|The above is a picture of a lay person giving a testimony during the time reserved for the homily last February.|
She was personally invited to the pulpit by Archbishop Apuron whose homily was little more than another ad for the Neocatechumenal Way.
Cathedral. Jan 18, 2015. 7:30AM Mass.
Fr. Tom McGrath was the main celebrant. He was joined by Msgr. Quitugua, the VG. NCW testimonies were given at the end of Mass and before the final blessing. (Apparently this was also the case at the Saturday, 6:30pm Mass. Fr. Tom celebrant, Msgr. David concelebrant.)
The report only says that Fr. Tom was "joined" by Msgr. Quitugua. If Msgr. Quitugua was on the altar during Mass then we must assume that he was concelebrating with Fr. Tom. We must first ask why was Msgr. Quitugua concelebrating with Fr. Tom? We know why. Msgr. Quitugua was there to make sure that the Neo-ad would get in. He had to be sure that Fr. Tom would not forget, or horrors, actually obey the authority of the church and let the neos do their ad AFTER Mass. Well as we know, we can't have good priests like Fr. Tom actually just obeying Rome all on their own. So Msgr. David, the Vicar General, the priest whose office to which the laws of the church are uniquely entrusted, had to be there to make sure the laws of the church relative to announcements at Mass were BROKEN since no one would probably stick around after Mass for the neo-plug.
199. Concelebration, which appropriately expresses the unity of the priesthood, of the Sacrifice, and also of the whole People of God, is prescribed by the rite itself for the Ordination of a Bishop and of priests, at the blessing of an abbot, and at the Chrism Mass. Unless the good of the Christian faithful requires or suggests otherwise, concelebration is also recommended at The Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper; The Mass during Councils, meetings of Bishops, and synods; The conventual Mass and the principal Mass in churches and oratories; Masses at any kind of meeting of priests, either secular or religious.
The are certain exceptions such as when a visiting priest is present who then should be invited to concelebrate, or for other particular occasions, weddings, funerals, anniversaries, etc., but obviously, none of these conditions were present, so unless Fr. Tom himself had requested assistance, there was no cause for concelebration, so it is quite possible that the VG himself transgressed liturgical norms twice: once in inserting himself into an uncalled for concelebration of the Mass, and 2) permitting the neo-ad during Mass. (As already noted, Redemptionis Sacramentum 74 does not permit announcements or testimonies by lay persons during the Mass except for SERIOUS reason.)
Cathedral. Jan. 18, 2015. 9:30AM Mass.
Msgr. David the VG was the celebrant. Deacon Gus Cepeda was invited to do the neo-ad during the time reserved for the homily.
This was an interesting twist and shows that Msgr. David the VG knows the liturgical norms he is breaking, he just didn't want to get caught doing it on TV since the 9:30 Mass is broadcast on KUAM and normally live-streamed over the net and could easily be recorded. Since a deacon can give the homily, apparently Msgr. David the VG felt he could have a deacon give the neo-ad during the time reserved for the homily and get away with it. However, there is then the issue of two homilies and two homilists at the same Mass. There is also the issue of any sort of neo-ad, regardless of the fact that it was delivered by a deacon, violating the norms for homilies as found in:
Can. 767 §1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.
Hair-splitting neos will try to argue that the invitation to "come and see" (i.e. attend their catechesis) was a theme of the Gospel for that day, but then we run into a big problem. The Catholics in the church at that moment had already responded to the invitation to "come and see". They had come to see their Lord and Savior in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to be fed by Him in his full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. There is NOTHING greater to "come and see" than what those Catholics were already there for. And yet our so-called religious leaders persistently interrupt this highest and greatest act of worship to tell us that the real Jesus cannot fully be found in the Holy Sacrifice they are at the moment attending? That they have to funnel themselves out to some dance and bang deal run by a scary little man with a guitar and his own theology? What a shame. What a shame.
There were similar reports of what happened at Tamuning, Barrigada, and Yigo. All we can do is hold this up for Rome to see (and if you go to the Visitor Log in the Flag Counter you will see that they see).
However, you who were violated at the Mass you attended have a responsibility for the good of the church (and for your children and your children's children) to write a letter to the pastor of the parish expressing your concerns, disgust, however you want to word it, in detail. Don't use email. Send a hard copy letter and cc the archbishop and the nuncio. Make copies of both the letter and the addressed envelopes. For the nuncio, you can send a scanned copy via email.
Here are the addresses (you'll need to find the one for your parish):
Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron
196 Cuesta San Ramon Ste B,
Hagåtña, GU 96910-4334
Archbishop Martin Krebs
P.O.Box 14044, 112 Queen's Drive,
Wellington, New Zealand
Copied below is the relevant norm from Redemptionis Sacramentum which was violated on Sunday at several Masses:
[74.] If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a Church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily, nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.