149 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)jdegi[reply]

Minor edits

[edit]

I added some norms in the criticism section about the penitential celebrations (where a community gathers together and individually confesses with a priest in an atmosphere of prayer) and the communion practices. It was removed before. Kindly note that any deletions must be discussed in the section.

I don't see why the add should be removed. What I've said is completely true and should only be removed if otherwise denied with proof. Thanks

Jdegi (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)jdegi[reply]

I wish to apologize for the hasty edit I did previously. The only section I have issue with the first part of the edit. I find that there is no need to reaffirm the validity of the practices. I also believe that the specific addition of that line is repetitive of what is stated in the section prior, and adds to confusion within the section. Since it is brief I think the section should be conclusive without any need for rebuttal, the article provides sufficient information to rebut the claims made. Regarding the penitential I hope the following change will suffice. I am going to remove the first part of the edit, and add a small line regarding the penance in the liturgical concessions with the proper citations.
Ncwfl (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine! Well done. 80.77.196.5 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)jdegi[reply]

I have removed the final paragraph from the criticism section. I checked the supposed "verification links" and they turned out to be a very badly written article by some frenchman. "Many more people" followed by a link by one person is not verification. I could put up a site full of hogwash, then quote it. How attendable is that? Jdegi (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)jdegi[reply]

Changing the Recent Development Section

[edit]

I've been wanting to change this section for a while seeing as the actual news items are quite outdated.

I feel the first section (regarding the meeting with priests and the integration of movements in a parish) and the second (regarding the letter of the Bishops in the holy land) can be removed entierly. The third section can still be kept for the time being.

Then I would also like to add "Neocatechumenal Way Accompanies Pope to Holy Land," "Neocatechumenate to Mark 40 Years in Rome/Benedict XVI Gives Thanks for Neocatechumenal Way." These are the most recent news items i was able to find. Ncwfl (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I think this article is much too biased! There should be objective criticism! Bernd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.55.135 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV in introduction to "Private Opinions" section

[edit]

The introductory paragraph to the section "Private Opinions" includes the sentence "The following are outdated private opinions based on hearsay and private perplexities..." I do not think this statement meets the NPOV standards, as words such as 'hearsay' and 'perplexities' are non-neutral and judgmental. For that reason I have marked it with a [neutrality is disputed] flag. Considering this section deals with a sensitive topic - criticisms of the Way - NPOV is an even more important standard to uphold than when dealing with less controversial sections. Given the POV problems, at the least the section should be retitled "Criticisms" since labeling the content "Private Opinions" is somewhat non-NPOV in and of itself...however, given the existing NPOV problems in the text, the whole section may need to be rewritten by someone less biased than the original author. Tagryn (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC) YAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.71.123 (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 edits

[edit]

about the deletions by 98.64.59.188 in 'Criticisms' :

There is concern about the apparent secrecy of Kiko's catechetical texts, which have yet to be published. Also the NC practice of ‘public confessions’, required by the catechists as part of ‘scrutinies’ of new members during formation has been labelled "unhealthy".

Please detail why this is "biased and based on untruths and did not cite any sources". In other sections, there are many paragraphs of material with no cites included. You may be a selective editor ! I'll add some sources anyway. [1] [2]

