Sunday, March 6, 2016

WHY WE MUST DISOBEY THE ARCHBISHOP


Apparently at least one congregation was given a lecture today by its pastor about obeying the bishop. The exact words, as reported to me, were:

"If you are against the bishop, who is the anointed one on Guam, then you are on the other side and not on the Church's side." 
First, if this was said during the time reserved for the homily, it is a blatant liturgical violation. The General Instruction for the Roman Missal makes it clear that the homily "should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day.." (GIRM 65)

The GIRM is specific about this because, in the past, the time reserved for the homily was often abused by pastors to lecture their captive audiences on a pet peeve or something other than what was in the readings for the day, which is exactly what seems to have happened here. 

Thus the departure as reported above is an example of exactly what the Church does NOT want the homilist to do. 

Aside from disobedience to the GIRM, the statement is completely wrong and contradicts the teaching of several saints and doctors of the Church. When priest, bishop, or even pope errs, we have a duty to resist. 

So says St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):
"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be  questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.  Thus, St. Paul, who was a  subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent  danger of scandal in a matter of Faith.  And, as the Glossa of St.  Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way,  they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from  their subjects....  The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for  it was not light:  there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel  truth....  The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest.  For this reason, St. Paul writes:  'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter, 'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone.  (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4) 
        "Some say that fraternal correction does not extend to the prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven, or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects.  However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own sake.... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects."  (IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)
(It should be noted that "fraternal" and charitable correction was attempted many times by many people. The Archbishop has ignored it all.)

And look what St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) wrote to Pope Gregory IX:
"Most Holy Father,... because He [Christ] has given you authority and because you have accepted it, you ought to use your virtue and power.  If you do not wish to use it, it might be better for you to resign what you have accepted; it would give more honor to God and health to your soul....  If  you do not do this, you will be censured by God.  If I were you, I would fear  that Divine Judgment might descend on me....Alas, Most Holy Father!  At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. (Letter to Pope Gregory IX, 1376.)
Read more here.

In the case of Archbishop Apuron, we have a prelate who publicly rejected a direct order from the pope as delivered by the Cardinal Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. 

We have in writing, a letter from the aforementioned Congregation, demanding that the Neocatechumenal Way conform its communion rite to the liturgical books. In January 2006, Archbishop Apuron publicly rejected that demand and just as publicly called into question the credentials of the Cardinal Prefect who spoke in the name of the pope. 

Not only has Archbishop Apuron never admitted this as a mistake, I and several others were called into a meeting with the same archbishop present and asked to lie to cover for him. I refused. 

Archbishop Apuron persists in open rejection to the authentic Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church by continuing to both celebrate and participate in the illicit communion rite of the Neocatechumenal Way, never producing any evidence from the Church's legitimate Magisterium of an indult permitting the practice. 

As St. Thomas says above, we "subjects" MUST question this "prelate." We HAVE questioned him and he has fled from those questions and now pretends not to know why his subjects are now protesting. 

And given ever more serious examples of his abdication of the true faith - such as  sponsoring in his diocese a priest who taught his own diaconate candidates that "Jesus was a sinner," we are right to fear with St. Catherine: "Alas, Archbishop! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation." 

25 comments:

  1. Whom ever this "priest" is, read this clearly....We The Laity, have not nor will we, vow obiedience to a bishop, especially when he himself has shown he does not obey his superiors. We, the laity, have been called to ensure you, as priest, conform to the churches true teaching. We are not mindless sheep.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What's with the illustration showing a man oh his knees about to be shot to death???? What are you implying Mr. Rohr?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean you need me to explain it to you after all the law suits over the last several years that have uncovered decades of the most unimaginable filth in our Church - all made possible by bishops who were not to be "snitched" on?

      While the picture may be more a metaphor than actuality in this particular case, I lived in another place where at least one person was tortured and murdered as an example to anyone who would "snitch." The bishop was not directly involved, but the torture and murder of the young man was carried out to protect a drug ring operating in a Catholic high school with the full knowledge of a principal who was protected by a bishop who would never entertain the merest criticism of the man even though this man had a long list of crimes - all crimes he got away with because his bishop protected him.

      And speaking of crimes...well stay tuned for Chapter 2 of Bob Kiltzkie's investigation.

      Delete
  3. Having been raised in Catholic schools, I was raised to respect my teachers, and my elders; not because we were asked to blindly follow what they taught us, but mostly because they had lived and were living lives that you could look up to, and wanted to emulate.

    Later as a second lieutenant, I followed my mother's uncle advise to rely on my senior NCO, for learning the ropes about commanding men in combat. I guessed that since he had fought in WWII, Indochina, Korea and later Algeria, he knew a thing or two about leading men.
    It was probably the best thing I did, since my NCO at the time was also a veteran of several campaigns. That man told me, that there was two way to command: one to demand respect because of the stripes you had, or lead by example. Leading by example he told me, was the simplest and hardest thing to do, because your actions never lied, and the men under your command will always know what you did or did not do.
    I carried that lesson my whole life, and transferred it into civilian life as I climbed the corporate ladder.
    Respect is not something you demand, it is something you deserve and establish through example.
    The three stooges on the Hill, either never learned that truth, or totally forgot it.
    It is a very sad situation, coming from men of the cloth, who are supposed to be examples to us poor lay people.
    If you betray your people, you should not expect them to bring you flowers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AMEN! Thank You for your Bright Insights!

      Delete
  4. The Dungbat comes to the jungle regularly (see it's message below). BTW the ANON never mentioned which Saint Tim was referring to. True nature of a cult, defend and deflect from the truth.

    DianaMarch 6, 2016 at 8:57 PM

    Dear Anonymous at 8:29 pm,

    Nowhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church does it ever say that one should DISOBEY the Bishop. As for the homily, the weblink below stated:

    "“In the broadest sense, the homily is a discourse about the mysteries of faith and the standards of Christian life,” says the Homiletic Directory published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

    Dated June 29, 2014, and approved by Pope Francis, the directory was released at the Vatican Tuesday, along with an appendix of passages from the catechism matched to each of the three readings for the three-year cycle of Sunday Masses and major holy days"

    http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/02/11/vatican-gives-tips-on-preparing-homilies-tying-them-to-catechism/

    Pope Francis has approved a new directory in 2014 on how homilies should be conducted by the priests. The homily can also be about the standards of Christian life. Being obedient to the Bishop is a standard of a Catholic life and is even found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    As for St. Catherine, Tim Rohr took her story out of context. St. Catherine wrote letters to Pope Gregory XI pleading with him to return to Rome. She was not encouraging anyone to disobey the Pope. Her letters were written to the Pope himself, telling him to cast aside all fears and returned to Rome. See the weblink below:

    http://www.catholic.com/blog/steve-weidenkopf/how-st-catherine-brought-the-pope-back-to-rome

    Tim Rohr took St. Catherine's letters out of context, making his readers believe that the saint was telling the faithful followers that it is okay to disobey the Bishop, including the Pope. St. Catherine did no such thing. Her letters were sent to the Pope himself in the hopes of correcting him. In the end, Pope Gregory listened to her and returned to Rome in 1377. What St. Catherine did is a far cry that what Tim Rohr is doing. St. Catherine wrote letters to the Pope praying and pleading with him to return to Rome. She warned the Pope of leading the flock astray. Tim Rohr, on the other hand, is addressing the Catholic faithful and commanding them to disobey the Archbishop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. I am "commanding" people to disobey the Archbishop! LOL. In their dreams. Talk about taking words out of context.

      But here we have again the classic Kiko-nut defense: deny, deflect, and misdirect.

      Notice, there is NO response to what caused all this in the first place and what continues to cause it: Apuron's public rejection of the magisterial authority of the Church.

      In doing this, and in never issuing a correction or providing evidence that he was right to persist in the practice, Apuron is a source of scandal, and he has put before us a choice: follow the Magisterium or follow Apuron, who in the same public rejection of the Pope, made it clear that he obeys a different authority: Kiko Arguello.

      Even the Dungbat has made it clear on many occasions, telling us that their authority comes from Kiko through the catechists. No mention of a bishop or a priest is made.

      Simple.

      Delete
    2. Diana,
      Never mind the bishop who is a man and a sinner, consider the Precepts of God who admonishes us against sin. Lying and deceit are clearly against God's teaching. Decide today who you wish to follow As for us, we choose to follow God.

