Saturday, April 11, 2015


The following is an excerpt from the videotape transcription of a debate/seminar held in Rome on 20 April 1997. I have formatted it for easier reading and added highlights and my comments [in red]. The original can be found here

Here's the "pull quote":
Kiko is aware of being on the other side of the fence and he entreats his people to not get into these discussions at all when they talk with others "because it would create a ton of problems."

I. Divergence from Catholic Doctrine in the Neocatechumenal Catechesis
Presented by Mario Frugiuele, Engineer, from Florence, Italy.

Introduction: The speaker is in his fifties, married with two children and he has been a secular Franciscan for nine years. Six years ago his parish went from the guidance of monks to the direction of a diocesan priest who then introduced the parishioners to the Neocatechumenal movement. Several parishioners were enthusiastic about this invitation to participate in the hope that it would enrich their own Christian and Franciscan spirituality. But soon their expectations turned into disappointment because of the exasperatingly prophetic way in which the catechists presented: "We are the angels of the Lord!", "Jesus Christ is coming with us!", "Seize this opportunity now because it may never come again!"

After two months, the majority of the congregation, shocked by the doctrinal divergences from Catholic doctrine, left the catechists. Since then, the speaker has taken an interest in this movement. He has collected testimonies and studied the catechists' Orientation guide which contains the beliefs of Kiko Arguello and Carmen Hernandez. The guide is a three-hundred-seventy-three-page mimeograph, said to have been inspired by the followers of the movement. Even though it is the foundation of their catechesis, it's kept secret.

[Note: quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church are indicated by No. and the number. Quotes from the writings of Arguello are indicated by page number.]

ANTHROPOLOGY: Kiko has an absolutely pessimistic view of man in that man is absolutely unable to control his own destiny. Any effort whatsoever to improve or change one's moral life is absolutely useless. Man is like a marionette where the strings are pulled by God. Man is incapable of putting his own moral choices into action. Therefore, according to Kiko, since man is unable to carry out his own moral choices, he is not responsible for any evil which may result. 

[Well no wonder people are attracted to the Way. It's easier than being Catholic where we are responsible for the evils we permit.]

CONCEPT OF SIN: He who sins cannot offend God in that "to offend" means "to take away or steal" something from someone. Since no one can take anything away from God, my sin cannot offend, otherwise God would be made vulnerable and he would no longer be God. Now, since I have not offended, I don't even have the moral obligation to ask for forgiveness for the sin I have committed. 

But in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1440 reminds us that "sin is before all else an offense against God".

Kiko also maintains that sin doesn't even cause Jesus to suffer. In fact he says on p.182, "People are very sentimental and they think that sin causes great suffering to Jesus Christ". 

The Catechism instead says that "sinners were the authors and ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured...our sins affect Christ himself." (No. 598).

According to what Kiko says on p. 138 in his catechesis, we are all already forgiven no matter what our moral conduct be, because man cannot do otherwise and of this he is not guilty. One shouldn't resist sin: it's enough to recognize oneself as a sinner. 

[That's the "once saved always saved" belief of many fundamentalists.] 

But we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that man "can initiate and control his own actions" (n° 1730); he is capable of governing his own self and he doesn't let himself be submissive to slavery racked with guilt.

PREDESTINATION: If I am not responsible for my sins and if I don't have the possibility to change my life this means that my final end has already been determined: it's all up to predestination. As a matter of fact, in their catechesis and in Kiko's Orientations on p. 89, they have presented a drawing of three concentric circles. In the middle circle they have written "salt" ["wisdom"] which would indicate the people who belong to the Neocatechumenal Way. In the second circle they have written "the salted" ["the wise/knowing"] - those would be whom God has called to know the Good News. Finally, written in the third circle is "Judas" who would be those who don't uphold the Neocatechumenate community. They explain, "it is the role that has been assigned to them for a reason which we will not investigate: it is destiny and that's all."

God didn't make the "Judases" to be "wise and knowing" and nothing can be done about it; it's neither good nor bad - that's just the way it is...period. Besides, Judas was assigned to kill Jesus (see p.361). If you are called to be Jesus Christ, you must have your Judas. So having people who oppose the Neocatechumenal Way actually gives validity to how the Way is set up. It says on p. 338 that "whoever is predestined for the Word will descend like a dove. You all have been elected by God to be the vault of the Word." 

