Sunday, December 21, 2014


On December 15, 2014, Archbishop Apuron paid a pastoral visit to St. Francis Parish in Yona. Let us take a closer look at this particular question and answer between parishioner Thomas Tanaka and Archbishop Apuron:


Archbishop, I am concerned that the celebration of the Eucharist in the neocatechumenal communities is not in compliance with the exceptions to the liturgical books permitted in Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way.

The people receive the sacred host standing, but they do not consume it immediately as the rest of us are required to do. They wait till all have received then they sit and consume. 

Is this practice of sitting to consume the consecrated host permitted by Rome, and if so, where?

And if it is permitted by Rome, why have you not made it clear to the entire diocese that this practice is permitted so that we are not scandalized by what we perceive to be a violation of liturgical norms?

This is a major concern for us because this practice separates the neocatechumenal way from the rest of the faithful and we feel that you have an obligation to clarify it for us. 


Rome has approved it – even the way we’re receiving Communion. That they receive the host standing and they can sit down and everybody who receives it and they eat together, as the Priest stands and says, “Behold the Lamb of God…” you know, the acclamation before and they receive it sitting down. Rome has given permission for that. And it’s somewhere I need to find out where exactly, but they told us that permission is given. 


Of course, here we have the crux of the whole issue. And it’s nice to finally have the Archbishop publicly stating that the Neocatechumenal Way receives communion in a way that they were told to change in 2005: “they...sit down and...they eat together.” The Neocatechumenal Way was instructed to receive the Eucharist in the normal way the rest of the Church receives: standing or kneeling and consuming upon reception.

And he says “Rome has approved it...and (the permission) is somewhere.” He just “needs to find out where exactly”! 

“But THEY told us that permission is given.”  

Archbishop, when Pope Paul took the extraordinary step to permit communion in the hand the permission was issued via an official instruction from the Congregation of Divine Worship (Memoriale Domini). One would think that a change as big as permitting communion while seated would have received similar treatment so that the faithful would not be scandalized. But the best you can do is “THEY told us that permission is given”?? 

Archbishop, you are the BISHOP. You are the guardian of the liturgy and THEY told you that permission was given????? You don’t even know WHO gave you permission let alone WHERE the permission was given? 

Are we correct to assume that you DO NOT KNOW YOUR JOB?

By the way, there’s an even larger issue. You say “even the way WE’RE receiving communion.” 

Who is WE, Archbishop? 

Is this an admission that you belong to a different church than we do? I don’t recall “WE” receiving communion in any other way than what has been authorized by the Church, so obviously YOU BELONG TO A DIFFERENT CHURCH. 

This is why you CANNOT be obeyed. You are not the leader of the Catholic Faith on Guam. You are a member of a cult and you get your PERMISSION to do things differently from “THEY”. Of course we know that, but thanks for the confirmation.

Archbishop Savio HON Tai-Fai, may I recommend that you ask Archbishop Apuron (or at least former Archbishop Apuron) where he gets his instructions from? He obviously DOES NOT get them from the same Church you do.


  1. SAD, "WE"....I'm shaking my head.

  2. His "we" description CLEARLY confirms that he is part of the Neo, and thus excludes himself from the rest of us. He cannot be both "we" (Neo) and the rest of us non-Neos. Otherwise, he should have said "they" (meaning the Neo) have been given permission (actually not) to do what they are doing. This latter description would have identified himself as part of the rest of us non-Neo.

    He has created the division within the Church (we vs they), and then fosters and promotes the Neo part of the division by including himself in it, thus alienating himself from the rest of us non-Neos. So you are NOT our bishop then, Arch; otherwise you would stand up for us, instead of defending their (Neo) practices.

    You created the division, and you foster the division. You choose to separate yourself from us, so we owe you no allegiance; you have abandoned us!

    1. I could be wrong and not that the Archbishop is without sin and faults, but to me it seems the NCW created the division within the Church and the Archbishop, after he was indoctrinated into the NCW, furthered the division. I believe the Archbishop let the NCW into the Church on Guam because he believed it was the right thing to do and he would be accoladed by the Vatican. The charismatic NCW and the Archbishop's weaknesses allowed him to be indoctrinated, his need to be more important and powerful, even if in a small circle, caused him to forget about the rest of his flock.

      Unfortunately, with the NCW's pattern of separation, secrecy, and the perhaps small, but very vocal percentage of NCW members who promote a message of eliteness with statements that imply we are not as good and not worthy of salvation because we do not Walk, separation was bound to occur. Having an Archbishop that did nothing to promote unity and was Walking the Way, only furthered the separation. The Archbishop should have been there for all his people, but the charismatic Way controls him.

  3. Apuron sadly thinks we are stupid and that we will believe him just because he says so. We stopped doing that a long time ago.

  4. He is brainwashed and weak. He should be ashamed of himself to have caused this division. I bet Blessed Diego San Vitores is just as disappointed. We are told to pray for his intercession yet AAA can't even maintain a few material items still in existence on Guam. No museum to honor him and what he did for Guam's people. Our leader is a joke and he needs to go!

  5. "they told us" ??? There is an "us" that is responsible for the liturgy on Guam? ROFLOL, and here I thought that responsibility was held by the Ordinary and no one else!
    Here's the real problem, I thought That the purpose of the NCW is to bring back Catholics to the parish while teaching them the faith, period.
    If the Archbishop feels that he needs to be catechized, he really has no business leading the flock of this archdiocese, as he is supposed to be the chief catechist of this diocese, not a puppet who is told what faith is.

  6. Well lets see.. Archie doesn't tell the truth, he back peddles when there are issues in the Church, he goes into hiding when confronted, Isn't he our leader ? maybe he can sing he way out of this lie..

  7. Can we post this say question to AB Hon if he can provide copy of the POPE's approval since it seems that AAA lost his copy since he mention that he would look for it since 2014 and to date nothing to show.

    1. Yes, please pursue this issue. Receiving the sacred host at the pew is probably why they found the Eucharist under a pew at Barrigada church years ago!!!

      Went to mass there last year and an elderly gentleman turned to me and said, "Where is everyone? I don't recognize anyone. What happened?"

    2. He should ask adrian where are his flocks or the people of Barrigada who build this Church. He adrian would probably say they are all on vacation. Not to worry, they will soon return to retake back their CHURCH and transfer adrian to Iran for a mission of no return.