Friday, May 13, 2016


Once again,  a primer on why the NCW "eucharist" is illicit. First, from The Diana

The KAKA Filled NEO Cult Zombies from the Dungbat's recent blog now claims that we are uneducated and clueless....

AnonymousMay 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM

Dear Anon at 10:55 AM, I tried to explain it to you nicely. But you act as an arrogant twit. There is nothing illicit in the Neocatechumenal Eucharistic celebration. You keep lying about our mass, that you have no business to at all. Why do you keep lying about the wonderful celebration of our Lord Jesus Christ that we have every week satisfying the mass requirement? It is probably your education that you cannot say and confuse the licit from the illicit.

It is illicit what you say because you cannot show any shred of document that says what you say. No wonder you are lying. There is no document stating that it is illicit or not. You are a hired tongue sent here to make trouble and harm the Catholic faith. You were sent here by your uneducated friends to make egregious accusations without any basis and without any credibility. You have no credibility whatsoever, because you lie. You serve the big liar who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Guess who I am taking about? Can you have any educated guess, my friend? So be vigilant not to fall into his trap.

That's why you should not lie and accept the truth. Nothing is illicit outside the books, except if it is a malicious violation of the rules. Lying is a malicious violation of the truth, so why do you keep lying? It is very illicit what you do. You should go back to your jungle and tell them people over there that it is illicit what you do.

You cannot make malicious violation of our shepherd, of our Pope and of the holy mass of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you keep doing that, it is a shameful act that you will be held accountable for. Please, get some decent education about what is licit and what is illicit before you bring here your malicious lies and illicitly egregious accusation against your fellow sisters and brothers in Christ.

Let us use The Diana's rant for our own edification. First some definitions:

  • Liturgical Books: Books published by the authority of a church, that contain the text and directions for the liturgy of its official religious services. For our purposes, "a church" is the Roman Catholic Church" - so called "Roman" because it is headed by the Bishop of Rome. The Liturgical Books of the Roman Catholic Church - specifically those which govern the Sacred Liturgy (The Mass) are two:
  • Roman Missal: The book containing the prescribed prayers, chants, and instructions for the celebration of Mass in the Roman Catholic Church. 
  • General Instruction of the Roman Missal: The book governing the celebration of Mass of the ordinary form of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church
  • Roman Rite: The Rite of Mass in primary usage in the Western or Latin Church. 
  • Ordinary Form: The "Mass of Paul VI" first promulgated in 1969 and otherwise known as the "Novus Ordo," or "New Order" of the Mass, since it was "new" in 1969 versus the "usus antiquor" or the Mass of "ancient usage," which is today properly called the "Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite."
  • Licit: Lawful
  • Illicit: Unlawful

Because the Neocatechumenal Way is under the governance of the Bishop of Rome and is governed by a Statute issued and approved by the same, the liturgy as celebrated in the Neocatechumenal Way is subject to same Liturgical Books as the rest of the Catholic Church "headed by the Bishop of Rome," namely: the Roman Missal and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM).

The Holy See retains absolute and ultimate governance over the Sacred Liturgy. No priest, bishop, catechist, or well-meaning liturgy committee can add, delete, change, or modify a single word or rubric of the Missal or GIRM without explicit permission from the Holy See. 

Certain Religious Orders, still subject to the Bishop of Rome, are permitted celebration of the Sacred Liturgy per their own rite. Examples are the Benedictine Rite and the Dominican Rite. 

There are also, within the Roman Church, certain "uses," such as the Missal of "Anglican Use," more properly called "Divine Worship: The Missal," which contains the Sacred Liturgy as it is celebrated within the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, "a structure, similar to a diocese, that was created by the Vatican in 2012 for former Anglican communities and clergy seeking to become Catholic."

Everything within the Liturgical Books or the recognized rites and usages is lawful (licit). Everything outside them is unlawful (illicit). 