[Thus: no salvation outside the Neocatechumenal Way.]

SANCTIFYING GRACE: If I don't have free will, I don't need sanctifying grace - that which we receive in the sacraments, that which gives our will the strength to make our moral life conform to the laws of God. Kiko says, as a matter of fact, "There is a kind of Christianity, which I, myself, used to belong to, where one believes oneself to be a converted Christian and so along comes this attitude, 'better to die than to sin'." 

[So he mocks what the saints themselves believed, taught, and died demonstrating.] 

It's the kind of Christianity in which the fundamental things are: to be in the grace of God, in the passive sense, and to try to not lose that grace and to persevere. 

But No. 1996 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that our justification comes from the grace of God. "Grace is favour, the free and undeserving help that God gives us to respond to his call" (an active attitude!).

On p. 130 of the Orientations, Kiko asserts that "man is slave to the devil and the devil manipulates him as he wishes. The law says that we should love one another. But, if we love another, we will die because love destroys us. We don't want to die so for this reason we cannot love. Man cannot succeed in bringing out goodness; we are at the mercy of our concupiscence."
On p. 138 "Man can do nothing but steal and argue - he can't do otherwise and of this he is not guilty." Therefore, according to Kiko, we mustn't have any sense of guilt over our sins. The Word requires nothing (p.254); it asks for no effort on our part. 

[This is pure Lutheranism where even in heaven we are nothing more than "piles of dung covered with snow."] 

But in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read that "sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another." Therefore, it is possible to do this. "God wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing." (No. 55). Also, "by our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free" (No. 407). "There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle"(No. 2015). It's necessary to really work at it! 

[Thus said St. Paul to "run the race."]

CONFESSION: All this cannot have anything but tremendous consequences for the sacrament of reconciliation. Kiko later describes confession from a point of view which determinedly rejects private confessions. There are even moments where he derides confession, ironically calling the confessional "a wooden hut". He says, "don't laugh because this has also happened to me - to confess every little stupid thing [undoubtedly referring to venial sins]. It even gets to where confession becomes a devotion for personal sanctification, something that will continue up until present." Again, Kiko says, "After confessing, you feel back at ease. Private confession has given us this meaning." 

But the Catechism of the Catholic Church lists some of the spiritual effects of confession: it bestows peace and serenity of conscience and spiritual consolation (No. 1496). 

If the sinner has not offended God [Kiko's teaching], not even contrition, nor personal sorrow makes sense. "How curious it is [see p. 174] to confess before Communion; and this has lasted up until present. We have lived confession for this - for the fulfillment of the sacrament!" "As it is now, the Church appears nowhere and it is a man who forgives you of your sins." 

This is how Kiko not only denies the purpose of the sacrament of confession, he also denies the role of the ordained minister and the authority conferred upon him in the persona of Christ. In the Way, past, present, and future sins have already been forgiven from the start. But this concept is not Catholic! 

[This is why we are now experiences these "presbyters" making light of or even misusing the confessional as a recruiting tool to the NCW.]

Essentially, Kiko challenges private confession, devotional confession, spiritual direction, and confession as a means toward sanctification; for him, it's all foolishness that must be done away with. It's only about welcoming this gratuitous forgiveness. "But don't mention these things at all to the people"! He repeats this same phrase when he talks about the selling of personal belongings - which he poses as a condition for continuing in the Neocatechumenal Way and for following certain paths and, therefore, for approaching salvation. Kiko is aware of being on the other side of the fence and he entreats his people to not get into these discussions at all when they talk with others "because it would create a ton of problems."

SECTARIANISM: Often the Neocatechumenate are reproached not for being a movement of the Church, but for considering themselves to be "The Church". 

[Precisely. This is why Kiko virulently rejected the label of "movement".] 

Indeed, seeing these enormous differences in both doctrine and practice, this church can really be considered to be heading in a direction parallel to the Catholic Church. On the occasion of a penitential liturgy, Kiko said: "Don't let this happen. Don't celebrate with the pews lined up like in a battalion. It would be necessary to explain to the presbyters before you begin the meaning of the celebration. 

[And this is why they reject have their eucharist in a church.] 

