Friday, January 1, 2016


The disobedience of Archbishop Apuron and his neo-cat cult to conform the Way's communion rite to the liturgical books and the exceptions granted in the Statute of the Way continues to be at the heart of the division of this diocese.

It makes sense because the Eucharistic Celebration itself is known to the Church as the Sacrament of Unity. And when that Sacrament is ripped and rent either by Kiko's heretical practices or any celebrant's self-authorized liturgical liberties, the Body of Christ itself is "ripped and rent." Thus the Church guards the Sacred Liturgy as it does the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. 

It also makes sense that since Kiko does not regard the consecrated bread and wine and the Actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, that he would have similar disregard for the Sacred Liturgy and treat it as his personal play thing, subjecting it to his own script. 

In the following comment - at the end, Diana, the spokesperson for Apuron and the neocat hierarchy (since they default to her with their silence), hands us the smoking gun: there is NO permission.

A catfight between the Zombies. They are so clueless...

AnonymousDecember 31, 2015 at 5:21 PM
Dear Diana,
re Yours of Dec 31 9:45am, you state:

"The only place I could find where the NCW expected an announcement that all their liturgical practices of the NCW would be approved on January, 2012 was in all the anti-Neo websites such as the following one..."

Firstly, I am ashamed and embarrassed by the crude talk on blogs from those that call themselves followers of Christ. Please stop, for the love of God.

Secondly, I am not a part of the Rohr team, although in the past I was happy that he had a genuine concern for the NCW, and had been trying to correct them charitably.

Thirdly, and I believe this is very important; however, I don't think you'll believe me. But no matter, God knows I'm not lying.
I'm from another country. When the NCW came to our city, I researched the group. I was extremely concerned that the Mass didn't seem to have the recognitio or indults for the many alterations in their Mass. This was late in 2011. When I spoke to the priest and seminarian that had come to promote the Way, I was told emphatically that "very shortly" the NCW was going to get the written approval for all their additions and deletions in their Mass. This was "definitely." I was stunned. Every encyclical, every letter dealing with the Eucharist, especially those of (St.)John Paul II that I had studied screamed "no way." "How can that be possible?" The seminarian, even said,"Even the way we give Communion" will be approved. This was said directly to me; it is not heresay, nor is it concocted to put the Way down. I'm strictly passing on this info because the truth is important; and if correction and repentance must take place, better it be now before one dies rebelling against the will of God. Like I said, this was said directly to me

Well, "very shortly," came Jan.2012. And needless to say, no approval for the additions and deletions to the NCW Mass was given.


DianaDecember 31, 2015 at 7:16 PM
Dear Anonymous at 5:21 pm,

I find that interesting that a priest and seminarian in your country claimed that the NCW would get approval in 2011 for the way they do the Eucharist. I was told differently. In 2008, at the beginning of the Year Convivience, the Head Catechist of Guam told us that the new instruction on how to do the Eucharist came from Kiko who in turn got the same information from the Pope. Our head Catechist, Father Pius is not far away from Kiko Arguello. Father Pius' Catechist is Guiseppi Genanri (spelling). Guiseppi's Catechist is Kiko Arguello. So, Guam is only a third away from Kiko Arguello.

Let us focus on the reply of Diana. It is short, but it reveals everything we need to know.

1. In her reply, Diana traces the line of authority in the Neocatechumenal Way: Pius-Gennarini-Kiko. Notice there is no mention of the bishop. Thus, whereas Diana's "church" places authority over the liturgy on its "catechists," our Church places that authority on its bishops:
Can.  838 §4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.
It's rather funny because Diana and her neo-cult-cats go on and on about obedience to the bishop but as she just demonstrated in this comment, the bishop is a non-factor in their "church." He has no authority. He is simply nothing other than something to pet. All authority is in the line of catechists, NOT genuine apostolic succession and authority. This alone should shake any still-thinking neo-cat to his spiritual core and warn him or her of the grave danger of remaining anywhere near this cult. 

