Thursday, April 24, 2014


On second thought (see first thought), I don't want to (yet) release the full audio recording of Archbishop Apuron's fateful KOLG interview nor reveal the content of the cover up that followed. We'll save that. I would rather have a little fun with Anonymous April 23, 2014 at 7:55 PM.

First, several people believe they recognize this commenter and their observations pretty much confirm my initial suspicion. He's attacked me before in pretty much the same way. But let's leave his identity aside for now and look at what he says.

Before we begin, I want to make a distinction between the Neo's and what we will heretofore refer to as the Kiko's. Not all Neo's are Kiko's. Many Neo's are simply people who want to deepen their faith and have no clue about the larger problems. These problems are not their fault. It is the fault of the Kiko's. And the Kiko's are just that, those who follow, obey, and subject themselves to Kiko the Almighty.

An example of a Kiko is captured best in an excerpt from an email I received from a local seminary professor in 2008 explaining why the Neocatechumenal Way had not changed its manner of distributing Holy Communion as required by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 2005 and after the period of transition had expired in 2007. I have used this excerpt several times in this blog because it best illustrates a Kiko: "...there are no documents to show you at this point.  All our instruction have been oral, but we are satisfied with that.  We have no choice." (In a future post I will share more of this conversation. It was very enlightening.)

So those are the Kiko's: the Neo's who know what the Magisterium requires, but reject it because Kiko has spoken and "we have no choice." So let us proceed with the current Kiko
Your zeal for the Pope whom you thought was going to take us all back to the Rite and Era which you prefer and have passion for, Pre Vatican II. Your hopes were cut short when he became Pope Emeritus. 
First, we see the divisiveness that we have come to expect from the Kiko's. Here, he pits one pope against another as if they represent two different factions of Catholicism. But his slamming of Benedict and holding up of Francis is a true demonstration of Kiko-idiocy. Here's why:

  1. It was Benedict who gave the long awaited approval to the Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way so that it could operate authentically within the Church. 
  2. It was Benedict who went to great lengths to review, modify, and give final approval to Kiko's massive 13 volume catechetical directory.
  3. It was with Benedict that Kiko and Carmen appeared ad nauseum in photo-op after photo-op. 
  4. And it was Francis, who on Feb. 1, 2014 gave the Neocatechumenal leadership its strongest ever public rebuke, telling them first to respect the cultures they go in to, and second to stop hounding people who want to leave the program. By comparison, Benedict's strongest public rebuke of the Neocatechumenal Way was his 1/6/06 plea to the NCW leadership to conform to the directive issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship a month earlier. 
Given the record, if the NCW ever had a friend it was Pope Benedict. But you see now since he is of no use to them, they kick him to the curb like a dying dog. (Archbishop Apuron, are you paying attention?)

But now let's deal with this Kiko's attempt to pretend he knows me and what I prefer and don't prefer. As so often demonstrated on this blog, the Kiko's who don't have the intelligence to engage my documented points default to personal attacks. It's the cheapest and lowest of responses which is why we so often find them there: in the gutter, spitting mud and choking on their own vomit. 

However, this idiot, like the others, affords an opportunity for education that I could not have easily constructed myself. This Kiko-idiot believes that because I prefer solemnity and reverence in the liturgy that I am longing for the Middle Ages. Let's set the record straight. I, and many others, would simply like to see the liturgy stop being your freaking plaything. We would like to see the liturgy match what Vatican II and the liturgy-related post-conciliar documents require. Idiot-Benedict-banger, are you paying attention? Okay, here's what that is:

• We would like to see Latin preserved in the liturgy. Why? Because we are some pre-Vatican II regressives? No. Because Vatican II required it: "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36.1)

• We would like to see Gregorian Chant retain pride of place. Why? Because we hate guitars? No. Because Vatican II required it: "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 116.)

• We would like to NOT see spurious innovations and more respect for traditional worship. Why? Because we are liturgical reactionaries? No. Because Vatican II required it: "...there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 23.)

• We would like to see conformity in our liturgical celebrations so we don't have to wonder what church we are in when we go to what we think is a Mass or wonder where and when the Kiko's are having their eucharist. Why? Because we despise inculturation or private liturgies? No. Because Vatican II requires that the Mass be a "sacrament of unity": "Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops. (Sacroscantum Concilium 26. Note that our bishop conducts his own liturgical service as a "private function".)