The presbyters would all be together in their place wearing their albs and stoles and the head wearing his violet vestments. How dare priests preach to the people!" 

[And this is why they DON'T know how to preach. They don't believe in doing so. And they get all messed up when AAA puts them in parishes where they have to celebrate a "real Mass".]

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT: Kiko completely criticizes the Council with real condemnation; he holds the Council responsible for the deterioration of the Church until Vatican II, of which the real interpreters have been Kiko and Carmen. 

But No. 9 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that "the Council of Trent is a noteworthy example."

The Council of Trent redefined the mysteries of faith and it put the door bolts up against Protestant Reformation (bolts which are locked a little securely for Kiko and Carmen). The Council of Trent also talked of the mystery of redemption and of the sacrifice of Jesus. Concerning the idea of sacrifice, Kiko doesn't agree. "Perhaps God needs the blood from his Son's sacrifice in order to be placated" (see p.333). "But what kind of God have we made! The rationalizations surrounding the Eucharist have led us to these deformations!" 

[This is the typical Kiko-strawman argument. The idea that Jesus had to be sacrificed to placate a wrathful God is not Catholic teaching. First of all Jesus IS God. Second, he offered himself in our place because he loved us. Third, he did so because not only is he all-loving, he is also all-just.]

But in the Acts of the Vatican II Council, there are at least thirteen to fourteen instances where the mystery of redemption is talked about

Meanwhile, Kiko says that "the [Vatican] Council has replaced theology and there is no more mention of the dogma of redemption" (see p.62).

IMITATION OF CHRIST: Number 459 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that "Jesus is the model" and No. 932 says, "to follow and imitate Christ more nearly ... is to be more deeply present to one's contemporaries, in the heart of Christ." "The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness" (No. 459). With His humility he has given us a model to follow. He is the model for the Beatitudes. He calls on his disciples to carry their cross every day and to follow him since he suffered for us. He is leaving an example for us to follow in His footsteps. Jesus gives us the example of holiness in daily life (No. 564). 

Kiko says the contrary (p. 124): "Doesn't it seem better to you to have a figure who is more human [There it is: Arianism] because, after all, anything else would not be attainable. How can we possibly imitate him if our human nature is weak and fallen? Jesus isn't at all an ideal for life; Jesus didn't come to give us his example." On p. 126 he says, "People think that with his life, his death, and above all with his suffering Jesus has given us an example so that we will do the same. For these people, Jesus is an ideal, a role model, an example... Not so!"


THE EUCHARIST: In the Eucharist, Kiko only sees the Resurrection, the feast, the exaltation, and joy. For him, the dimensions of sacrifice and the cross completely disappear. The error comes from attributing our salvation to Christ's Resurrection rather than to his sacrifice.

Jesus came to die on the cross to give us salvation and not as Kiko says, "to return to his Father". It's the worthiness and goodness of Christ that saves us! And that worthiness consists of an absolute obedience to the Father even with consequences as extreme as death. This makes him worthy to become our mediator, the only mediating priest between us and God.

The Catechism sees the dimension of sacrifice in the Eucharist which renews itself and becomes effective for us in the Eucharist. Of course even the dimensions of feast and joy can't be left out, that is, the joy in feeling loved by the Lord, in feeling loved for all he has done for us. This must be the reason for joy and not because the whole dimension of sacrifice and the cross has been made to disappear. Therefore, it isn't pagan (as Kiko says) to see the idea of sacrifice in the Eucharist. Rather, it isn't Catholic to not see it.

Kiko even gets a laugh out of the way in which one receives Communion. The Catechism says, "Communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace" (No. 1390). Instead, Kiko says that to receive Communion like this is like trying to catch rainwater with a wicker basket. There will be nothing inside! Therefore, bread is insufficient. In fact, in the Neocatechumenal liturgies, the Eucharist is precisely given out in two forms - bread and wine. 

[To combat this heresy is precisely why the Church began limiting communion to one species in the first place. In fact, it still does. According to the GIRM, Communion under both species is to be reserved for special occasions.]

OMISSIONS MADE IN THE MASS: The Gloria has been removed because it's a morning prayer. The Creed has been removed because it originates from the time of the heresies. The offertory has been removed because one can offer nothing to God. On p. 138 of the Orientations, Kiko writes, "The response was even worse: 'From your hands The Lord receives this sacrifice'." "Was"? But we  (the rest of the Church) still say it now!