As regards the Neocatechumenal Way, there is NO rite or usage permitted to them. Per Articles 12 and 13 of the 2008 NCW Statute, the NCW must follow the Liturgical Books of the Roman Rite. Pope Francis recently reminded Kiko Arguello of this in an instruction delivered to Kiko via the Office of the Vatican Secretary of State:
"...articles 12 and 13, read in their entirety, constitute therefore the regulatory charter of reference."
It is not for naught that Pope Francis inserted the words "read in their entirety." Obviously he is well aware of Kiko Arguello's picking and choosing what he wants to do and not do. 

Article 13, Section 3 specifically addresses how the neocatechumens are to celebrate the Eucharist (the Sacred Liturgy):
§ 3. For the celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed, with the exception of the explicit concessions from the Holy See. 
So what are these "explicit concessions"? 

First, notice the careful insertion of the word "explicit." Vatican language, especially as regards the celebration and governance of the Sacred Liturgy, is very precise - precisely because the Sacred Liturgy is the "source and summit" of our faith, and as such, must be severely guarded. 

Also, we can here note, that the kiko's completely disregard the demand that "concessions" must be explicit. Their standard operating procedure is the exact opposite. They rely on "implicit" concessions. This is in extreme evidence when they resort to "the pope hasn't stopped us" as proof of official approval, which as you have long seen, is all they ever offer. 

Yet, as you can clearly see, what the kiko's say, and what the Magisterial Church says, are two very different things. The Church which is subject to the Bishop of Rome requires liturgical concessions to be EXPLICIT (because the unity and the good of the Church relies on the unity of worship), while the kiko's hide behind "they haven't told us to stop," which is not even an implicit concession, but a childish tantrum. 

Let us continue with the "explicit concessions" granted by the Holy See within the Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way. 

After the words "explicit concessions from the Holy See" as found in Article 13 § 3, is the footnote number 49. I will here copy the entire footnote:
49 See Benedict XVI, (1) Speech to the Neocatechumenal Communities on January 12, 2006, in Notitiae 41 (2005), 554–556; (2) CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter of December 1, 2005 in Notitiae 41 (2005), 563–565; (3) “Notification of the Congregation for Divine Worship on celebrations in groups of the Neocatechumenal Way,” L’Osservatore Romano, December 24, 1988: “The Congregation consents that among the adaptations foreseen by the instruction “Actio Pastoralis”, nn. 6-11, the groups of the above-mentioned “Way” may receive communion under two species, always with unleavened bread, and transfer “ad experimentum” the Rite of Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful.” 
There are three documents referenced here. I have inserted in parentheses the numbers of each in the above copied footnote. Let's work from the bottom up beginning with: 
(3) Notification of the Congregation for Divine Worship on celebrations in groups of the Neocatechumenal Way,” L’Osservatore Romano, December 24, 1988:“The Congregation consents that among the adaptations foreseen by the instruction “Actio Pastoralis”, nn. 6-11, the groups of the above-mentioned “Way” may receive communion under two species, always with unleavened bread, and transfer “ad experimentum” the Rite of Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful.” 
As you can see, there are only TWO "explicit concessions": 1) a concession to "receive communion under two species (bread and wine - Body and Blood), and 2) to transfer “ad experimentum” the Rite of Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful.” 

BTW. Note the words "ad experimentum" regarding the "transfer" of the Rite of Peace. The "ad experimentum period began in 2005 and officially came to an end June 8, 2014, with the release of the instruction “The Ritual Expression of the Gift of Peace at Mass” (Prot. n. 414/14), requiring the Rite of Peace to remain in its usual place immediately before Holy Communion. The "ad experimentum" in the NCW Statute is not a reference specific to the NCW, but to the whole church. And with its expiration, the NCW is required to transfer the Rite of Peace back to where the Liturgical Books require it. However, enforcement depends on bishops. Therefore, the problem. 

The reason these two explicit concessions are in a footnote is because these were concessions already permitted under the NCW's 2002 "ad experimentum" statute. This 2008 statute simply recognizes them. There is no new permission. 

Now let us go to (2) CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter of December 1, 2005 in Notitiae 41 (2005), 563–565

Over the last couple years that we have been publicly engaging the liturgical practices of the Neocatechumenal Way, our friend Zoltan has repeatedly criticized me for bringing up the 2006 episode of Archbishop Apuron publicly criticizing the contents of this document on our local Catholic radio station as well as calling into question the "credentials" of its author, the Cardinal Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship, Cardinal Francis Arinze. Zoltan's contention was that this was "old news" and that we had no business bringing it up over and over again. 

However, as you can see, it is not "old news." The document which so troubled Apuron and which he publicly railed against is incorporated into the version of the NCW Statute which received final approval in 2008, which makes every bit of it absolutely relevant today. I can't help but recall Apuron's letters to the "Three Filipino Priests" in March of 2008 wherein he assured them that the Vatican would soon be approving Kiko's version of the liturgy, and then required them to say "Mass" for the neocatechumenal communities or "get out." You can read those letters here.

Two months later, of course, Apuron would be proved wrong. Kiko's liturgy was NOT approved and the 2005 instruction from the CDW, the one Apuron publicly rejected, was incorporated into the final May 2008 version of the NCW Statute in toto

In this instruction - rejected publicly by Apuron - the Cardinal Prefect prefaced his points with the following:
Following the conversations with this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist in the communities of the Neocatechumenal Way, in keeping with the guidelines issued in the meeting with you on November 11 of this year, I am to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions. 
Obviously it is not the Cardinal Prefect who is speaking here. It is the "Holy Father" - at the time, Pope Benedict. And Apuron's calling the Cardinal's credentials into question and his objection to the instruction was a direct disobedience to the pope. The recording of this infamous episode and the transcript are available on this blog. 

In the 2005 instruction, the Holy Father ordered the Neocatechumenal Way to cease distributing communion in a manner not consistent with the Liturgical Books:
5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books. 
As you can see, this is Point No. 5. There are altogether 6 points. Read the document for the rest. 

It was extremely revealing listening to Apuron (who was parroting Gennarini) turn the two year period of transition into a full-fledged approval for the manner in which the NCW distributes Holy Communion:
"We were granted two more is the first time in the history of the church that we were given permissions for the variations that is (sic) being done in the Neo Catechumenal Way, officially by the pope." (Transcript/Audio
Compare Apuron's statement to Giuseppe Gennarini's - made only a few days earlier to Zenit: "For the first time, the Holy See has accepted several variations to the way the Eucharist is celebrated within the context of the Neocatechumenal Way, as licit adaptations to help contemporary man to better receive the grace communicated by the sacramentsTo the best of my knowledge, this is the only case in which the Holy See has granted such an explicit permission to an ecclesial group."

 Returning to Article 13 of the 2008 NCW Statute, there is one more sentence in § 3:
"Regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species, the neocatechumens receive it standing, remaining at their place."
This is not an "explicit concession," it is an instruction, which is why it is incorporated into the main body of the Article and not a footnote. Prior to this, and as per the 2002 ad experimentum statute, the neocatechumens remained "seated" in their place. 

True to his standard operating procedure, the slippery Kiko concocted a way where he could appear to obey but still do things his way. The neocatechumens sure enough stand to TAKE the "bread" (we don't know if Kiko believes it is the Body of Christ), but then they sit back down with the "bread" still in hand and do not consume it.

They do not consume it until the "bread" has been passed out to all and the "presbyter" himself sits down, "bread" in hand, and then consumes it, upon which the neocatechumens then consume. 

Nowhere in the Liturgical Books or the 2008 Statute is this permitted. It is a blatant violation, a disobedience, an overt unlawful act, i.e. ILLICIT. 

Note: Illicit does not mean invalid, though there is a very good possibility that if the presbyter believes "Jesus is a sinner." and therefore not God, as we heard the neo-priest-instructor teaching the permanent diaconate candidates say, then the NCW eucharist is also INVALID. 