You removed the ref to the Church Mouse blog [3], saying "the source is a private blog which is making claims about a third party". Please explain the issue there? Who is the third party. The blog is a narrative written by people who attend the church, seems acutely relevant. Gerixau (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though not having made the edits I find it lacking in any logical support. The concerns regarding the catechesis given have all been reviewed and approved TWICE from the holy see. If you read the article which I cited from EWTN it had first received approval in 2003 as "Personal Guidelines" (the official title was Guidelines for the Team of Catechists), and another just this year. This new approval cites the documents as a Catechetical Directory, and the decree of approval from the Pontifical Council for the Laity says that having analyzed the texts they have been found to be free of any doctrinal error. Now with the accusation of these Public Confessions are unsubstantiated, because it doesn't make logical sense for the Church to approve something which does something which it does (not) approve of.
With regard to the Blog, it can hardly be labeled as objective criticism, not to mention that blogs are not considered reliable sources. The News Paper article may still remain, but it would not be encyclopedic to allow the extreme bias held by the writer of the blog to remain in the article. Ncwfl (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the anonymous IP won't be returning. Thanx for your comment, ncwfl, which confused me. You are saying that approval from the Holy See for these texts means no doctrinal error, how does this touch the issue of secrecy ? You may be denying that the secrecy is real, or that the confessions take place. You are perhaps saying that "no doctrinal error" meant that abuse was impossible because the Church is the final authority. Well I have been struggling for a few weeks to grasp the relevance and the logical process of these ideas. NPOV is worth a look.
I agree with your point on the Church Mouse blog.
I'm thinking of updating several parts of this page. The 'Recent developments' are not recent, they cite no references and could be summarised in the 'history' section. The statistics are out of date, if someone can assist there. More information about the Domus headquarters would be good. Some of the numerous references to Vatican departments are impressive and unnecessary. Some sections read like a newsletter of the Way and I think these need balance. And let's have more clarifications for readers who are unfamiliar with Catholic concepts. That's my humble opinion, if I have any left. GerixAu (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I think that the issue of secrecy is addressed by the fact that the Vatican has seen all that is done in the Way. Now, this might not ease the concerns of individuals who seek information, for whom the lack of easily available documents would in fact entail secrecy (My understanding is that they are to be published and available to the public, but official things have always been known to take their time). My desire was to break the connection between the texts and the claim that their secrecy proves their unorthodoxy.
Addressing specifically the issue of public confessions I know for a fact that there is no such thing in the Way. This term may have come to be said about what happens because the community that is formed exists to help those with problems, which may include sins (Eg. a married couple where the Husband is addicted to pornography and says so in community to ask for prayers or help.) But these cannot be labeled as confessions as in the catholic sense of the word, but as in "to acknowledge or avow (a fault, crime, misdeed, weakness, etc.) by way of revelation.[4]" Never is one asked to speak of their sins, although the secrecy which binds the priest to the penitent is also said to apply to what is said in community.
For the recent developments, I have been thinking of ways of incorporating the old articles for some time, rather than just deleting them out of respect for those who added them. For the Domus Cardinal Sean was there in January [2] Though given the blog nature I don't know if it is admissible (It might fall within expert range, but I don't feel confident enough to make that call). And for the Statistics, I have in the past changed a few, but I have only had access to few places so I have usually left it to other editors to change them as they come to know them. I'm Glad to help in any way I can. Ncwfl (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Catholic Unattached Directory
  2. ^ psychological mechanisms
  3. ^ Church Mouse blog of Redfern parish
  4. ^ [1]

January 2012 cleanup

[edit]

I have performed a major copyedit on the article, along with changes for encyclopedic tone, concision, repetition, and a more sensible structure. I have not yet started on the sourcing, and thought I'd pause for a moment before getting to that. I'd be happy to discuss these edits if anyone has any concerns.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the changes done to have an overall positive effect on the article. I was wondering what type of information or sources you are looking for in the 'directory' section that you flagged as needing clarification. I do disagree with a small edit that you made, the redemptoris mater seminary is not like a premed course, but rather it unites the christian formation received in the community along with the priestly formation of the seminary. Those two elements are intimately related and i think that it should reflect the relationship more. Ncwfl (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Re sources: Anything that covers the first paragraph and meets WP:V should suffice. Re pre-med: I just thought it was a helpful abeit rough analogy. If it doesn't work, I'm not wedded to it and I don't mind canning it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may be another way to state the sentence:

The Way also operates several seminaries called the Redemptoris Mater seminaries that combines the priestly formation found in a seminary with the christian formation received in a community. Often prior to entering the seminary the potential candidates undergo a time of "Pre Vocational Center" which operates somewhat in the manner of a pre-med course, preparing and awakening vocations in young men before they enter the seminary.