[Note: Kiko was since ordered to restore the above removed portions of the Mass. Whether that happens or not appears to depend on individual catechists and presbyters.]

PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST: The Church says that because of the miracle of transubstantiation, the bread and wine become - truly, really, and substantially - the body and blood of Christ. And this will be as long as the Eucharistic species exist. So, for us Catholics, Jesus is truly, really, and substantially present in the tabernacle. 

Instead, for Kiko, He isn't! "At a certain point in history [see p. 134] it was necessary to persist against the Protestants on the idea of real presence. But once this was no longer necessary there was no need to insist any longer. Since now the opposing force has gone away, the scales are left off-balance. It will no longer be necessary to keep the counter-weight on. As long as that counter-weight remains, that will be what tips the scales. If things were made as they should be, there would be no need to keep maintaining this presence." On p. 135, "The important thing doesn't rest on the presence of Jesus Christ, it's not about making mountains out of molehills or things of the sort."

[So insisting on the Real Presence is making a "mountain out of a molehill."]

Telling the history of the Eucharist, Kiko says, "the great exhibitions of the Eucharist -the first ones ever to exist - began because the presence was at the service of the Eucharistic celebration and not vice versa. Bread and wine weren't made to be on exhibition because they spoil. Bread and wine were made to be eaten and drunk. I always say to the Sacramentarians who have constructed an immense tabernacle, 'If Jesus Christ had wanted the Eucharist to sit there, he would have made his presence be in a stone - which doesn't spoil'."

[So there you have it. Archbishop Apuron, feel free to refute these points so that we can be assured that you have not embraced a heresy. But please use some documentation. P.S. Just saying that your catechetical directory was approved is not enough. Show it to us, the one you really use. For it looks to us that all of the above is still taught.]


  1. Mary Lou Garcia-PeredaApril 11, 2015 at 10:08 AM

    I first read this article in 2013 after the "connection" between the removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan as SBCC Pastor and the NCW was first posited on K57 by Patti Arroyo. I wanted to learn as much as I could about the NCW. I found this article, as well as the report by Fr. Enrico Zoffoli recently featured in JW (, articles by Sandro Magister and The Psychological Mechanisms of Mental Conditioning Inside the NeoCatechumenate Community (

    I was one of those Catholics who was ignorant of the effects of the NCW within the Church. In December 2005 when someone mentioned the "division" in our Church between the NCW and the rest of us, I minimized the person's concern, stating that the Catholic Church "provides many different charisms to meet the various needs of her members." Less than a month later, I heard the (newly "resurrected") episode of "Why Do Catholics Do That?" on KOLG in which it sounded like Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron definitively aligned himself with the NCW. I couldn't believe what I had heard and waited for the rebroadcast of the episode, which never happened. It was only here on JW where — 8 long years later! — I again heard the words issuing straight from AAA's mouth.

    Those early warning signs from December 2005-January 2006 pretty much faded into the background of my mind, only to be recalled whenever my family and I had to sit through the annual "Neo Commercials." But, because I was not directly affected by their actions — other than their "commercials" — I did not pay much attention to the NCW until 16 July 2013. Even before Patti mentioned it on the radio, I had a feeling there was a connection between the NCW and the removal of Fr. Paul as pastor.

    My initial 2013 read of this article raised numerous red flags regarding the teachings within the NCW. About 15 years earlier I had begun a serious study of my Catholic faith. As I read this article I recognized how close the NCW teachings were to those of Luther and was disturbed that AAA could have been influenced by this movement.

    I had noticed how quickly presbyters were being cranked out of RMS. I had also heard that it was AAA's goal to have NCW communities established in every parish, to be led by these presbyters. Re-reading this article with the highlights and comments has strengthened my determination not to allow AAA to realize his goal of spreading the Nefariously Cancerous Wickedness to all the Non-NCW parishes. I will NOT have the members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church — especially those who are still so young in the Faith, like my grandchildren — be forced to drink Kiko Argüello's Koil Aid as AAA has done.

  2. those are serious, grave errors. heretical and completely non-Catholic. and if kiko mocks the true Catholic teaching, that makes him not just non-Catholic but ANTI-Catholic.

    i hope all of these errors really were dealt with by Rome after this article was written. but then we can't confirm because their catechetical directory remains secret.

    at least martin luther split. what kiko is doing is infiltration.


