Saturday, February 8, 2014


In response to a polite request, I removed a post which someone found personally invasive. Upon removing it I received another polite message thanking me for doing so. Since the person had communicated twice with me, in a polite manner - something I'm not used to with other members of the NCW, at least on this blog - I decided to politely ask her (?) if she knew why the NCW continued to distribute communion as they do and if she knew of an authorization to do so that the rest of us were unaware of.

Because this issue is a the bottom of the quandary over the authenticity of the NCW, it is worth sharing any information about the matter from its members. Following is her reply to my inquiry:

Hi Tim!
Thank you for approving my comment and for replying. Several years ago I attended the weekend catechesis (the three day retreat at the end of the months-long sessions). I recall that there was a catechesis at the time as to why the community received the Sacred Species in their respective manner. I stopped attending the weekend Eucharists for a while but when I did return, they started the new and current practice of standing while the Priest or minister distributes Holy Communion. This of course was after Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI made his recommendations. If they're still continuing receiving Holy Communion in this way, I am not too sure why it is being continued. Perhaps they have to formulate a new catechesis? 
While we're on this subject, perhaps you should find that list of recommendations made by Benedict and examine that. I thought that the communities were instructed to eventually have their celebrations in the main church; they were to go to their respective parishes at least once a month... etc. I also believe there was a time frame for them to conform.

Following is reply:

Thank you for your reply to my inquiry. The "recommendations" as you call them were actually directives (orders). They were first delivered to the leaders of the NCW on 12/1/05 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments in the name of Pope Benedict. You can read the original letter here

One of those directives (#5) was to change from the manner in which the NCW distributed communion (seated, remaining in their place) to the "the normal way in which the entire church receives communion." The letter then instructed:
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. 
There was a total of 6 items about the the NCW liturgy addressed in the letter which were summed up at the letter's end with this admonition:
In short, the Neocatechumenal Way, in its celebration of the Holy Mass, should follow the approved liturgical books.
However, the leaders of the Neocatechumenal Way, and specifically one Giuseppe Gennarini, who, with his wife, forms 50% of the decision making power over our local seminary (RMS), immediately attempted to discredit the letter as the mere personal opinion of the Congregation's Prefect, Cardinal Arinze, despite the fact that the letter began with the words: "The Holy Father wishes you to know..." Following is an account of Gennarini's actions: 
...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). 
I want to call your attention to what I have marked in bold, that the order to change their practice "amounted to an approval" of the practice they were ordered to change. Of course such a thing is outrageous, but for the leaders of the NCW to actually attempt this at this level, at the highest level of church authority, is an open insult, a "vulnus" against the office and person of the Holy Father. 

I draw your attention to it also because Gennarini provided the talking points for Archbishop Apuron, who, just a few days later, would say exactly the same thing, and with a similar insulting tone, on KOLG. 

Following is the transcript of Archbishop Apuron's statements. You can listen to it here.
Actually experimentation was granted in the year 2005...for five years, so it doesn’t expire until 2007, and with this recent letter* - it was supposed to be confidential,  but like the NSA, was leaked to the press...and really they have their own interpretation. We were granted two more years. And in fact, really looking at the letter, mostly, beside the interpretation of the two is the first time in the history of the church that we were give permissions for the variations that is being done in the Neo Catechumenal Way, officially by the pope. The late Pope John Paul gave it for five years ad experimentum so this gives us even two more years so really to 2009 if you count 5 years from 2002 for the first experimentation, 5 years is 2007 plus this giving us 2 more years, especially in terms of the eucharist itself and the manner of receiving the eucharist.  
And as you know, it was made public that I argued first of all for the kiss of peace to be moved, or at least the possibility of having to move the kiss of peace at before the offertory after the homily, before moving into the liturgy of the eucharist as is done in the eastern church. And that’s what separates us from the eastern church but it had been the much earlier practice of the church in the primitive church, the receiving communion seated. 
My argument, and in front of the pope and the bishops there, cardinals, in fact Arinze’s there, and Arinze, to tell you the truth, is really not for the Way, and I don’t know what credentials he has, I mean I don’t want to get into an argument in terms of an individual but Cardinal Arinze, with due respect, uh, I, you know uh, I don’t know why he uh uh wants us to conform to what...and you know the...I heard earlier the discussions about kneeling and standing and showing respect. 
As you can see by the portion highlighted in bold, the Archbishop simply mouthed what Gennarini had previously mouthed. It's not only a "screw you", we'll do what we want, it's far worse than that. By taking the order to change and making it into a permission to continue, we have something which can only be understood as evil. It is positively Satanic in its boldness. To do this to the POPE in front of the whole world...this should shock and frighten us all. 