Let us now turn to the first document referenced in Footnote 49: (1) See Benedict XVI, (1) Speech to the Neocatechumenal Communities on January 12, 2006, in Notitiae 41 (2005), 554–556.

The instruction issued by Cardinal Arinze was sent to the the leadership of the Neocatechumenal Way on December 1, 2005. A little more than a month later, it must have been obvious to Pope Benedict that Kiko intended to discard the instruction  - as did Apuron.

On January 12, 2006, at a meeting with the leadership of the NCW and several thousand neocatechumenals, Pope Benedict DIRECTLY referenced the "Arinze Instruction" and demanded that it be obeyed:
Precisely to help the Neocatechumenal Way to render even more effective its evangelizing action in communion with all the People of God, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments recently imparted to you in my name certain norms concerning the Eucharistic Celebration, after the trial period that the Servant of God John Paul II conceded. I am sure you will attentively observe these norms that reflect what is provided for in the liturgical books approved by the Church. 
By faithfully keeping to every Church directive, you will make your apostolate even more effective, in tune and in full communion with the Pope and the Pastors of every Diocese. And in so doing, the Lord will continue to bless you with abundant pastoral fruits.

There is ZERO room here to equivocate or misinterpret.

• In speaking publicly about the instruction, Pope Benedict makes clear that the document was not some private letter from Arinze to Kiko as Gennarini and Apuron tried to construe it: " was supposed to be confidential,  but like the NSA, was leaked to the press." - Apuron, Jan 2006 (Audio/Transcript)

• Pope Benedict also makes it clear that the letter was NOT from some rogue Cardinal, but from himself: "imparted to you in my name." In Apuron's 2006 KOLG propaganda speech, Apuron tried to discredit the instruction as the personal opinion of single Cardinal: "...and Arinze, to tell you the truth, is really not for the Way, and I don’t know what credentials he has..." - Apuron, Jan 2006

• Pope Benedict, speaking in strict but fatherly language, forbids the neocatechumenals to go outside the norms provided for what, and only what, has been "approved by the Church":  I am sure you will attentively observe these norms that reflect what is provided for in the liturgical books approved by the Church. 

• Pope Benedict seals his warning and makes the NCW's continued existence and effectiveness subject to the NCW's "faithfully keeping to every Church directive."

• Lastly, Pope Benedict reminds the NCW, and especially Kiko who is standing with him on the stage, that he and the bishops retain ultimate authority over the NCW requiring them to remain in "full communion with the Pope and the Pastors of every Diocese."

This last statement is not just an instruction to the neocatechumenals but to the bishops who are also standing on the stage during this address, some of whom the Pope knows have been compromised and have looked the other way at Kiko's liturgical aberrations as well as his questionable and secretive theology (which is Carmen's actually).

"The Pastors of every Diocese" is a direct reminder to the bishops that it is not the Pope's job to police the activities of the NCW, but as per the NCW's statute - which places its activities at the service of the bishop - it is the BISHOP who is the ultimate guardian of the NCW in each diocese, and it is the BISHOP who is responsible to see to it that the NCW communities "faithfully keep to every Church directive."

This is the answer to those who tell us to "write the Pope if we don't like it." Such a reply ignores the authority invested in the bishop of a diocese by virtue of his apostolic succession. It is rather comical to listen to Apuron's defenders rave about how wonderful he is and in the same breath bypass his authority - something they do continually.

The truth is, Apuron abdicated his episcopal seat the minute he publicly refused to recognize the authority of Pope Benedict in the instruction issued via Cardinal Arinze on December 1, 2005. And he continues to abdicate his authority every time he celebrates the illicit liturgy of the Neocatechumenal Way.

In addressing the abuses of bishops, Canon Law is deficient. This is probably due to the fact that the Bishop is supposed to be the arbiter and judge in his diocese. But what happens when the judge goes bad? In the matter of liturgical aberrations and even the celebration of unlawful liturgies, Rome does not have much of an apparatus for recourse when the perpetrator is a bishop. The only thing that can actually force Rome to act is a provable crime. But there is something else which can force Rome to act. It is something once called "People Power." And we are seeing it happen on the streets and in front of our churches: Real People Power.