Also i would want to suggest a minor change to the second sentence of the chatechetical directory (working on finding good sources) ...by Argüello in 1972, based on transcripts of his and Hernández's preaching... I think it might provide a better idea of the informal aspect which was present at the start. Maybe there could be some reference to this being prior to the CCC, so the cross referencing was a natural progression, but that might require more speculation than is allowable.
In the liturgy section (Or even the chatechetical directory) i believe there could be space for a brief mention of the recent meeting with the father specifying that all of the liturgical acts done throughout the life of the way was approved, meaning all the different rites performed at the steps. Sources for that include [3], [4](italian). Regarding the decree that the pope speaks of it is here [5] (italian). There is also video of the event on the vatican webpage with the decree being read at 13:05 and the pope entering at ~36. If necessary i can translate the documents.
A small note. The statistics section is 'in tune with the wiki spirit'. What I mean is that I am uncertain of the accuracy of the numbers there apart for few locations. The majority of the numbers there are not verifiable, and they change often rapidly. I don't have a problem with it but it would be an interesting feat to attempt to verify all of the numbers Ncwfl (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the suggestion on the seminary text and incorporated your version with a few wording changes. I don't have a problem with saying transcripts if that's what reliable sources say, but if reliable sources don't say precisely that, we should probably leave the relationship of the written materials to the oral preaching vague.
I suggest circumspection on the liturgy section for now. There seems to be some confusion on what exactly was approved (see [6] and [7][8], for instance), and it is dubious at best to say that the Holy Father said "that all of the liturgical acts done throughout the life of the way was approved." For now, I think we should "wait and see"; doubtless more commentary will follow as the dust settled. Cf. WP:DEADLINE.
Lastly, I hadn't looked at the substance or sourcing of the statistics section, I just moved it to a place that seemed more logical to me. I'll look at those issues tomorrow.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teachings

[edit]

I have found some recurring heretical teachings from the Neocatechumenal Way and was wondering if they should be added to the article. These teachings were posted on a Catholic forum. I'm not sure if that kind of information is allowed in Wikipedia article - I doubt it! - but I wanted to ask just in case.

The heretical teachings of the Neocatechumenal Way, according to the ex-members and members, include:

- The Catholic Church is pagan

- The Way is the real Church of Christ

- Kiko is a perfect human being

- The Eucharist is not a sacrifice

- The Mass is not the Eucharist

- Transubstantiation is not real

Here are the references:

Oct13 (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they should be added perhaps is a question for another, but I am certain of the fact that these accusations of heresy are false. Under no circumestance has the catholic church ever approved such a movement or group if there were serious concerns of dogmatic problems. As has been stated in the section on the catechetical directory, which is the full teaching throughout the entire life of the neocatechumenal way has been approved. First was the structure of the way through the statues, including the liturgies performed therein (Mass, Penitential Celebrations and easter vigil.) Then was the approval of all the teachings. The concerns which your sources arise were those of Fr. Zoffoli on the onset of the Way, whom i believe came in contact with the first versions of the catechesis given, which were transcripts of catechesis given. From these he brought to light of these concerns. In the early stages of the approval all of these documents were submitted to the pontifical council for the doctrine of the faith, which was headed by then Ratzinger (Not to mention he came into contact with the way even in germany, and two of the catechists responsibles for different nations were his students) began the process of approval. The first step was to organize them more fully, and insert parallel sources to the CCC, and of the 2500+ articles 2000 find their place in there. And during this was approved in 2003, but the official pronouncment came out only in 2010. All of this history is not to convince you that those problems do not exist, but rather that the church, through its support displayed by its approval of these teachings, says that there are no problems of heresy in the neocatechumenal way. Ncwfl (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The heretical teachings are not from secondhand accounts but were heard by the forum users themselves. Moreover, in the news piece "An Elite of the Damned", which is referenced in the article, some of the same heretical teachings are listed off by more eyewitnesses of the Way's meetings. So my concern isn't whether or not the accusations are true, my concern is whether or not the forum would suffice as a reference for a Wikipedia article - perhaps together with the news piece.
And I am aware of the reality of the sin of false witness, which can go either against a movement by falsely accusing it of evil or for a movement by falsely accusing its critics of evil. In light of that, in light of the repetition of the accusations by varying eyewitnesses, and in light of the fact that the Vatican only approved those statues which deal with prayer, I'm willing to bet there's more to the Way than meets the eye.
Oct13 (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick comment on the approval that was posted, that is in fact the last of three different decrees that have been approved. The first was for the statutes, which within it states, among other things, the approval of the manner of celebration of the Eucharist. The Second which i spoke of before which was the teachings throughout the way and the third which you linked witch approved the non liturgical rites performed throughout the life of the way. The new agencies reported this as the non liturgy, and it was understood as that the validity of the mass is still up in the air, when this is not true because it was approved along with the statutes back in 2008. Even in the holy fathers address to the people he mentioned that the way celebrates the mass according to the book but with the approved changes.
Now posting these things in my mind raise the question of the standard of truth, one thing is to say that the neocatechumenal way says XYZ, when XYZ are heretical statements, because if that is the case then the church has already approved those teachings. Now this can mean three things if a heretical statement was heard, either the words were misunderstood in the context in which they were said, the person speaking said something in a way that was wrong, or that the wrong conclusion was extrapolated. Now if you consider the majority of people, they have had no philo/theological training or background so when they try to explain something it is infact possible that they misspeak or make a mistake. That is why often there is a preist, preferably the pastor who can help if somethings were said.
I was reading though the linked forums and it seems that the majority of the posts are grossly misunderstanding of what is being said and applying it to a much wider purpose than was intended in the original statements. A number of times the cited sources speak from a historical point of view and then it is applied to an opinion on the entire church. For example lets take your first point about the church being pagan. Now those words are never said, but what is said is that the church did absorb some pagan elements when it was adopted en mass in rome. This would seem to make sense since everyone became a christian certainly without all undergoing a formation period prior to entering. As such many brought their traditions into the church and Christianized them. So would be it correct to add that statement? Probably not, because it would require a detailed lesson on church history to be understood accurately and would detract from the page information.
ALso from my understanding forum posts as such do not qualify as verifiable sources and news agencies only as a secondary source, but someone who understands wiki policy better should perhaps comment on this. Also i believe that a source cannot be used if posted on a blog, so even that becomes problematic. Ncwfl (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Orthodoxy

[edit]

I wanted to say that i disagree with the change of "orthodoxy of the Way" to "the Way's teachings" disagreeing that there is a supposition of orthodoxy. I find that keeping the statement as it was originally brings in to light exactly the concern at hand, whether or not the Neocatechumenal Way is orthodox. If it said rather "The orthodox Way's teachings", or "the teachings of the orthodox Way" then i would agree on your view on the orthodoxy taken as an assumed characteristic. But since the sentence is "The orthodoxy of the Way's teachings and the validity of its liturgical practices has also drawn criticism," then grammatically the word 'orthodoxy' modifies not the 'Way' but the word 'teachings.' I move to reinstate the sentence to its previous manner because it adds specificity to the sentence. Ncwfl (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April meeting

[edit]

I removed the statement regarding the current discussion within the cong. for faith. While I do not deny it taking place, there is no information available on the meetings other than what magister reports, end then without even a primary source with which to refer to. As to my knowledge this is not a special investigation, but a consideration being given at the general meetings. However there are no verifiable sources for why the Holy Father has requested it, or what he is looking for. I do not accept Magisters reporting without official and verifiable documentation. This is not a news forum and no information has arisen from the meetings held, only that they are being held. Magister has always weighed his words heavily against the neocatechumenal way, as such I question his judgment in reporting events and in the language he uses within those reports, so until something real and verifiable comes out from these meetings i would hold off on posting information. Ncwfl (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

[edit]

Is there any reliable statistic page for the Way? The Way itself would be a reliable source for this. Otherwise, We are going to have leave the statistics blank. If you didn't notice, a stack was just deleted. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no published statistics for that section. That entire section was based upon community information and input. Often it was updated based upon information passed in yearly meetings or locals with firsthand knowledge. What is the limitation for verifiability on such sections? Ncwfl (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can read Wikipedia:No original research. For such information, something primary would be acceptable. A primary source means the website of the Neocatechumenal way, etc. If it is not published at least there, it should not be on Wikipedia. Plus, if you find it, please reduce to the top 10 countries and then all the rest by continents (or something similar) since Wikipedia is meant to provide an intro so that if someone wants to find out all the stats they go to the reference (i.e. the Neocatechumenal site). Special:Contributions/Ncwfl indicates you have enough experience that you should know this. You can read my profile, I am not your enemy. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no qualms about scrapping the entire section, sorry if my tone was aggressive it was not meant to be, I was mostly fishing for options since I knew of none. With regards to communities in individual countries there are no sources for this apart for community knowledge related to direct experience. The only numbers I could find was total number of communities, but no specifics. Ncwfl (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing without reliable sources

[edit]

Recently there was several edits which seem biased and un-encyclopedic. One editor was very negative yet cited completely unreliable sources. The other cited some approval of some aspects yet makes it seem like everything was completely approved and does not cite anything. I am adding Template:POV until these can be resolved with reliable sources. Unfortunately this involved IP addresses. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The series of positive criticism areas seem to be referencing catechetical directory (italian) and that meeting with the holy father at that same event found here. Ncwfl (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Cite them in the article. The decree (PDF) is a primary source and a secondary source would be preferred (ZENIT, CNA, CNS, EWTN, etc.). I'm relatively sure you could find it in 5 minutes using Google.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference criticisms

[edit]

There has been a bunch of edits to the criticism section. Some removed sourced material that should be discussion here before removing; I restored this. Some added then removed un-sourced positive information; I left this out. Some of it was not reliable; for example "At present the official standing of the Catholic Church is that the Neocatechumenal Way is a special gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church bringing a renewal of the richness of sacramental life among people who have distanced themselves from the Church." This cannot be true since that is not an official standing. Please reference what you add.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Francis

[edit]

The Pope has many some comments, though I don't think they're worthy of being added to the article. So I'm adding them here, with commentary.

  • "I would like to propose to you some simple recommendations. The first is to have the utmost care to build and to preserve the communion within the particular Churches in which you will work."

This seems to be a response to the criticism of how the Neocats treat local churches.

  • "this means paying attention to the life of the Churches to which your leaders send you, to enhance the riches, to suffer for the weaknesses if necessary, and to walk together, like one flock, under the guidance of the pastors of the local Churches."

This seems to be a response to the criticism of how the Neocats treat local bishops.

  • "The freedom of each person must not be forced, and even the eventual choice of someone who decides to seek, outside of the Way, other forms of Christian life that help him to grow in the response to the call of the Lord must be respected."

This seems to be a response to the criticism of how the Neocats treat ex-memebers.

Oct13 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Converted for what purpose?

[edit]

I've celebrated Mass with the group in Denver and had no problem with the way they conducted themselves at the Eucharistic celebration. But I'd like to know what they do with all the energy they generate in their liturgies? According to Mt 25 we will be judged not on how many converts we make but on the corporal works of mercy, what we have done for the hungry, thirsty, naked, strangers, prisoners − it's all about the good we do for others outside of church. And Jesus' one new command is: "love one another as I have loved you": his love was observed in actions, "he went about doing good." Are we to see conversion as an end in itself, as if the church is a private salvation club? If an apostolate where works of charity and justice are pursued is important to the NCW, then could someone please explain this on the movement's website, or give some news articles that reflect this? While the History section tells of Kiko's conversion by the poor, how is an outreach to the poor important throughout the movement today? Jzsj (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Neocatechumenal Way. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Here are suggestions for updating the links section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocatechumenal_Way:

Official Neocatechumenal Way website: update to http://camminoneocatecumenale.it/en/homepage-2 (current link is dead) The Neocatechumenal Way in an Italian Church: remove; http://www.sangiovanniapostoloedevangelista.it/cammino.html is dead Kiko, the Wrath of God (interview with Kiko Argüello): update to http://church-mouse.lanuera.com/IV/?p=705 ? (The current link gives tens of errors.)

The other links are fine.

James R. Celoni

Posted by Someguy1221 (talk) on behalf of Jrceloni (talk · contribs) 23:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not fine. The unofficial ones fail WP:EL. If the official site is now dead, we use Wayback to link. —Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Daask (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neocatechumenal_Way/Archive_4&oldid=1142333985"