APURON: "NON SERVIAM"

It is now just over one year since Archbishop Apuron LIED to the parishioners of Yona. 

At a parish meeting, Apuron was asked by parishioner Tommy Tanaka about why the Neocatechumenal Way is permitted to receive communion differently from the rest of us and in a way not permitted by the liturgical books or the NCW statutes. 

Apuron famously declared that Rome had permitted it and he would "find it somewhere" - meaning the document permitting the practice. It was a LIE then and it is a LIE now. More so, it is a LIE for every day that passes until Apuron tells the truth. And since that will be NEVER, he will - unfortunately for him - probably carry this LIE to the grave.

And it is more than just another lie in Apuron's long list of lies. It is the CENTRAL LIE, the beginning of all the hell that has befallen this archdiocese, a hell that began, at least publicly, on KOLG in January of 2006, when Apuron - on this very issue - publicly defied a direct instruction from Rome and criticized the credentials of the Roman Prefect who issued it in the name of the pope. 

(Transcript and Audio file of Apuron's 2006 KOLG comments.)

Because Apuron's defiance was on the radio, and because he LIED again as he tried to cover it up, the rejection of Rome on this day was his NON SERVIAM. On that day he publicly vacated his office. And we have been right to vacate him ever since. 

To "celebrate" the anniversary of Apuron's Yona charade, I am copying here the text from the original post I did last year:

TANAKA: 

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. 

APURON: 

https://soundcloud.com/undecoverneo/tanaka-question-and-aasa-answer-on-neo-communion

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. 

MY ANALYSIS:

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.