This satanic audacity was perfectly mirrored in the recent lecture which Kiko gave to Pope Francis: facing him and facing him only, lecturing, admonishing, shaking his hands at him, walking in front of him without the least gesture of respect, essentially upbraiding, disrespecting, and chastising him in front of the whole world, if not directly by his words, then certainly by his actions. 

Why should we be surprised then that Archbishop Apuron behaves in a similar manner?

Responding to this open insult and audacious disobedience, Pope Benedict, politely calumniated the Way's leaders a few weeks later (1/12/06) at a meeting with them to bless the new missionaries:
Precisely to help the Neocatechumenal Way to render even more effective its evangelizing action in communion with all the People of God, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments recently imparted to you in my name certain norms concerning the Eucharistic Celebration, after the trial period that the Servant of God John Paul II conceded. I am sure you will attentively observe these norms that reflect what is provided for in the liturgical books approved by the Church. 
By faithfully keeping to every Church directive, you will make your apostolate even more effective, in tune and in full communion with the Pope and the Pastors of every Diocese. And in so doing, the Lord will continue to bless you with abundant pastoral fruits.

On January 17, 2005, Kiko responded in a letter to Benedict, thanking him and saying that he was:
...content with the “norms” that Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, imparted to us in Your name....and....We renewed together our willingness to follow in everything, with great respect and obedience, the rubrics of the Roman Missal.
But after saying this, at the end of the letter, in a manner that is absolutely frightening in its cunning and its audacious use of the mask of orthodoxy, Kiko slaps the pope down by telling him he will continue to do as he wishes:
We also wish to thank you for the benevolence, mercy, and goodness You have shown to those farthest granting a period of two years for the adaptation of the manner of distributing the Communion of the Body and the Blood of the Lord: we have always shown to the many brothers who have emerged from hell, full of wounds and of self-loathing, that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and not only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and comes to serve them: “He will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them” (Lk 12:37). 
In this way, every time we celebrate the Eucharist we experience the power this sacrament has to draw them into the Passover of Christ, bringing them from sadness to joy, from darkness to light, from death to life… 
This is of course, nothing short of lecturing the pope on the "proper" way to receive communion, and a notice that the NCW will continue as before. 

The pope, fully conscious of the many people like yourself who are otherwise sincere searchers of Jesus Christ, did not take immediate and public action against Kiko and the NCW as he could have. Rather, in order to avoid scandal and harm to souls, he quietly addressed the matter in the Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way which received final approval in 2008. 

The Statute of 2008 retains all the directives of the original instruction from the Congregation of Divine Worship (referenced in footnote no. 49) with the lone exception of remaining in place to receive communion but directing the communicant to stand instead of remaining seated. 

In another act of incredulous cunning, Kiko got around this by instructing the NCW to stand to receive the sacred species in the hand, but then to sit with the host yet not consumed. The host is not consumed until all have received and returned to their sitting position and a signal is given from the minister to then consume. This is a direct violation of the "liturgical books" which requires the communicant to consume the host as soon as it is received. 

So eight years later, the Way, at Kiko's orders, still violates 1) the original instruction from the CDW of 12/1/05), 2) the pope's request of 1/12/06, and 3) the instruction contained in the NCW's own Statute. 

Thus you see why our suspicion of the NCW is not just over some small liturgical anomaly. The real issue is Kiko's bold rejection of papal authority, and locally, the Archbishop's decision to submit to Kiko's authority and join in that rejection. 

And so we reject him on that ground. Archbishop Apuron has divorced himself from Rome and from the seat of Peter, and the people of Guam, as they continue to understand this, are increasingly divorcing themselves from him and rejecting the Neocatechumenal Way.

This was all covered up until this blog. And this is why Apuron and his ilk have been viciously trying to discredit me. They could silence me with the simple production of the document permitting them to continue the manner of distributing communion as they do. They do not produce it because they can't. 

And we will continue to reject the authority of the Archbishop and the authenticity of the Neocatechumenal Way until they do. 


