Sunday, November 8, 2015


It is time to straighten out what I call the "presbyter problem."

The use of the word by the Neo's is actually a key to understanding Kiko's modus operandi for subverting the Catholic Faith, and he is extremely good at it. Here is the short course:

1. Use orthodox signs, symbols, and terms.
2. Make them mean something else. 

I'll explain.

The title of the book "Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis - especially since it was written during World War II - gives the impression that man's end will be cataclysmic. 

However, that is not where Lewis goes with this essay. In short, man's "abolition", according to Lewis, will be wrought by the subtle co-opting of the meaning of words, opening the way for destruction from within - simply because we won't recognize the intruders. They will look and sound, well, just like we think they should look and sound. But they will MEAN something else...something VERY MUCH "else!"

This isn't anything new. Jesus told us to look for the "abomination in the temple." The "anti-christ", we are told, will appear as a "messiah." In a post-Vatican II world, which has left the faithful woefully unprepared to recognize false doctrine let alone combat it, the church has been rife with charlatans - the best of whom have made their way into the halls of power - thus, Paul VI lamented in 1972: “From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”

About the same time, a contemporary of Kiko's, Saul Alinsky, published his Rules for Radicals, a book dedicated to Satan - who Alinsky admired as the consummate radical. Alinsky's contention was that social structures could only be co-opted from within, not without. Thus it was imperative that revolutionaries not look like revolutionaries - they must look, speak, and act just like the people they intend to subvert. 

At the time, Alinsky's "rules" ran counter to everything that the masses believed revolution to be. The 60's and 70's are typified by the radically identifiable radical: long hair, harsh language, loud music, etc. But Alinsky was right. The "hippies" changed little. The real change to our society occurred from within by people who wore suits and conservative haircuts - some of them "ex-hippies." They got themselves elected to governments and placed in positions of power throughout academia. And within a generation we constantly hear the lament: "What's the world coming to?" 

The same sort of lament is similarly paraphrased by our local Catholic community who, for the most part, cannot understand the collapse of their Church before their eyes. The neo-presbyters wear "suits" and sport "conservative haircuts." They are polite (at first) and seem like such nice boys. But poke them and what I call "Fabio's Fury" comes boiling out. 

Speaking of which, Fabio was not a good Alinsky-ite, which is probably why he is permanently "on mission." Alinksy rule #2 is: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” The presbyter plan is to appear "normal" for the first few years and then to quietly and gradually begin the subversion through the innocuous "community" idea. 

Eventually the goal is to sterilize the church materially and theologically and replace everything with a Kiko franchise, including - as Fabio's Santa Rita parish almost found out - the destruction of the actual church building. 

Fabio couldn't control himself. Apparently he had too many personal issues and probably should have been placed in an institute for anger management rather than a seminary, let alone a parish. From the outset he was so "outside the experience" of his people that he undermined the whole Kiko-operation and had to be gotten rid of. 

But back to "presbyter." 

First "presbyter", or more specifically, the "presbyterate" is a term that was essentially resurrected by Vatican II. And when you see what Vatican II had in mind by resurrecting this term you will see that what RMS is ordaining is exactly the OPPOSITE.

If Fr. Gary Coulter is the same Fr. Gary Coulter I know, then I met and had a beer with him at a local tavern a few years back. He has an excellent explanation of the development of the concept of the presbyterate during and after the council. You can read it in full here, but here is the summary:
"Presbyters (as established by Ordination in the Order of the presbyterate) are all mutually connected by an intimate sacramental fraternity; however, they who are assigned to the service of a certain particular Church under their proper Bishop...form with the Bishop one presbyterium, whose task it is to be for assistance to the Bishop in shepherding the people in the ways determined by law."
At first glance you may not see why the presbyters ordained at RMS are not presbyters as per the vision of the Council. So here it is. By definition, and by its own subscribed title, RMS is a "Missionary Seminary." As per its own articles of incorporation, RMS forms "priests" according to the life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way - and the NCW particularly identifies itself with the missionary term "ad gentes" - to the nations. 

This is fine, but this is the exact opposite of the intent of the Council's resurrection of the presbyterate. The concept of the presbyterate was resurrected to counter the idea of the wandering individual priest (as exemplified by Pius the Putrid) and restore the "mutually connected" and "intimate sacramental fraternity" which exists to serve - now get this - a PARTICULAR Church under their PROPER Bishop." 

As we know the NCW and RMS do the EXACT opposite. The essence of the NCW is NOT to a "particular church under their proper bishop," but to wherever their neocatechumenal masters send them, and - a la John Wadeson - not even at the invitation of another bishop. 

This is why I say that the term "presbyter" is a key. It is not only legitimate - having been resurrected by the council - but is in vogue, and Kiko has harmonized it with his other favorite term; "the new evangelization." Both terms are extremely useful to Kiko since the average Catholic is not familiar with either, but increasingly hears them - so they aren't questioned. 

However, Kiko has another use for the term presbyter. There is no question that the Council did NOT intend to return to the first century identity of the term which simply meant elder. In the early church an elder might have been a priest, but a priest wasn't necessarily an elder. The idea of a "priest" as we know it today would take a few centuries to develop. The Council was very clear that a presbyter is a priest, and to make it extremely clear, the Vatican, in 1997, rejected the use of the word in an English translation of the ordination rite: 
"Prominent among the problems is the decision of the translators to break with common Catholic usage and translate the Latin "presbyteri" into English not with "priests" but with "presbyters". This cannot meet with the Holy See's consent since it risks being misunderstood by the people and represents an unacceptable theological tendency. In particular it constitutes a retreat from a term that carries a sense of sacrality, that carries with it the history of the development of the faith in favor of a term which does not." - Letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship to the president of the NCCB on the defects of the Ordination Rite
It must be understood that Kiko intends to destroy the priesthood. He MUST because the sacramental priesthood is inconsistent with his theology which teaches that Jesus was not God (only a sinner) and that Christ was crucified as a mere scapegoat. (Read more at Chuck White's blog.)  Thus the Mass cannot be an ongoing participation in the One Sacrifice (which requires a priest) - since for Kiko, Christ crucifixion was not a Sacrifice to begin with.

And this is where we need to understand Kiko's Alinsky-MO: Rule #2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” 

Kiko did not gain access to the halls of power and the pockets of bishops by appearing to be a radical. This is not how the anti-christ will show up. No, he stays "inside the experience of the people." He presents as orthodox of an image as possible to the outside world. And sadly, because today so many of our non-neo priests have long since rejected their clerical garb when out and about in the secular world, Kiko has capitalized on the need of the laity to edify and recognize a priest (and nuns too) when they are seen in the public square. Kiko's guys show up in full uniform - for a reason. 

Now a final note.

I personally believe that many of the guys who are thrown into these seminaries have no clue what they are getting into. And for most, especially those here in Guam, they had no idea that they were going to be made "parish priests." Most likely they thought they were going to be ordained for "the communities", which for many of them - having grown up in these communities - it was all they knew the "presbyterate" to be. The "bait and switch", particularly on Guam, isn't something I think they signed up for which can be seen in their hardly knowing how to say Mass or give a homily. 

A few people have mentioned the possibility of human trafficking. I think we should look into that. There may be more "Daniels". 

1 comment:

  1. I would think that on Guam, which is relatively small compared to other archdioceses or dioceses, the RMS grads spend more time as “parish priests” compared to other dioceses where RMSs are located.

    In a larger diocese, it easier for RMS grads to go unnoticed after they are ordained. People are not noticing that they are paying to educate these men and not getting much in the way of service for that cost. On Guam, people notice if the men get ordained but then do not serve the diocese as parish priests. People are questioning what they are paying for.

    Just remember though, that the RMS grads can be transferred after 5 years or when Kiko calls them. It is still a high cost to “educate” these men for 5 years of service.