      Delete
  5. In connection with the reference to Aquinas’ explication of the precept of fraternal correction above, may I add: “They shall know we are Christians by our love” is not just to be sung, but also lived. If one understands that, even when a brother sins against us, or when a son sins against his father and against heaven (today’s Gospel reading about the prodigal son), we are to wait for the day when we see the transgressor walk down the path toward us to return to the household. How do we wait? With patience and love, with prayers and fraternal correction. I am reminded that others outside the Church are watching to see how we practice what we preach. Therefore, let us control our indignation, check our anger, wield words of wisdom, not wounding words of wrath, for as Thomas says, “[W]hen a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect” (Summa Theologica, II, II, Q. 33, A. 4).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So tell me, have you done anything other than "wait?" Have you dared to "correct" this prelate? Or are you fine with his mountain of injustices? This is a man who has wreaked thirty years of hell on many people, who has gone unchecked and un corrected because he refuses to even meet with those who would correct him with "gentleness and respect." At this point the people who stand out in front of churches with signs and pamphlets are no longer trying to correct him, they are trying to stop him from ruining lives. And what you see on this blog is only the tiniest tip of the iceberg of the most grievous filth imaginable. And Apuron knows EXACTLY what I am talking about. Meanwhile, before you write another comment, contact Apuron and give us a report back, since that it was you are cajoling us to do.

      Delete
    2. Timothy,
      After much effort to correct our brother, bringing another witness, and finally the Church, Does not our Lord himself tell us that if he refuses all correction, we should treat him as a tax collector? Mat 18:17.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous,
      In your opinion the three-step process outlined in Matthew Chapter 18 has been completed. Please clarify. I understand only that there has been no meeting between the archbishop and the CCOG. Please explain how the third step, before the Church, has been completed.

      Delete
    4. Mr. Guile,

      I see you wrote on Diana's blog and her response was the Archbishop met with the parishioners of Toto and a recording was handed to Tim Rohr. Mr. Rohr did nothing but mock the Archbishop.

      If you were to listen to the recording, the Archbishop NEVER gave a direct answer. All he did was beat around the bush. Most of his comments if not All was ask Rome or write to Rome.

      He will NEVER be honest! WHY, because he is taking orders from someone else and needs to make sure that he does not slip when he speaks. Question is, why did he have Jackie Terlaje and Deacon Claros attend the meeting? They are not parishioners of Toto.

      I don't know if the recording is still available, but you should hear the questions and answers. If you tune your ears real good, listen to the dear old Deacon Larry, who denied a statement, when in fact it too was on recording, but at a different location.

      The NEOS will continue to cover up things to protect ????










      Delete
    5. Timothy,
      I was personally present sitting in front of the Archbishop in the meeting in Yona, Where the Parish council, and members of the Church presented our concerns to Apuron. Sad to say that the response we got from Deacon for sure, for sure, is we were making a false accusation against the NCW, and were encouraged to join it before we can make an accurate assessment of its activities. Apuron denied that there was any division in the church and cited a misunderstanding on our part. I understand from JW that similar results were experienced at other parishes.

      Delete
  6. Ah ah. Well folks, we are starting the week at high speed !
    This latest version of the dung bat is flattering in a sense.
    I present to you: the puppet master himself! The putrid Pius! I guess he could not resist the challenge to his huge ego.
    Notice the difference in style and the pharisee like erudition of these comments. Not your usual Dungbat comments.
    Wow! Tim you must have rattled that cage pretty hard.

    Blind obedience is demanded by the evil one!

    As for our new found friend, Mr Guile, I am starting to discern a pattern in his interventions that look awfully like those of an old devious visitor of this site. I shall come back with more on that one

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zoltan! the Gift that keeps on giving.

    A few weeks back, a new participant appeared out of the blue in the Junglewatch forum. A gentleman writing under the name of Timothy Guile.

    This looked kind of funny to me, because of the name which obviously was a made up name, but also somehow his style of writing and pontificating on issues appeared slightly familiar.
    Being busy, I put it in the "annoying column" and went out about my business.
    Lately Mr Guile has become more active, and started using arguments that were eerily similar to our good old friend the Zoltan.