2. Diana claims here (and has claimed elsewhere) that permission to celebrate their unique form of the liturgy came in 2008. She said she heard Pius read the permission from a document at a convivence. Aside from the ridiculousness of even thinking that an indult to vary something so momentous as the Sacred Liturgy would come through a vagabond friar on a scrap of paper that nobody else apparently got to see, Diana hands us the smoking gun. 

If permission had in fact been granted to the NCW in 2008 as she claims, then there would have been no need continue to seek that permission. Yet that is exactly what Kiko Arguello did, thinking that in 2012 he had at last succeeded. In fact he almost did. 

So here's "the rest of the story":

The Pontifical Council for the Laity, which oversees the Neocatechumenal Way and whose president and secretary, Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko and Bishop Josef Clemens, respectively, and who have long appeared to be in bed with Kiko, published a decree on January 8, 2012. We are certain that this decree gave definitive approval to Kiko's liturgy. 

We are certain of this because Archbishop Apuron was heard saying so and the NCW on Guam was all abuzz with the news. Also, it is referenced in the above comment when quoting the priest and seminarian in 2011, that the approval would come "very soon." But we are further certain because of actual news reports which you shall soon read. 

A grand ceremony for the promulgation of the decree by Pope Benedict at the Vatican on January 20, 2012 was organized by Kiko. Thousands of neocats including many from Guam descended on the Vatican to hear the great news.

Now, let's stop there. 

I will copy later a news account of all this to verify my accounting of the events, but neocats who were in the Way in January of 2012 - if they are honest with themselves - will recall this. It wasn't just news for Guam, the whole neocat world was abuzz with the news and the anti-neocat world was standing back in horror at what they though was about to happen.

And so to return to my main question: if the neocat liturgy had already been approved as per Diana's account of Pius reading a letter at a 2008 convivance then why the worldwide ruckus about the approval being finally given in 2012? Easy. Pius lied. Diana believed. But let's go on. Nothing to see here.

There was only one problem with Rylko's decree. It had to go across Benedict's desk first. 

Now here's where everything goes dark, but it is not hard to piece together what happened behind closed doors. The fact that right up until the neocat meeting with the pope on January 20, 2012 the neocat world was all abuzz with news of the approval - including Apuron saying so and himself going to Rome for the great event, tells us that the decree did not get to Benedict until the 11th hour. 

Let's switch here to the account as published in the news report from Inside the Vatican:
What had happened was that the Pontifical Council for the Laity, headed by Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, had prepared the text for a degree of blanket approval of all the liturgical and extra-liturgical celebrations of the Neocatechumenal Way, to be made public January 20 on the occasion of a meeting scheduled between the Pope and the Way. 
The decree was redacted according to the guidelines of the Congregation for Divine Worship, headed by Cardinal Antonio Cañ­izares Llovera. The founders and leaders of the Way, Francisco “Kiko” Argüello and Carmen Hernández, were told about it and joyfully told their followers about the imminent approval — all unbeknownst to the Pope.
(P.S. Note the name Cardinal Canizares. The kiko-cats often use his name because of his former high position. However, as you can see, Canizares was complicit in the plot to trick the pope.)

Now before we go on, let us return to Cardinal Rylko's decree of January 8. You will not find a copy of the decree - and we will tell you why in a minute - but we know that it was published as reported by the Vatican News Service:
VATICAN CITY, 20 JAN 2012 (VIS) - The Pontifical Council for the Laity today published a decree approving the celebrations contained in the Catechetical Directory of the Neo-Catechumenal Way. The decree is dated 8 January, Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, and bears the signatures of Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko and Bishop Josef Clemens, respectively president and secretary of the council.
So then what happened to this decree from January 8? Inside the Vatican continues:
Benedict XVI found out about the text of the decree a few days before the meeting on January 20. He found it illogical and mistaken. He ordered that it be scrapped and rewritten according to his guidelines.
We now see what happened behind closed doors. The decree of January 8 was "published," but only internally - since it could not be made public until the pope approved it. Since Kiko was anxious for the pope to approve it, it would have made sense that Kiko and his little band of compromised cardinals would have had it in front of the pope pronto! Instead, as Inside the Vatican reports, it reached the pope's desk only a "few days" before he was supposed to promulgate it in front of thousands of neocats in Pope Paul VI hall. 

Essentially this was the equivalent of slipping an unexcused absence slip into a stack of papers for your mother to sign as she drops you off at school with a line of traffic behind her. A look at the papal calendar for any day will show that the pope has a huge pile of work and meetings in front of him at any given moment. 

As we can see, the pope caught it at the 11th hour and foiled Kiko's plot. We know it was at the 11th hour because it was obvious from all the subsequent news reports that at the moment Benedict began his address to the neocats on January 20, 2012, there was still high expectation that he was going to approve their liturgy. 

He didn't. Inside the Vatican continues:
In fact, the decree that was made public on January 20 limited itself to approving the extra-liturgical ceremonies that mark the catechetical stages of the Way. In his speech, the Pope stressed that only these had been authorized. With regard to the Mass, he gave the Neocatechumenals a genuine lecture — almost an ultimatum — on how to celebrate it in full fidelity to the liturgical norms and in practical communion with the Church.
The report goes on to detail Benedict's initiation of the investigation into the Neocatechumenal Way. This is extremely interesting because it was Benedict himself who had given the neocats life in the church with the approval of the statutes and their catechetical directory. These approvals came after exhaustive years of work, so for Benedict to order an investigation into the very organization he himself had granted approvals to - only a few years later - indicates just how alarmed Benedict was at Kiko's influence in the Vatican (having seduced even the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacrements, Canizares!).

The neocats try to make much of Francis' conclusion of the investigation saying that no wrong doing was found. But the Vatican has never published a public report on the findings of that investigation (it wouldn't anyway), so there is no basis for the neocats claim. But also, to say there was "nothing there" is to insult the pope (Benedict) who approved the neocat's life in the church in the first place. 

But that is another matter. The real matter here is to show that Pius was lying to the neocats when he proclaimed official permission for their liturgy in 2008 and Apuron and Diana are perpetuating that lie. (How sad for their souls!) If there was such a permission there would have been no need for the January 8, 2012 decree from the Pontifical Council of the Laity, and no need for Kiko and his crooked cardinals to try to sneak it past Benedict's well-trained nose. 

Here is the full text and link to the video of Pope Benedict's address to the Neocatechumenal Way on January 20, 2012, officially NOT permitting variations to the Sacred Liturgy and ONLY permitting ceremonies contained in the Catechetical Directory which are NOT already governed by the liturgical books. 

The key entry is here:
It is the task of the celebration in the small communities — regulated by the liturgical books that must be faithfully followed, with the details approved in the Statue of the Way...
The only "details approved in the Statute of the Way" are the permission for communicants to receive communion under both species STANDING and in their place, and exchanging the sign of peace "ad experimentun" before the offertory. If the neocats claim otherwise, tell them to show you that in their Statute. They can't. 

For further reading and a more thorough exegesis of Benedict's address, see "The Neocatechumenals get their diploma. But not the one they were expecting."

One more thing. The neocat dingbats like to say that Pope Francis backs their liturgy. HE NEVER SAID THAT. The error is taken from the neocat controlled news agency Zenit. Here is the title of the suspect new article:

Now, go to the link and notice what it says right under it: 

Reaffirms Validity of Statutes Approved in 2008

Compare this to what happened in 2012 when Pope Benedict absolutely reaffirmed the distinction between the Sacred Liturgy of the Church and the "liturgical celebrations of the Way." Zenit too prostitutes itself to Kiko and trashes its credibility.

There is NO such thing as "the Neocatechumenal Way Liturgy." There is only the Sacred Liturgy and its two forms: Ordinary and Extraordinary. 

The only thing the pope actually "said" in regards to the liturgy - and apparently did not say it personally but through a curial office, is:
" far as it pertains to the celebrations of the Paschal Vigil and the Sunday Eucharist, […] articles 12 and 13 [of the Statutes], read in their entirety, constitute therefore the regulatory charter of reference."
The pope simply reminds Kiko that so long as his Way conforms the "celebrations of the Paschal Vigil and the Sunday Eucharist" to that which is already spelled out in his "regulatory charter of reference" (the Statutes - the pope even gives him the actual article numbers), then he has nothing to worry about. 

NOW NOTE THIS: If there was another document permitting any variance from that which was permitted in the Statute, this was the time for Francis to say so. He did not. 



  1. I do not want Archbishop Apuron taking control of my soul. He does not keep his entire flock in uniform. Jesus, save me and my love one's from the Fires of Hell.! Please, never allow us to abandon You for Archbishop Apuron's NCW-ways founded not by You rather kiko.

  2. i went to new year's day (the solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God) Mass in mangilao today. as in my previous visits the past couple of years, i saw a few faces that, were it not for the ncw, would have been seen at san vicente in barrigada instead. the neocats had driven them away from their longtime parish.

    the holy day and sunday Masses at santa teresita are valid and licit and fr joe's homilies are good. but there's still room to make the liturgy more ... "liturgical," i guess? my first suggestion would be to restore sacred silence at the appropriate times.

  3. The Dingbat will write anything to keep its diciples on the road to damnation...

    DianaJanuary 1, 2016 at 3:02 PM
    Dear Anonymous at 2:18 pm,

    I had to go into the jungle to find that quote because you did not leave a weblink. At any rate, I found it. I looked at Tim's source. He quoted "Inside the Vatican." "Inside the Vatican" leads to an article written by Sandro Magister. Sandro Magister is the author of an anti-Neo website, which is found here:

    Sandro Magister has been known to criticize Pope Francis, and he was banned from the Vatican Press 6 months ago for publishing a draft letter of the Pope that was not meant to be published because it was only a draft. He is also involve in a scandal for releasing a letter signed by 12 cardinals. Three of the cardinals said they never signed that letter. (See the weblink below):

    DianaJanuary 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM
    Dear Anonymous at 2:48 pm,

    For your information, Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in the Neocatechumenal Way when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. When he became Pope, he definitely made a change in the way the Body of Christ was received. The NCW now receives the Body of Christ standing up. Then we sit and consume the Body of Christ together with the priest. The change he made was taking the Body of Christ standing rather than sitting.

  4. Excellent recap Tim, of the chronological events. You have pieced it together very well, and have made it fairly easy for people with little access to the Vatican, to understand, the complex behind the scene activities, which allow the neocats to twist the truth for their narrow agenda.

    1. Thanks, Frenchie. It's fun. Happy New Year.

  5. Once again Tim, thank you for your diligence and vigilance. Your valuable work keeps us informed and ever watchful for the deceit that keeps coming our way. For Diana to be so clueless as to what she/he/it is saying, "I was told..." by Pius who was told by the G man who was told by Kiko. What kind of crap is that coming from the defender of the NCW on Guam? Sounds like the star witness on "My Cousin Vinny". Once again Tim thanks for your hard work and God Bless Pope Benedict!

  6. Tim, thanks for summarizing details of events and bringing to light the NCW's deceitful tactics, and the reminder that the greatest enemies of the church are those Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals from within the church that are willing to compromise the truth for their personal gain.

    Its important to understand that Christ entrusted the Sacraments to the Church, and the Church guards and protects the sacredness by instituting certain rubrics to follow in the confecting and administration of these Holy Gifts from God, and that no Bishop, Priest, Catechist, has the capacity to altar or change it.

    Another prime example that we should not entrust our salvation solely to leaders in the church, but should be our primary responsibility to form and inform our conscience on all the truth that the Church teaches.

    1. Yep. Jesus told us we would find the "abomination" in the temple itself.