But forcing Rome to act is not what we are after. Encouraging everyday Catholics to act is our goal, because in doing so, the message to the perpetrators and abusers who hide on the hill becomes louder than them. And, as we are now seeing, the gathering din has sent the bullies fleeing to the mountains. Apuron is only still here because he is not free to flee. He is being kept here by the same forces that have trapped him ever since he let the Gennarini-led Neocatechumenal Way into this diocese. And he has no defenders left except for the poorly-formed Edivaldo. 

Meanwhile, all of this is for nothing if your faith is not strengthened and renewed - REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME. For getting you and your children to heaven is all that matters. Let us not win the battle while we lose the war. Take back your children. And I don't just mean from the neocats. 


  1. Excellent presentation and explanation, Tim. Thanks.

    In the Creed we state, "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."

    Talk is cheap. What do we actually do? Do we seek to unite with our brothers and sisters in faith or do we segregate ourselves into small communities? Do we reverently and respectfully receive the Sacred Body of Christ during communion or do we carry the Sacred Body of Christ around the church on serving platters? (What's next? A rotary sushi style of distribution? Why not? It's quick and efficient.

    It seems the ad experimentum period has become ad experimentum perpetuum. The archbishop (et al) seems to like the idea of things going on "in perpetuity."

    Let's continue to pray that our efforts are successful and that the "abomination in the temple" comes to an end.

  2. I remember my 5th grade teacher use the phrase 'who English you' every time she read or heard the incorrect use of the English language. Clearly we all can summize from the English grammar used by this KAKA filled NEO Cult Zombie that he needs to retake ESL101. And he has the audacity to call us faithful servants decerning our right as confirmed soldiers of Christ to defend the faith 'uneducated'. This goes to show that we can't correct a drunk filled with KAKA. Thanks to Tim and Chuck for their tireless contribution in organizing the facts so that we know the difference between licit and illicit. They have done their part...We the laity need to take this to the next level. Share these facts with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and join the Laity Fowrard Movement group in the fight to preserve our Church. United we can move mountains.

  3. Unlike Tim's presentation filled with definitions and references, AnonymousMay doesn't reference any of their "documents" to support his/her reality. If there is even one critical thinking member of the NCW, all he/she has to do is to read those links provided by Tim; take notes of any words he/she doesn't understand; google up their definitions; and then finally, make the comparison between how he/she presently receives the Eucharist at a Neo mass and how the Church says the Eucharist should be received.

    If a Neo member really wants to prove Tim wrong, just google "Canon Law and Catholic Church" and READ! Look for the Article referencing the Eucharist and READ! I do it all the time. Whenever Tim provides a link, I check it out to prove to myself that what Tim is saying is in fact TRUE. If you are a Neo follower, you would be doing yourself a favor and TRY to Prove Tim Wrong by doing some research all by yourself! Stop listening to what someone else is saying and do some independent research yourself!

  4. Thanks, Tim. I fully understand the violations of the NCW when it comes to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. If I may summarize the main deviations from the approved parts of the Mass and the Liturgy of the Eucharist: (1) The sign of peace is to be offered before Communion instead of before the Offertory (do you know if they are doing this already?); (2) they must receive the Holy Eucharist (in the form of unleavened bread) standing, and must immediately consume the Body and Blood of Christ (this we know they are not doing, so it is illicit); (3) I believe also they must go back to the sacrifice of the Mass being performed on the Altar, and not on a table in the middle of the church building (we saw in the Cathedral "mass" they celebrated on April 30, they did go back to the Altar in the Sanctuary, but they put plywoods on the Altar to make it a larger "table", then they decorated it with flowers, which is not allowed per the GIRM, so they are trying to make it look like they are following the instructions of the Holy Father by at least "going back to the Altar of Sacrifice" but continue to do their own decorations on top of plywoods). Did I miss anything?

    Thanks again, Tim. I am getting a good education to defend our Faith and Sacrifice of the Mass against these charlatans!

  5. We should remember also that all the Sacraments, most especially the Most Blessed Sacrament was entrusted by our Lord to his Church. It is the Church through the centuries that prescribes certain rubrics and rituals that protect the sacredness of this most Holy Gift, that allows us all to participate in the worship and life of the Most Holy Trinity. When we deviate from what the Church prescribes, we begin to insert man's ideas and interpretation and practices, and before we know it, we loose sight of the holiness and sacredness of what is offered in our worship to God. When we do not believe what the Church teaches us that it is the sacrifice of our Lord where Calvary is Re-presented at each Mass, When we say that Jesus is a sinner, and therefore not God and part of the Holy Trinity that we receive in Holy Communion, when we do not give reverence to protect his most holy body from falling onto the floor to be trampled mindlessly by the faithful, we profane this Holy Sacrifice. Read what scripture tells us of the severity of profaning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

    “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. But you behave profanely toward me by thinking the LORD'S table and its offering may be polluted, and its food slighted. You also say, "What a burden!" and you scorn it, says the LORD of hosts; You bring in what you seize, or the lame, or the sick; yes, you bring it as a sacrifice. Shall I accept it from your hands? says the LORD. Cursed is the deceiver, who has in his flock a male, but under his vow sacrifices to the LORD a gelding; For a great King am I, says the LORD of hosts, and my name will be feared among the nations.” Malachi 1:11-14 NAB

  6. Ai adai! So, so sad!! Notwithstanding the superb unraveling of the truth that Tim Rohr has put together – AND DOCUMENTED - I’m taking bets that it will not move Anonymous May 11, @1:20 pm, one centimeter closer toward accepting the truth. Before I make my comments, I want to thank you, Tim, for putting together such a fully documented explanation (with links to substantiate it), all into one volume of information. Every interested person (for or against this issue) should bookmark this site, because you don’t have to go searching around for documents. It’s all there!

    As for your rebut to Anon @1:20, Tim, nice try - but “no dice” – the dice will always come out “snake eyes”. Why? Because even if you roll a 7 or an 11, they will always call it “two dots” – snake eyes! And why is that? Because YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO A TROUGH, BUT YOU CANNOT MAKE IT DRINK! Unless, perhaps, it is mixed with Kaka-Kool-Aide.

    Now, back to Anonymous@1:20 - I really should not even be responding to you with any length of theological explanation (beyond Tim’s) between what it “licit” and what is “illicit” in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – in the way the Way celebrates its “Mass”, because I do not know at what level of intelligence I should be engaging you with. You might be at the level of a young altar server, a seminarian, a deacon, a priest, the Chancery spokesperson, an advisor, or even the archbishop himself. It is so freakin’ easy to write something and put “anonymous” to it because one can always say “I never wrote that”. But if a name is attached to it, I can go after you, and you can come after me. Fair game, right? Nonetheless, I’ll address my comments as if addressing at least a semi-intelligent person. So, here goes…

    You may well know the Webster’s dictionary definition of “licit” and “illicit”, but do you know the definition of the words as used liturgically, rubrically, and theologically? (Again, pardon me for asking, because I do not know the level of your knowledge!) From every angle of discussion, your “celebration” (I refuse to call it “Mass”), certainly lacks liceity if applied against the GIRM requirements. If applied against your own NCW norms, it is certainly licit in your eyes. So go ahead and call it “licit” per your norms, and accept our calling it “illicit” per the GIRM norms. Fair? Anytime you can SUBSTANTIATE (not just parrot) your position, let Tim know.

    Tim was actually being nice, because he was only calling your “celebration” an illicit Mass. I would venture a step further and call it an INVALID, not just an illicit one - given certain parameters But not just right now. It would take a little bit longer to explain. I would venture out on this limb, as I have some theological background to know what I’m talking about. But I don’t know the level of intelligence on the other side! So, how about telling me WHO YOU ARE. I would like to debate you (intellectually, not emotionally) even if you happen to be the archbishop himself, who carries a Doctor of Divinity (D.D.) after his name. (jrsa: 5/13/16. How propitious! It is Friday the 13th!)

  7. I remember reading a quote from Pope Francis a while back saying some thing like: When you correct them (NCW) do it with the statutes in hand. Or something like that. Does anyone remember this. It could have been a post from Tim many moons ago.

    I take this to mean "follow the approved statutes." No substitutions. No additions. No subtractions.


    Just wait till they put the inserts in the matuna. The church is continually being fed lies by the Archbishop.

    1. There is no signature to the press release.

    2. Just heard the story on KUAM evening news. Interesting.

      Do we get to be excommunicated by the archbishop?

    3. A real lawsuit would be a good Friday the 13th gift to the Church.

  9. Tim, thank you for presenting these facts in a clear and substantiated manner. What can we say about a group of people who foster a spirit of willful disobedience to the Popes and the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church? Jesus Himself lived as an obedient son of The Law.

  10. The archbishop's exasperation
    Is causing excess perspiration.
    The spokesman's new letter
    Would be so much better
    If not stained by his ............

    Please supply the ending of your choice.

    1. I saw the "threat" of a law suit in the media again. I sure hope it goes through so that ALL WILL BE REVEALED. The idiots stepped into it alright.

    2. ...Ejaculation.

  11. How come the most recent comments not appearing anymore on the right hand side.

  12. The KAKA filled Dingbat steps on it again with its unparalleled propaganda to deflect from the real truth...It fails to realize that CCOG and the LFM represent the true Catholic Faith. The truth will set us free...

    From the Dungbats latest blog:

    Friday, May 13, 2016
    Press Release From Archdiocese Of Agana
    Church fires back, says protesters will be sued

    They've taken the hits, but now they're fighting back. In a press release, the Archdiocese of Agana wants to set the record straight - that the last three years of allegations and protests against the local Catholic church have been mere attacks to undermine the authority of Archbishop Anthony Apuron.
    Enough is enough this from the Archdiocese of Agana which issued a press release stating they're preparing to file a civil lawsuit against those who have spread malicious lies concerning the local Catholic church. We've seen it unfold over the last three years: concerns about transparency, concerns about the ownership of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona, and most recently, allegations that Archbishop Apuron has a history of molestation dating back 40 years.

    According to the release, "For the past three years the Catholic Church in Guam has been constantly targeted by a series of lies destined to undermine the authority of the archbishop. In order to help the people understand the defamatory nature of these attacks, let us review the series of intentional and malicious lies that have been spread by the media." One by one, the release debunks the allegations and contends the Archdiocese of Agana remains the sole owner of the RMS as supported by the title deed of property, which was made public.

    As for transparency, the release states Archbishop Apruon is available to the people - as seen almost every night celebrating in different parishes, visiting schools, and celebrations on Sundays.

    The release alleges that the attacks on the archbishop are a result of his stance against abortion, casino gambling, legalization of marijuana, and same-sex marriage. "It is clear that his efforts displeased many people whose interests are not for the common good of Guam, but for their own personal interests. Whoever joins in this attack against our Catholic faith, our Catholic Church, is neither Catholic nor Christian; this kind of malice lacks the spirit of Jesus Christ. After keeping silent for a long time, since those who are orchestrating this campaign are inducing people into scandal, confusion and grave errors with the malicious intent to injure the archbishop, the church in Guam and many other people have been insulted and harassed, the Archdiocese of Agana is in the process of taking canonical measures with the Sacra Rota - the competent canonical tribunal - and filing civil lawsuit against those perpetrating these malicious lies."

    Diana at 10:45 PM

    1. Wonderful. How did I know that Edivaldo was going to be the cause of the demise of the NCW on Guam when I met him all those years ago? I could smell it.

    2. The Lord works in mysterious ways. OJ is a geeeft in disguise. Thanks for the laughs OJ. And yes, he smells.

    3. DianaMay 14, 2016 at 7:23 AM
      Dear Anonymous at 1:28 am,

      If you want to be sued, can you use your real name so it can be on the list?

    4. I've been observing both sides of the church division for a long time. I really do not think that those attacking the archbishop do so because of his stance against abortion, casino gambling, legalization of marijuana and/or same sex marriage. They feel that the archbishop has not been transparent in his management of the archdiocese. Period.

    5. Not being transparent is just one of many. He says he has served the faithful for 40 years, but did he really? Granted, he did say Mass and went about his ceremonial duties as required of his position, BUT it is difficult to ignore his actions and lifestyle that has not only raised eyebrows but actually hurt members of the clergy and his flock, and as a result the archdiocese is in turmoil. He says he and the Church have been under attack. Archbishop Apuron, FYI, you are the one being called out, NOT the Church! You are the one who caused the division!! You have used and continue to use your position to bully your priests, deacons, and the laity. You created the mess yet blame others. Your day in court will come and ALL will be revealed. Get ready because you are the one who will stand to lose the most.
      Basta i babarias!

    6. And where will he get the resources to fund such civil litigation... He'll use the churches charitable donations to pay the litigation of members that simply want transparency and honesty from thier bishop...This will go down in history as a failed cleric who was totally clueless of how to shepherd his flock. In the end the truth will prevail. BIBA KATOLIKO...

    7. Bring on the lawsuit, BRING IT ON!! Looks like we're going to see another counter put up in the Jungle again.

    8. Running out of room. LOL!

    9. The Only Serving Apuron is conducting is serving himself on account of all the faithful. How can he be serving the faithful if he is partial only to the NCW community? He is practicing favoritism in the Archdiocese with much of his attention focused on the NCW. Ask the couples for Christ group, the Christian mothers group, the Knights of Columbus and other religious organization in the Archdiocese, has their archbishop personally spent some time with these groups who over the years have devoted time and talent for the cause of the parishes and faithful. All he ever does is give the groups a picture of himself. His NCW community on the other hand, he never misses gathering with them. Now tell us that he is not playing favoritism?


  13. Archbishop
    May daang matuwid sa tingin ng tao, ngunit kamatayan ang dulo nito.
    Mga Kawikaan 14: 12.

    1. Sometimes a way seems right,
      but the end of it leads to death!

      Proverbs 14:12

  14. I noticed in apuron's self-serving statement that he fought against abortion, casino gambling, legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage, but not a word against sex abuse or molestation. At least he was honest in this instance, for he did not fight against it. If stories presently circulating all over the island are true, he was actually guilty of it.

    As for the threat of civil lawsuits he is making, doesn't this sound familiar? Since ever since (read: John "Typhoon" Toves)?

    1. He hasn't fought against any of those things. Others did it for him while he looked on. Doesn't even write his own letters or sermons.

    2. Went to ND graduation. Didn't even look at graduates. Just pushed them along, why does he go where he's not wanted.?

  15. Anon 2:19.....because he needs the money...chenchule, umbre.

  16. TO: Andrew CamachoMay 13, 2016 at 5:00 PM

    The quote you are looking for amazingly comes from Diana in her

    Tuesday, July 21, 2015 blog entry, entitled:
    "Post Scriptum From Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini"

    The 7th point in the "Post Scriptum" says that Pope Francis said:

    "The Neocatechumenal Way is the one that knows the most about the Christian Initiation. Consult them and, if necessary, correct the catechists, the communities…(because to correct is to love)…but correct with the Statutes in your hands."

    Note: The fact that Pope Francis addressed the whole group, and did not take them individually to speak to, made it impossible for them to twist/change these words. They ALL heard it.

    1. Thank you so much! I knew I read this a while back!

      We do love our neo brothers and sisters. Our problem is with the leadership, who happens to be the same for the non-neos.

      Thanks again.