    So this morning I took a little time to go back to some of Zoltan direct and covert interventions on this forum, and surprise!! the latest intervention of Mr Guile is exactly in the tradition and style of our incorrigible Zoltan Szekely.

    First of all the Name Timothy Guile. Some of you might not have added two and two together, so let me explain.
    Timothy if often use to berate Tim (oh! poor little Timothy). Guile (from merriam-webster) "the use of clever and usually dishonest methods to achieve something. Insidious cunning in attaining a goal, crafty or artful deception; duplicity."
    In short a very nice description of Zoltan and the NCW.

    If you take some time to study The Zoltan tactics, you notice several points.
    * He always start by appearing reasonable and willing to debate.
    * He drowns the issue at hand in false rhetoric, by deflecting onto a multitude of non related items.
    *Flatly denies the existence of an issue by arguing semantics, until he is blue in the face.
    * Even after you provided him with all necessary proofs in an argument, he continues to deny their validity and to deflect onto side issues to murky the waters.
    * When all has failed, he launches into vicious attacks impugning the character of his opponents and spreading rumors about their motives.
    Yes folks!! The never ending Deny, Deflect and Destroy!

    There is of course the never ending pontificating and use of scriptures out of context.
    He always denounces splits between Catholics, and claims being against the Neos is anti-Catholic in itself. He overindulges in the notion of persecution, and continuously attempts to use history (also always out of context) to justify his points.
    His long convoluted discourses most of the time end up full circle. Similar to a dog trying to catch its tail.
    Once again, Zoltan tried to put his grain of salt in the Jungle, using clever deceit, as always, his over sized ego got the better of him.
    Thanks Zoltan, it's been fun!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. By virtue of our baptism, we laypeople have also been anointed and given the mandate to "go out to the ends of the earth and proclaim the Good News." So nobody should accuse laypeople of "snitching on God's anointed," when they speak out against injustice and untruths. The hierarchy of the Church has no business being in position if they merely want to be served rather than to serve God's people. This JW blog has carried the weight of informing people about irregularities that are harming the welfare of the Church. We all have the responsibility to be accountable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Mr. Guile,

    At this point I have to publicly question your motives, if not your integrity. And I have to do it publicly because you apparently wish to question mine publicly.

    So that everybody knows - since you are posting your comments on this blog and Diana’s and Chuck’s as well (very busy aren’t you?), Mr. Guile is known to me and has been attending my Monday night sessions where we read through and discuss the Catechism for perhaps a year or so.

    As Mr. Guile knows, I am very accessible and publicly open and if he has a question he can contact me directly whenever he wants. There is no need for his not knowing what he claims here.

    As Mr. Guile can see from Frenchie’s comment - who does not know Mr. Guile and (this time) has incorrectly surmised that Guile is another one of Zoltan’s disguises, Mr. Guile’s questions and verbosity follows the same pattern as Zoltan’s and in fact most NCW operatives and apologists, a pattern established by Kiko of pretending to be polite and deferential and at the same time subverting, impugning, misdirecting, and deflecting.

    In fact, Zoltan also attended my Monday sessions for a while just like Mr. Guile has, before his motives were unmasked as well.

    At first, I thought Guile didn’t have anything better to do but to hang out on these three blogs and write tomes for comments, I now see that he has more in mind, and while Frenchie gets his identity wrong, since Guile is a real person and not another Zoltan disguise, Frenchie is right about Guiile using arguments that are eerily similar to Zoltan’s.

    Thus, upon your return to Guam, Mr. Guile, do not bother to rejoin our Monday night sessions. As far as I’m concerned you are a plant, or if not that, you are a bore. And since you publicly here have attempted to draw my integrity into question, I’m afraid I will have to do the same.

    But to answer your fake comment, you pretend not to know that there have been several attempts to meet with the archbishop. But let’s assume that you really don’t know.

    So that others may know, there have been many attempts to meet with the archbishop, by individuals, by parish groups, by the CCOG. Let’s review a few of those.

    One commenter references the Toto meeting. It was video recorded and transcribed. Type in TOTO in the search box at the top left to bring it up. Similar meetings happened at Santa Barbara and Yona and other parishes.