  3. Knowing past history of AAA becomes very clear as to his obsession with this organization.

  4. Folks,
    The NCW which teaches doctrine counter to what the Catholic Church teaches as domgas, should be reason for all of us to oppose this cult. The dogmatic teaching of the Church are non negotaible, and not following them can surely lead us away from experiencing the fullness of what God is giving us through his Church. I have recently heard an NCW follower reason that we should follow AAA since he has been placed in office by the providence of God, Yes that is true, there is no denying God choosing AAA for the office of Bishop, however we are only obligated to follow lawful obedience to God's and his Church's precepts, and AAA is not above God's or the Church's law. Our baptism obligates us to seek and defend the truth given to us by God through his Church, anything else is from the enemy. AAA when he allows, suscribes, and defends this erronous teaching by the NCW counter to what Christ's Church teaches cannot in true conscience be followed by church members who are seeking the truth. In other words, I would rather choose what the Church Teaches, that follow AAA or Kiko.

    1. No. To say that he was chosen by God is to deny free will. He was chosen through a selection process. Even the pope is not "chosen" by God. At most, he (the pope) is protected by the Holy Spirit from officially teaching error, but that's it. For more on this go
      here to read "The Next Pope Will Be God's Choice, Right?" by Jimmy Akin.

    2. Fr. Matthew Blockley.April 11, 2015 at 10:10 PM

      He was chosen by a selection process of four candidates. Reality is old Monsignor David would have made the most suitable candidate for the Episcopacy after Flores. The last two episcopal candidates for Guam and Saipan were the most disastrous appointments in the history of the American Catholic Church. Total disaster of leadership.

    3. Tim,
      By God allowing a situation to happen does not mean that there is a denial of man's free will. We as human beings connot speak for the providence or intentions of God, The fact that God alone can prevent AAA from being in office, by his divine providence only known to him alone, he alowed for AAA to be in the apostolic seat in Guam. AAA as we can see has the choice to do the will of God or to choose otherwise. Unfortunately from the fruits that we can see he appears to have chosen otherwise. His actions are the very testimony of his free will in action. The very selection process for a position of this importance, prudence would dictate that we should petition the assistance of God in the decision process, for we know that the prayers of the righteous avails much as scripture tells us.

  5. Diana? Holly? Edivaldo? Zoltan? John Bautista? Jackie? Antoine? Jennifer? Harold? Kiko? Anyone? Salted or unsalted? Heretics of the NCW? What say you to these? What a pity. What else do we need to show you that what you are following is dangerous? Enjoy the kool-aid. We will be by to pick up the bodies.

    1. There is a fan club out there...and it's called the Cisco fan club...president is Heather Ann. Cisco for Francisco!

    2. HOOO is HEATHER ANN? Have I wasted any time reading her pontificating away to her heart's content?

    3. They probably didn't know any better. Post Vatican II we threw out our catechisms and brought in activity books.

    4. This is all canned material from over 10-15 years ago, by now mostly outdated. Both neocatechumenal theology and its criticism have developed a lot since then. This would be useful to be taken into consideration. It it true if look at anti-neo websites around the world, their information is frozen timelessness and badly unrefreshed as if time had stopped for them about 10-15 years ago. But hey, what about the last 10-15 years?! That would be most intriguing to learn about. What do you think, folks?

    5. First, pray tell where one can “learn about” this “development” in Kiko’s theology without having to sit through years of your so-called catechesis.

      The Catholic Church I belong to makes everything it teaches publicly known. Any “developments” are out in the open.

      And “developments” over the last 10-15 years? Really? Kiko spent a lifetime developing those positions that you now called “frozen”. You mean he just suddenly “developed”?

      Even if he did “develop” (to who knows what) his documented positions of 10 years ago are simply dangerous if not outright heretical.

      And apparently you didn’t read my concluding note so I’ll copy it again here:

      [So there you have it. Archbishop Apuron, feel free to refute these points so that we can be assured that you have not embraced a heresy. But please use some documentation. P.S. Just saying that your catechetical directory was approved is not enough. Show it to us, the one you really use. For it looks to us that all of the above is still taught.]

      Let me repeat, given what we have seen played out in this archdiocese, especially as regards the brutality of this archbishop (who follows the orders of his catechists), we have to assume that all of the above is “still taught”.

      For 10-15 years I have been meeting and engaging any member of the Neocatechumenal Way who will talk to me (that would be very few) and have asked them to demonstrate that any of these positions of Kiko are not true. The key word is “demonstrate”, not witness to me about your conversion, not tell me what the pope said, but “demonstrate”. Show in your catechetical directory where these positions of Kiko Arguello from “10-15 years ago” have been renounced and replaced with authentic Catholic teaching.

      Let’s see. Maybe you’ll be the first. My suspicion is you will just attack the messenger like all the others.

    6. About some developments from the last 10-15 years: It seems that Carmen Hernandez's role is greatly diminished. Fr. Mario Pezzi has always been a rubber stamp only on the neo teaching. So what is left is Kiko Arguello himself. This is a development in the last 15 years. But Kiko is also getting older and he is said to be under the influence of powerful bishops, who initially supported him and now they set some conditions for their further continued support. There are quite a few of them by now! Kiko is very much dependent on them, because if they desert him, the movement will collapse. We are not talking about Apuron here who is too far away. We are talking about those bishops and cardinals who have true impact on the Curia.

      What is hard to see what direction the changes are going to take. Liturgy probably won't be adjusted until after Kiko had gone. There is much caution on the teaching, because suspect doctrines need to be eliminated. The bishops who form the power base for the movement are theologically fluent and promptly identify deviations. Now, they put pressure on Kiko not to emphasize these teachings so that they can be corrected later with much ease.

      From Church history we know the Franciscan Regulas were not completed by St. Francis himself, but by someone else after him who made some much needed corrections. Posterity didn't waste time to judge the original concept that was overridden and disappeared, only what survived the centuries after St Francis' death among his followers. Kiko's situation might turn to be parallel. Perhaps some things he says today won't be repeated tomorrow. The neo will be judged by what survives in the movement after sufficient time had passed. Suspect items in Kiko's theology will be forgotten and never looked back on. This would quite well make sense.

      The whole point is that the Church may make a general model of Catholic communities based on the neo experience. This would happen only after Kiko. The new model will carry on the new evangelization. The Church badly needs a new working model to break out of the deadlock of failed missionary efforts, so this is why all the Popes compete with each other in showing their support for the movement. They don't want to kill the hen that hatches the golden egg.

      The real question is what the bishops around Kiko will press on for in the next 5-10 years or so. As Kiko is dependent on them, he will gladly comply with any reasonable demands in adjusting at least the most visible theological errors is his books.

    7. Hmmm. You sound very familiar. Much of what you say is sound, however I part ways with you when you get to the "deadlock of failed missionary efforts". Really? Are we talking real missionary efforts, or neo-missionary efforts? Two very different things. In the end, we don't have a failure of anything except for bishops.

    8. particularly those who want to lead from behind.

    9. Anon at 9:39 AM, the NCW is not "the goose that lays the golden eggs. Those cardinals and bishops you refer to are complicit in the NCW scam. The Vatican has to clean up its house otherwise the so-called "New Evangelization" is meaningless. People are tired of being played for fools!

    10. The comments by Anon 9:39 really angers me. Yes, it would be nice to believe that after Kiko’s death the NCW would change, but what about all the people that are being hurt now due to following a sect with within the Catholic Church that does not align its liturgy to the Church? If the NCW has a million followers, then there are close to a million people believing false theology (minus a few astute bishops). Do not the bishops and cardinals care what people believe? Is it all about money and power for the bishops? Do they only care about blind obedience, no matter what else their followers believe? How many families have to be hurt in the process?

      There are good points to the NCW in regards to providing a sense of community, which is sorely lacking in many Catholic parishes and inspiring more vocations, which many parishes need, but the end does not justify the means. (It would be nice if the priests were actually properly trained and would be of aid to parishes needing priests.)

      Unfortunately people and families are being hurt now due to the NCW acting as a sect or cult. (I might have been blessed to have not heard of the NCW for a few more years if it didn’t act like a cult and demand the return of a friend’s walking mother less than 24 hours after the beginning of a stateside family visit.) People are being hurt be learning doctrines that do not align with the Church. Jesus is not a role model? Give me a break!

    11. The NCW's goal is to rid the Parishes and resort to the small communities. They argue that this is how the early church had its beginning. This however is not how our Lord envisioned his church to be One. The early christians gathered in small communities as Christianity was a persecuted sect, and they were imposed by the situation of the time to gather in small groups to celebrate the liturgy while in hiding. Our Lord however gives us a concept of the Kingdom in the analogy of a small mustard seed which grows into a larg shrub and houses all the birds of the air. This Church which started with Christ has grown into what it is today by the power of the HS. The Bark of Peter is also used as a symbol of the Church, an ark of salvation throughout time in which we come to worship together in the nave of this ark each Sunday. If anything, the NCW concept of community is an ill conceived idea of a man who missed the significance of God's plan to make his Church One.

  6. A re you kidding??, How can Apuron, Quitugua the "gullible" and Adrain who have gone through years and years of Catholic schooling, Seminary fall for this garbage!!!! How in the heck did Rome grant Kiko and his cohorts the permission to practice this heresy? Someone sure was sleeping at the wheel. People of Guam wake up!!!!! Throw these heretics out of our parishes, out of Guam!!!! KIKO, APURON, ADRIAN, QUITUGUA, get the hell out of Guam and do not try to contaminate us with your heresy. Shame on you Apuron, Cristobal and Quiugua, I am personally shocked that you would fall for this garbage. GET OUT OF OUR CHURCHES NOW NOW NOW.

    1. This is why I am bringing copies of a very readable history of the Catholic Church to all the village meetings. Rome has "granted" many things. Jesus didn't promise to protect the pope from making errors, he only promised to protect the pope from teaching them. The history of our church is full of corruption and errors, simply because Satan is always attacking it from within. Knowing our history helps us understand the current crisis.

    2. Yes, Satan will not attack the Church through an outside force, it will be from within. And what more than to attack that which Christ instituted; the Holy Sacraments.

      To recognize the profaning of the sacraments, we need only to look at how they are being manipulated and maligned. Saturday nights and heretical scrutiny sessions come to mind.

      However, we cannot face satan on our own. Only God can. We can do the next best thing, and that is to receive our sacraments the way that Christ brought them to us and instructed our ministers to do so. Learn about the correct form and matter in the CCC and do not succumb to trend or innovation which seeks to alter the sacraments according to our self centered ideals. The most powerful defense and offense against evil is through the Sacraments as Christ had gifted to us.

    3. Tim, who is he author of the church history book you provide on Guam. ?

    4. Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church Paperback
      by H.W. Crocker III (Author)

  7. Tim, thank you for bringing to light the Truth. I am mystified why Apuron,(sorry, but for him to fall for the garbage taught by Kiko, he no longer deserves my respect) would fall for such heresies. The firing of Father Gofigan and Monsignor Benavente brought about the disrobing of NCW teachings and the destruction it would have if we were not awaken in time to confront these phonies and to make sure that we remove kiko, apuron, all the NCW presbyters from our parishes and close down RMS. Holy Spirit thank you for awakening your people. The reputation of both priests have been restored in our minds, for we now have seen why they were sacrificed. It is ironic to see that in the attempt by Kiko to preserve his "false religion" by insuring that apuron gets succeeded by another NCW bishop, he instead woke up the Catholics of Guam. Kiko, you and your cohorts have been exposed by Tim. I dare you to deny the charges. We eagerly await your response.

  8. Reading Kiko's philosophy immediately makes one understand that it is based on the worst kind of humankind's cynicism....They are "end-of-dayers" not unlike the many cults mentioned in this blog and not unlike the horror called, "Da'esh" in the Middle never ends well for them....

  9. Tim thank you for all your hard work, posts and evidence of what aaa notice not in caps. I have been told by family who lives in Santa Rita that they would rather drive to other churches on the island than to attend the mass there in their village. Stand up folks and fight for your Church. I pray for everyone on our Island for aaa and his people to get out of OUR CHURCH!!!!!!

    1. What?? 8:48? you don't like your Polish Presbyter who left for his girlfriend and was hounded by Archie? What's not to like? You have something against computer hackers?

  10. 4-11 @1:28PM I’ve also heard similar rationalizing like: “we should [blindly] follow aaa since he is our bishop and he is in office by the Providence of God” Their claim actually mocks God and mocks His Divine Providence! If such simplistic view and claim were true, then sexual, financial or spiritual abuses committed by clergy should neither be addressed nor condemned because clergy or bishops are “called” and “chosen” by the Providence of God not only to their religious state in life but also to providentially be allowed to commit crimes and atrocities without moral repercussions!! Such ignorance and such simpleton-thinking!

    The angels, even as spirit beings created by God with intelligence superior to man, were given the freedom to choose to serve God or not to. Within their hierarchy of nine orders or choirs of angels, the rank or choir of Seraphim is the highest and the closest to God because they comprehended God with maximum clarity; yet, it was Lucifer -- a member of the choir of Seraphim -- who arrogantly claimed “I will not serve” when he chose to exercise his God-given freedom to choose.

    As with the angels, when man was created, (including those in the religious life) man was also given our free will to personally choose to serve God and do right or choose not to serve God and do wrong. So, a religious member or spiritual leader -- simply because he is “called” and “chosen” by God -- is not exempt from a culpability for the wounds he chooses to inflict, the abuses and crimes he chooses to commit, nor is he immune from the consequences of succumbing to evil temptations or choosing evil deeds. We all are thankful Tim, for your continued perseverance with keeping everyone informed, inspired, hopeful and proactive in the fight to take back our Catholic Church and our parishes!

  11. Guess what? I'm reading my copy of vol one Catechesis by Kiko and Carmen. I'm so depressed I can't get off the couch. What a find.

  12. In the Catholic Herald there is an article "Clearing up Misconceptions about the Neocatechumenal Way."
    The writer, having read the new book about the NCW authored by Kiko himself, says this:

    "Kiko comments, that “We have been persecuted and expelled from many parishes. Sometimes the Way is misunderstood and confused with a sect”. He doesn’t explain this further."

    The attempt to "correct" what is wrong in the NCW Mass, with all its Liturgical Abuses, is unjustly viewed as persecution. Pointing out that the alterations in the NCW were never given "recognitio - written permission" by St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI Emeritus, and Pope Francis should be viewed as charity towards the "Body of Christ."

    There is many things the NCW could be commended on, missionary zeal is indeed one. But, the NCW is mistaken about their Mass.

  13. Missionary zeal with erronous doctrinal teaching only propagates error. The starting point for all our missionary, magisterial, and ministerial efforts should always be the truth. It is "the Church that is the pillar and foundation of the Truth." Scripture tells us (1Tim3:15) Any group who does not follow or is disobedient to the Church may be teaching something other than the truth.

  14. Clifton diocese found the NCW was "untrustworthy and economic with the truth" that sounds like diplomatic language for liars. In my experience the members are spellbound by the thought that "they have been called by God" as "a people" (community) and that their catechists come with the Holy Spirit. Having been conditioned with these suggestions the members are duty bound to obey the catechists or be charged with disobeying God! That's a big call! Lets hope they are telling the truth and not just radicalising their catechumens.
    Certainly secrecy is of the essence and it would be very difficult for the Church to discover the degree of coercion exercised by the catechists or if they were invading the inner sanctum of their catechumens.
    The underlying message that is propagated is that the Neos, lay members and seminarians are better formed than "ordinary" parishioners and seminarians.
    It would be very easy for catechists to deviate from the statute for the NCW issued by the Church as there is no governance. Indeed on many occasions, either through ignorance or worse, heresies are proclaimed. eg natural religion including religious sacramentals such as statues and holy medals are frowned upon as being pagan and nothing to do with faith. Calvanistic heresies including Man is "nothing plus sin" are frequently rolled out.
    The Holy Spirit is not a travelling companion with dishonesty. Before you get involved be sure that you have the necessary resources to check out what you are hearing.
    As a disappointed former member it was a worthy dream that seems to have grown out of control. Lets hope and pray that the Church gets hold of the situation and brings it in to main stream.

    1. Most people who have fallen captive to the NCW are programmed to think a certain way which makes them feel that they're chosen by God. Neos love to say "Going against anyone chosen by God is the same as going against God! " Sounds familiar? This theme has been echoed by the RMS seminarians and other neos in their attempts defend their ranks and to recruit people.