  1. From what I understand, the directive was on how the host was to be received rather than on when and how it was to be consumed. In the past, the members were receiving it sitting down. This has changed. They now receive it standing up.

    Members of the Way cannot consume the Body of Christ, not because they had to wait until everyone receives it. They wait because the priest himself did not receive Holy Communion. To consume the Body of Christ BEFORE the priest would be very grave and inappropriate.

    All existing and traditional rites of the Church foresee that the bishop or priest first receive Communion. After the celebrant receives Communion, the various ministers receive according to their hierarchical order and then the faithful.

    The priest receives first, not because of a human protocol but in virtue of the dignity and nature of his ministry. He acts in the person of Christ, for the purpose of the integrity of the sacrament and for presiding the people gathered together: "Thus when priests join in the act of Christ the Priest, they offer themselves entirely to God, and when they are nourished with the body of Christ they profoundly share in the love of him who gives himself as food to the faithful ( Presbyterorum Ordinis, No. 13)."

  2. Those disagreements have been said about 8 or 9 years ago. The Church will always disagree about something. Even the Early Church disagreed on whether the Gentiles should be circumcised and follow Jewish laws. Reconciliation is what matters. The fact that the members of the Way are now receiving the Body of Christ standing up meets what the Holy See wanted the members to do. Also, there are millions of people walking in the Way. It would take time for the information to trickle down so that all members receive the information so that all can conform to what the Vatican wants them to do in regards to receiving the Body of Christ.

    1. Here you go folks. More grist for the mill. Have at it.

    2. @ Anon Feb 8, 2014 at 9:28 am: The early Church disagreed as to whether there was one God or two: a demiurge and creator. (See Gnostics). The early Church disagreed as to whether Christ was created by God in time or existed with God before time (see Arius); and whether Christ was human and divine or only divine (see Non-Chalcedonians); or whether the Church should reject people who apostatized under torture or threat of death (see Tertullian); or whether membership in the Church should limited to a devout elite (see Donatists). Are you really defending the NCW by noting that other groups within the early Church were, like the NCW, also in disagreement with the orthodox view? Do you think the Saints Irenaeus and Antioch should have reconciled the Church to the dualism of the Gnostics? By comparing the NCW to the disagreements of the early Church you are, in effect, acknowledging that the NCW is heretical but asking the Church to reconcile itself to this heresy. I doubt that the Church will do that. It hasn't in the past. Instead, I think that the Church will continue to try to incrementally reshape the NCW until it comports with orthodox teaching. I just wonder how strongly Kiko hold his unorthodox views (e.g., total depravity of man, that Christ did not sacrifice himself, that Christ's existence in the Eucharist is dependent upon the intent of the communicant, etc.) and, thus, how much change we will tolerate before formally breaking with the Church. His views are reminiscent of Luther and, in particular, Zwingli and Calvin. Those views, of course, led not only to a split from the Church but also balkanization among the Protestants. By the way, I know that the NCW claims to embody the zeitgeist of the early Church. Could you please direct me to the early Church liturgy(ies) which called for dancing around the altar? I've never seen such a liturgy and would be keen to read it if one does indeed exist.

  3. Guess the NCW likes to make their own jungle rules with millions of excuses.

  4. Maybe the irs/Feds should look into the accounts of the grantors to make sure there are no improprieties.

  5. One does not need to be well versed in the liturgy to see the denial and rationalizing gymnastics going on within the first two comments.
    Fact is, there is a directive to follow liturgical norms yet it's continued to be ignored. All the reasons put forth in those comments do not hold water to the directive given.
    Purely hypothetical, but I hope that if Pope Francis were to dissolve or at least pause the NCW from the Saturday services, they would follow suit instead of being as protestant as they are being today. We belong to a One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and no matter what ministry, order or movement we belong or participate in, we adhere to the Magisterium of our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If I were told to stop a practice that denied the Magisterium, my love for the Church and Jesus Christ would supersede everything and anyone!
    Pope Emeritus Benedict the XVI was very benevolent and loving towards the members in the NCW when he instructed them years ago; members who belong to a greater family, the Catholic Church! He did not oppose the NCW. He did not demand for it to dissolve. He lovingly corrected the liturgical mistakes and instructed the NCW to do so in an allotted time. He did not demand to do so immediately!
    Of course, if one feels like these are illogical and do not make sense to them (or their ego) they are free to create their own church as they have already shown an unwillingness to participate, through obedience, with the Papal authority of the Catholic Church. It is that simple!
    To deny the Magisterium is to deny the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! Who else is there left to follow after that?

  6. to anon @9:22
    you should read the entire document you quote from.
    "Whether it is licit for the celebrating priest to take Communion only after the Holy Eucharist has been administered to the faithful or distribute Holy Eucharist and communicate at the same time as the faithful?"
    "Response: Negative to both"

    In other words and in accord with the roman missal, priest shall consume first and then distribute to the faithful.

    To anon.@9:28
    It does not take 8 or 9 years to have this info diseminated. and the instruction was to follow the norms allowed for in the established liturgical books. In other words, the Roman Missal. As I understand it, the only indult granted was for the move of the sign of peace.
    Case in point, how long did it take to inform the entire NCW community worldwide about the "great mission" which is what the NCW was supposed to be doing in the first place...

    1. I never said it takes 9 or 10 years for the information to get down to millions of people. I said you are using a 2005 or 2006 article showing that the members of the Way are committing these errors, when these errors were already corrected since 2009 after the Statues were officially approved. It was at the annual convivences when the correction was made and the Responsibles brought the correction back to their communities. The members of the Way used to receive the host sitting down. That is no longer true today.

      As for the article, it stated that the people are not to take communion first before the priest. In the Way, after everyone has received the Body of Christ, the priest takes communion first before the people. According to the Article, it stated:

      Both the present missal and the extraordinary form foresee the priest as receiving Communion first, even though with some variations in formulas and order of the rites.

    2. Interesting. So you say "these errors were already corrected since 2009 after the Statues (sic) were officially approved."

      This is quite an admission on your part. The directive was given on 12/1/2005 and two years was granted to make the change. Let's do the math: 5 + 2 = 7. So the NCW was to have conformed by 12/1/2007. Yet you tell us that it wasn't until 2009 that you conformed. So then you are admitting to two full years of disobedience.

      Apart from the ridiculous idea that it would take time for the instruction to filter down, there was no intent for the instruction to filter down, as evidence by the letter from Kiko on 1/17/2006 informing Benedict that he had no intention of obeying.

      Plus, your rationale would leave no excuse for Guam since the Archbishop very publicly addressed the instruction during the first week of January 2006. Yet, in April 2008, the NCW communities here in Guam continued to ignore the instruction.

      Lastly, you DO NOT receive communion standing. "Receive", according to the liturgical books (GIRM 161) means to "consume". You DO NOT consume. You hold it in your hands and then sit down, and then consume. This is a violation of your own statute. Rome did not spell it out for you because they actually counted on your intelligence and good will. Thus they simply ordered that you receive in conformity with the liturgical books with the only exception being that you could remain in your place.

      As I've said on many occasions. The Neo's do a better job of damning their religion than I could ever do, and this little excerpt is another example of how the members of the Neocatechumenal Way are taught and cultured in the ways of disobedience. It truly is a different church.

  7. Tim is correct. One follows only what the GIRM informs us. The Liturgy does not belong to Kiko or tony. It belongs to the church. If the church tells us, hey boys and gals, it's ok to sit to receive the lord, and I doubt it will, then you can receive in your arm chair. But until the GIRm tell us, best to refrain from doing so. You are not respecting the Litirgy of the Roman Church. You are creating division and Infact damaging the body of Christ.

  8. Tony, will you be receiving communion standing on your head next year?

  9. Even you admit that a person can disagree with the Pope. Disagreements are not rare in the Catholic Church. It is common since Early Christianity. The important thing is that despite those disagreements, there was reconciliaiton. In other words, there was compliance.

    According to the Liturgical books, receive means to either take the host standing or kneeling as well as taking it in your hand or tongue. That is receiving. Consume, on the other hand, means to "eat."

    In the Way, it would be inappropriate to receive through the tongue especially since the Priest has not had communion yet. Therefore, in the Way, one can receive standing up and with the hand.

    According to GIRM 161,

    When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

    I don't see anything in there are eating.

    1. Ummm read the next paragraph:

      GIRM 161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

    2. It is one thing to disagree, it's another to be disobedient. I have, as well as many faithful Catholics, have not understood or agreed with a teaching of the Church at times. However, I did not reject the Church nor went against the teaching. I humbled myself to accept the Church and her wisdom and prayed that I continue to return to her with full humility, even when I did not understand.
      At this point, when it comes to the GIRM, it's not a matter that those in the Neo DO NOT see, rather those in the Neo WILL NOT see.
      Anonymous at 3:58pm and others have been given ample reference and explanation, yet they insist on arguing the inarguable. It's purposed. Why work so hard to be contrary? Who is it that they are really following?

    3. I stand corrected. It does say to consume. However, upon further reading, this is what it stated further up: GIRM 242-244 This was taken from the Vatican website. It appears that there are different ways of the Mass.

      242. When this prayer before Communion is finished, the principal celebrant genuflects and steps back a little. Then one after another the concelebrants come to the middle of the altar, genuflect, and reverently take the Body of Christ from the altar. Then holding it in their right hand, with the left hand placed below, they return to their places. The concelebrants may, however, remain in their places and take the Body of Christ from the paten presented to them by the principal celebrant or by one or more of the concelebrants, or by passing the paten one to another.

      243. Then the principal celebrant takes a host consecrated in the same Mass, holds it slightly raised above the paten or the chalice, and, facing the people, says the Ecce Agnus Dei (This is the Lamb of God). With the concelebrants and the people he continues, saying the Domine, non sum dignus (Lord, I am not worthy).

      244. Then the principal celebrant, facing the altar, says quietly, Corpus Christi custodiat me ad vitam aeternam (May the body of Christ bring me to everlasting life), and reverently receives the Body of Christ. The concelebrants do likewise, communicating themselves. After them the deacon receives the Body and Blood of the Lord from the principal celebrant.

    4. I believe I see the problem. Apparently neos consider themselves to be "concelebrants".

    5. Thank you, Average Joe, it was a point I meant to get back to, an important point: disagree does not mean disobey. Why the neos confuse the two is why we have a problem.

  10. BYW, the NCW does not have millions of members. I read that it was about 500,000 to 800,000 worldwide, a tiny fraction of the world's total Catholic population. And I was there when the directives came down from Rome and I understood that there were big changes including in the manner of receiving communion. Yes, a month or so later, we were told it was okay to revert to the old practices, not knowing it was an act of disobedience. Incidentally, there was a group which I think was called Teen Life or something who were also told at the same time to conform to liturgical practices and they did so right away. Now, with what Pope Francis told the Neo recently, he made it quite clear that the Neo was creating rifts, divisions, etc. and his simple recommendations should be followed to heal these serious problems. Guam is just one example of that problem. Check the internet and you will find other parishes and dioceses experiencing the same thing. He was kind and pastoral about how he did it, unlike what our leader in Guam does. If the Neo do not take heed, I suspect that Pope Francis will come down even harder. Take heed Archbishop Anthony..

  11. CONCELEBRANT -definition: A priest who offers Mass jointly with one or more other priests.

  12. The neo-refashioned practices are so bleached and washed-out from Catholicism’s highly-reverent regard for the Holy Eucharist. For instance, the neo term of “The Eucharist” when referring to the uniquely Catholic Celebration of “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” is so non-Catholic and so more Protestant. I saw an example of this neo Protestantism I refer to -- the neo similarity to the Protestant reference of a “Service” -- in this past Friday’s (Feb. 7 PDN, p.5) announcement of the Episcopal and Evangelical Lutheran Churches joint observance of a “Holy Eucharist Service”.

    To the Protestant Churches of course, it’s a “Eucharist Service” because it is not The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass. It appears then, that the neo’s view their celebration not as a celebration of The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (a remembrance of Jesus’ death on the Cross); instead, the neo celebration of “Eucharist” is regarded and recognized by neos as “the celebration of a community meal”! This is why Catholics on Guam reject the neo way!

  13. Here’s another neo practice, seemingly stolen from some Protestant “Church Services”: the neo inclusion of “personal testimonies” in their celebration. Giving “personal testimonies” by the members of the congregation at Mass, during The Celebration of Mass is not a valid part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Catholic Church!

    So, why would one want to leave the Traditional Catholic Church and abandon the valid Holy and Mystical Celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for a refashioned and altered practice in the neo way of the Holy Mass, simplistically called by the neos: “Eucharist”?

    Followers of Kiko’s way, If you didn’t know then, now you do. Those re-fashioned and altered “ways” are why we Catholics on Guam reject the neo way