    Continued

    ReplyDelete
  10. Continued

    Especially at Santa Barbara and Yona, as well as Toto, parishioners asked Apuron very direct questions, he brushed them off or pretended not to know. At the Yona meeting he outright lied to Tommy Tanaka, saying that he had a copy of the “permission” for the neocult’s illicit communion rite, and that he just had to “find it somewhere.”

    As you can see from the counter in the right side bar, that was one year and 83 days ago. There is no permission. He lied. And if there was a permission, he is guiltily of the sin of scandal for not publishing it.

    As for the CCOG, your “understanding” is a big laugh. The CCOG’s first meeting with Apuron was a meeting without Apuron. Instead he sent out Adrian, a neo member, and a psychologist. LOL. They did nothing but deny and deflect, and worse, pretended that they were going to work with the CCOG to resolve differences. As expected there never was another meeting with this group. They were sent out to simply get rid of the CCOG.

    Then Dave Sablan,VP of the CCOG, tried personally. Once again, Apuron sent out Adrian to get rid of Sablan. Dave tried to have a serious conversation with Adrian. Adrian made a mockery of the meeting, changing the subject and averting every serious question.

    A classic example of Apuron’s lack of integrity and any semblance of being an actual spiritual leader was his response to John Toves. Sure Toves was aggressive and demanding and over the top. But what a great opportunity for the Archbishop to take the upper hand and quell the outrage. Imagine if he would have quietly met with Mr. Toves, thanked him for his concern, assured Toves that he was innocent of the charges Toves was alleging, pray with him, and send him on his way. Yes, just imagine.

    Instead, (surprise) he sends out Adrian and Deacon For Sure For Sure to run interference, then threatens to sue Toves, then later when things get worse - because Apuron caused them too - hires an attorney to shut Toves up.

    Meanwhile, not once did Apuron ever say that he did not do the things Toves was accusing him of. Now why do you think that is, Mr. Guile? Many know.

    Finally, it is NOT the people who should be asking to meet with Apuron, it is Apuron who should be asking to meet with the people - that is if he was a real bishop.

    But then he is not. He is not real. And neither are you, Mr. Guile. Don’t bother to reply. While I do not have a problem posting comments full of hate towards me, I have a problem posting comments that are full of cunning and pretense, or should I say…”guile.”

    Bye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mighty KAKA filled Zoltan speaks more lies on the Dungbats blog. Even when the truth is presented with physical facts, they continue thier lies and deception.


      ZoltanMarch 8, 2016 at 9:58 AM
      Hi Timothy, I am not surprised that fire and brimstone is coming on you from the jungle. Rohr is a very proud person, insanely jealous of his own command. He is fine with you until he can control and twist your words at his blog. But he goes absolutely berserk, when you refuse his manipulations and expose his dirty manners of managing his blog. Now, he and his henchmen will come after you. He is so predictable. Lol.

      When JW started in 2013, I had the illusion that it might be a forum to discuss Catholic things. But it came out very soon that Rohr has a different agenda. Even though I had attended his Monday evening sessions and we were Facebook friends, his hostility grew day by day. He knew from the beginning that I was a member of the Way, but he had no problem with that at that time. He even praised the NCW as a group of good Catholics. All this changed only much later.

      In the Fall of 2013, Rohr started to throw out my comments from his blog, mocked and ridiculed everything that disagreed with his agenda. This was the time I called him intellectually dishonest and show him a thorough description of his techniques as perfectly fitting this category.

      http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7210426

      http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

      I exposed his blog as spreading hearsay, gossip and superstition. I pointed out his hypocrisy about anonymous comments. He loves them, allows them, promotes them and utilizes them. He has an anonymous army of trolls who echo back his demagoguery every day. Some of his anonymous commenters or those who use fake names are Rohr himself. He employs all clandestine techniques to stir emotions. His hate mongering became a defining character, a signature for JW.

      Rohr became furious when I exposed him. He unfriended me on Facebook and deleted my comments at his blog. What is more, he stole my pictures from my Facebook page and paraded them on his blog. He came after me in my workplace. He became arrogant and haughty and started to wage a vicious war against everything and everyone who disagreed with him. It was only a few times later that I could post comment on his blog for no avail.