Nowhere does Vatican II require that only Latin and Chant be employed, but only that it be "preserved" and retain "pride of place". There is much in the document that allows for the legitimate incorporation of local expressions and we see much of those. But where do we see Latin preserved and Chant given pride of place (and we don't mean the occasional insertion of an "Agnus Dei")? NOWHERE. 

• We would also like to see the norms for music in the liturgy, as soundly and beautifully detailed in the post-conciliar document "Musicam Sacram", adhered to instead of the haphazard four-hymn sandwich with three extra "meditation songs". And if the guidelines of Musican Sacram were actually followed, we would actually have the "active participation" of the faithful that Vatican II called for instead of the 64-microphone concert or a loud imitation of a Spanish flea market. 

So you see, we simply want Vatican II to be ACTUALLY implemented. And in fact, Mr. Benedict-banger, this is precisely why the man you kick to the curb promulgated Summorum Pontificum. The post-Vatican II liturgy was never supposed to become, as Pope Benedict said, a cause of "deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church" (as it has for many of us), a pain caused "above all because...celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but...understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.

Benedict goes on: "I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."

You got that Kiko? "Arbitrary deformations of the liturgy"!! This is why the General Instruction for the Roman Missal is NOT a book of "suggestions" as you Kiko's claim (and sadly even non-Kiko's treat it), but a prescription ordered to preserve the liturgy and the belief of the faithful from arbitrary and deformed Kiko's like you. And you speak of MY incardinating myself???
Now that we have Francis as our Pope and you see his Jesuit Style in Pastoral Care, in shepherding our flock, you feel it necessary to go ahead and incardinate yourself as church hierarchy. 
WHO has authorized himself to arbitrarily deform the liturgy? Who has ordained, incardinated, and even consecrated himself (since he acts like a bishop)? And we might as well throw "canonize" into that list since he even has his own holy card (pictured above).  And who is it here that is giving the Magisterium the finger and saying go to hell we'll do what we want? Your pathetic little attempt to marginalize me as a medieval reactionary simply tells me I'm winning and you're worried, doesn't it? Let's go on. 
Youve done a good job at it because you now have faithful followers who consider every notion that you have as truth. You fail to correct them, then causing more conflict because it raises an argument that could have been avoided. 
You see. I AM winning. You give me here the authority of a bishop. Really? It's my duty as a layman with no letters before or after my name and nothing more than a personal blog to CORRECT THEM! Really? The archbishop has the power of the pulpit, the crozier and the mitre and it is MY duty to correct them??? The archbishop only has to say that the Neocatechumenal Way is authorized to distribute communion differently than the rest of us and I everyone would stand corrected. But he has not, because he cannot. 

Let's review. In the NCW "eucharist":
  1. The priest does not consume the sacred species before distributing to the communicants as he is required to do. 
  2. The communicants do not consume the consecrated bread "as soon as" they receive as WE ALL are required to do. 
In 2005, the NCW was ordered to stop these arbitrary deformations and conform to the liturgical books. A few weeks later the archbishop publicly mocked this instruction. A few days later, Pope Benedict publicly asked Kiko to conform. A few weeks later, Kiko told Benedict that he would not. Eight years later, you still do not. And your only apologia is that it is now eight years later. Sick. And it is I who have "incardinated" myself???

And "faithful followers"? Ummm, that's what the Kiko's like you have. No one on our side of this division follows me. Most are intelligent followers of the Catholic Church and see the same aberrations that I see. Nice try though. 

Personally, I could "give a crap" about what you do in your private little worlds, which is why I haven't said anything all these years. And in fact, I could still give a crap. But since you and the other Kiko's (because you lack the intelligence to engage my arguments) choose to attack me, choose to discredit me, choose to cowardly challenge me...well then now I GIVE A CRAP.  
You want truth but yet you yourself have failed at this and continue to push forward nonsense. Its time that you understand that the way in which you want to receive the information, documents etc. is not going to happen. You are creating a paper trail that only serves as evidence of your lack to confront the problem upfront. You want something from the Archbishop then go and see him. You know where he lives, eats and celebrates. Joy!
I'll let your last little display of pathetic idiocy speak for itself. Thanks for the opportunity. Come again. People like you drive up my numbers. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch