Thursday, March 13, 2014


This will be sent as a letter to the Archbishop with my signature. As this is not a private matter, it is being posted here so we all can see. 

Your Excellency:

As you may know, there has been an argument for several years in this diocese over the whether or not the manner in which Holy Communion is distributed and received in the celebration of the Eucharist in the Neocatechumenal communities is allowed by the Statute as approved in 2008. 

Since you, by virtue of your office, are the ultimate guardian of the liturgy in this diocese, you can help us settle this matter once and for all and spare further division and argument by simply confirming that the Neocatechumenal Way's manner of distributing Holy Communion is permitted.

The problem is that members of the Neocatechumenal Way have been told since 2008 that the way the consecrated bread is distributed was approved with the approval of the Statute in 2008. However, the rest of us see no such approval. 

For those who may not be familiar with the argument, let us describe the manner in which the consecrated bread (host) is distributed and received in the Neocatechumenal celebration of the Eucharist. 
  1. The priest, before consuming the sacred species, takes the consecrated bread to the communicants. 
  2. The communicants remain in their place, standing. 
  3. The consecrated bread is placed in the hand of each communicant. 
  4. The communicants hold the consecrated bread until it has been distributed to all other communicants.
  5. The priest then communicates himself. 
  6. The priest then signals the members to consume the sacred species which up to then, the communicants are still holding in their hands. 
If this description is not correct, please feel free to correct it. Once corrected, or if it is already correct, please confirm that this manner of distributing Holy Communion is permitted and by what authority it is permitted:
  1. In the approved Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way (please provide the reference)
  2. A separate document from a Vatican Congregation or Dicastery 
  3. Your own authority
  4. Other
Thank you for helping us to resolve this dispute, a dispute, as you know, has been going on far too long. If the practice is licit, you need only confirm it as so, provide the reference, and this discussion ends. 


Tim Rohr & Many Other Catholics

P.S. I am sure you will want to answer us officially, so be assured that whatever the answer is, we will post your letter here on this blog for all to see so that we may officially end this tiresome conflict. I hope also you will post it in the U Matuna. It is time to resolve this. 


  1. I don't know why I didn't think of this before. The Archbishop's answer will save us all a lot of pain. Please disregard, at least for now, any invitation for dialog as it will not be necessary once the Archbishop rules on the matter. Contrary to how Kiko handles authority, I, for one, will abide by the Archbishop's ruling. If he says it is licit and provides the proper resource, then who am I to question. I will say no more. Those in the Archbishop's community are urged to encourage to answer this inquiry as soon as possible, so that we may all get on with our lives and stop this division. Only he can do it.

  2. I pray the Archbishop responds to this open letter. Frankly, I don't understand why he has not taken it upon himself to address this before, knowing full well the division it has caused.

    1. Writing to the archbishop was the right thing for Tim to do -- calling the archbishop out on the neo community’s liturgical violations and requesting that the archbishop address two critical issues which have been vexatious and just one of the many causes of the division in our Church on Guam.

      That it would take a member of our Catholic congregation (because of the archbishop’s years of silence) to request that the archbishop address and clarify the issues of illegitimacy with regard to liturgical practices (by the neo community), says a lot about the sad and deplorable state of the Catholic Church on Guam under this archbishop’s watch; but most especially, it screams: “No Leadership! No Shepherding!" in this Diocese! demonstrated by the glaring ineptness and the inability of this “shepherd” to LEAD, to GUIDE, to CARE and PROVIDE for the SPIRITUAL NURTURING, of the Catholic Faithful Congregation, as well as being a leader of the neo community.

  3. Janet B - MangilaoMarch 14, 2014 at 8:51 AM

    Good luck Tim. I truly hope Tony answers. It would be a refreshing change to the deadening silence we have come to expect these past 9 months or so.
    It is an amazing thought that all this discussion could have been ended if only our leader stood up like a man and spoke to the people.
    Tony, regardless of what has been hidden and not addressed in the past, now is the time to start the healing process by being a true leader.
    I look forward to the day where I can start calling you Your Excellency.
    But if you remain silent, I can only look forward to the day where I can call somebody else Your Excellency.

  4. Very simple. The archbishop only needs to form a letter and have Lisa prepare it today and send out by end of the working day. All will be resolved .

  5. Archbishop stated in the office that he will not respond to Tim rohrs letter .

    1. Of course he won't. However, I want a record of his being asked to address this inquiry. His office requires him to insure that liturgical laws are obeyed and rubrics observed. Not to do so is a violation of his office. But beyond that he has the duty of attending to ecclesial communion, and this matter of the neo-liturgy has been at the source of division for nearly a decade. If the Archbishop abdicates this responsibility, then it is a matter for Rome.

    2. Is he back from his trip? I don't think so! Heard he was going for 2-3 weeks.

  6. Archbishop. Demand that catechists and all Catholics respect the presence of Jesus. On Monday March 10th 2014 the NCW "Invitation to Joy" group gathered in the Blessed Sacrament chapel NOT in a cry room. They spoke and laughed as if they were in a cafeteria. The body of Christ had been reposed in the tabernacle but not removed from the chapel. This appeared extremely scandalous and irreverant!

  7. The archbishop informed his staff that he will not respond to any letter from Tim Rohr. The archbishop believes that the letter is left challenged and does not require his serious attention.

    1. Who else will he ignore when we all send the same request? I need a hit of courage, but I may just do that. Tim, do we have permission to resend your letter signing with our names?

    2. Yes. Feel free. It is time for others to come forward.

  8. Can anyone tell me why is it archbishop Apuron does remain a little worried about Tim Rohr. The archbishop is acting like he is a big guy here, but behind closed doors he is concerned about what Tim Rohr may do. Is it possible Tim Rohr does have knowledge that he has not shared on junglewatch but that archbishop knows.

  9. What if someone else sends in the same inquiry?

  10. Why won’t this archbishop respond to Tim’s letter? I think, he can’t!

    He can’t because if he defends the neo-concocted claim of having gotten approval from Rome for the practice of distributing and receiving Holy Communion in the altered neo fashion, he would be risking another incriminating slipup “ala KOLG radio.” Going the other route he still can’t because IF HE ADMITS TO THE TRUTH and FACT that the neos don’t have a written “go ahead” from Rome, it would mean the end of his dreams of a grand legacy and visions of fame dancing in his head brought on by the cooperation and promises from Kiko – and thus, the conniving plans and efforts will have all been for naught!

    The Truth will not and cannot come from him, directly (has anyone seen this leadership quality in him in the past, anyway?); but the problem he’s probably encountering you see, is that the rest of his “troupe” may not have the backbone either, to be the messengers of the misinformation or information!