      As about initiating conversation, well, I gave it a try myself at a CCoG meeting in Agat last year. I presented my points offering an honest discussion. But Rohr had a different plan. He dispatched his cronies against me and they started to shout at me. They literally shrieked off my head by hysterically calling me a colonizer. Not one of the people present stopped these unintelligent outbursts, revealing CCoG and Rohr as the real masterminds of this mental poison they manufacture for the gullible.

      At the same meeting, appealing on our former friendship, I asked Rohr to stop using abusive language on his blog against the Way. He publicly laughed off my request and he confirmed in front of the audience that he will continue using bad words on his blog. If there is one thing he kept his promise, it is this. His blog in utterly unreadable.

      Knowing of past events and seeing the development of JW into a full blood hate blog, I am not surprised at all that Rohr treated you like this. Even though you offered a peaceful avenue of honest intent to reconcile differences, you are vilified, humiliated and thrown out not from the blog only, but even from the Monday evening Rohr sessions, where he covertly trains his adherents to hate stronger and hate more. One word about Frenchie. Well, the guy likes to spell my name, but he has never spelled his own. How interesting is this? He definitely has a sense of humor. Actually, he is exactly that, nothing but a French joke! Lol.

      Delete
    2. How fun to know that I still live rent free in his head. LOL

      Delete
    3. Sorry Tim, "my bad" as the young generation is saying nowadays.
      It is funny never the less to read the "expose" of Zoltan, since he basically follows exactly the script, I had highlighted earlier.
      Looking into the petition list for the continued presence of the Putrid Pius, a while back ago (almost two years?) . I shall share my findings on some of the names we have seen appearing lately.
      So, while I was wrong as to the identity of Mr Guile, he would be some kind of a side kick to the Zoltan? Sure appears like the methods are similar, at least.
      It would also be interesting to find out which community our Magyar friend is related to. I suspect his continuous interventions probably puts him somewhere as a responsible?
      Oops sorry ! I was joking.....or was I?

      Delete
    4. Dear Tim, Frenchie, Chuck, Zoltan, Deana, Anonymous et alii,

      I am an academic. I hope this explains, in large part, how I comport myself on Deana’s, Tim Rohr’s and Chuck White’s blog sites. I may at times fall short of my ideals (and if I do, call me out), but this is what they are: ask questions for clarification if I don’t know something, identify a line of argument by looking for its claims and support for claims made, examine whether the support for a claim stands up to critical scrutiny, present my own line of thought with supporting arguments and/or documentation. My ideal for inquiry bars me from making ad hominem attacks. It bars me from trying to embarrass or deride others. It bars me from inappropriate sarcasm and or misleading hyperbole. And, in a way, it even bars me from debating and keeping score. Rather it encourages me to listen, examine, propose, explicate and support claims in search for understanding.

      One last thing: I am grateful for the individuals named above for allowing my contributions to their blog streams in the past, and hope they allow contributions in the future. But if they do not, then I will withdraw from those platforms. God bless us in our pursuit for understanding and wisdom.

      Delete
    5. Nice try, but any academic worth the name doesn’t “research” by floating opinions on the internet and feigning sincere inquiry when primary sources are available, unless of course there is another motive, which at this point I believe there is, and it is NOT a “pursuit for understanding and wisdom.”

      But here, I’ll give you a chance to prove you’re an academic and in “pursuit of understanding and wisdom.” This whole controversy began with Apuron siding with Kiko and the Way against the Pope and the Magisterial Church (per the instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments).

      To this day, Apuron and the Kiko’s claim they have documented permission for their manner of distributing and receiving communion. They (Diana) say they won’t publish it because I’ll just twist it (LOL). But since you are an “academic,” and at least pretending to be in pursuit of the truth, why don’t you ask them to see it and see if they’ll show it to you.

      And since Zoltan is obviously now in your camp and a fellow “academic,” he should be able to lead you right to the source and you can put an end to all of this.

      As an academic, you should know that the document - just as the one demanding they NOT continue the practice - will have come from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments - which is the Church’s authoritative body for governing all elements of the liturgy.

      And to help you out, I gave you your own “count up” in the right side bar. Good luck.

      Delete
  11. Guam's Catholics aren't the only ones suffering from wolves in sheep's clothing. New York is heavily infested too. Here's Michael Voris' warning to the seminarians in New York. http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/a-warning-to-ny-catholic-seminarians

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch