Saturday, June 11, 2016


Let's have some instructional fun with Pius and Adrian's mouthpiece.

On December 1, 2005, Cardinal Francis Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments, sent an Instruction to the Neocatechumenal leadership: Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez, and Mario Pezzi. The Instruction began with the words: 

"I am to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions." 

Cardinal Arinze, in the name of the pope, outlined SIX items relative to the celebration of Kiko's particular way of celebrating the Liturgy, including this one:
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. 
 After the SIX points are laid out, Arinze again stresses:
In short, the Neocatechumenal Way, in its celebration of the Holy Mass, should follow the approved liturgical books, keeping in mind what is laid out above under the numbers 1,2,3,4,5, and 6.
Just over a month later, on January 9, 2006, on KOLG, our local Catholic radio station, Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, Archbishop of Agana, publicly rejected the instruction issued in the name of Pope Benedict XVI and called into question the credentials of Cardinal Arinze, saying:
"Arinze, to tell you the truth, is really not for the Way, and I don’t know what credentials he has..."
Audio here. Transcript here.

In fact, Apuron went beyond just criticizing Cardinal Arinze, Apuron turned the pope's DIRECT INSTRUCTION to conform to the liturgical books into a papal permit to DO JUST THE OPPOSITE:
" is the first time in the history of the church that we were given permissions for the variations that is being done in the Neo Catechumenal Way, officially by the pope."
Apuron, of course was just repeating what he had been told to say. And guess by who? 
"When Vatican analyst Andrea Tornielli first gave the news of the pope’s directions, the official spokesman and director of the Way in the United States, Giuseppe Gennarini, protested that in reality these orders amounted to an approval...Gennarini called the very authenticity of this letter into question." (Source)

(By the way, NOTICE Apuron's use of the word "we." Here Apuron identifies himself as no longer Archbishop of Agana.)

Aware that his authority was being undermined by the leadership of the Neocatechumenal Way and even by an Archbishop in Guam, Pope Benedict addressed the Neocatechumenal Way at a special audience on January 12, 2006, reminding Kiko and his followers that the Instruction had been issued in the name of the pope, and demanded that the Neocatechumenals comply with it:
“Recently the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments imparted to you, in my name, some norms concerning the Eucharistic celebration, after the trial period that had been granted by the servant of God John Paul II. I am certain that these norms, which draw upon the provisions of the liturgical books approved by the Church, will meet with attentive compliance from you.” (Source

Five days later, Kiko and his clowns told Pope Benedict that they were going to do it their way anyway:
...we have always shown to the many brothers who have emerged from hell, full of wounds and of self-loathing, that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and not only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and comes to serve them: “He will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them” (Lk 12:37).

In this way, every time we celebrate the Eucharist we experience the power this sacrament has to draw them into the Passover of Christ, bringing them from sadness to joy, from darkness to light, from death to life… " 
It's the typical avalanche of words and half truths that Kiko uses to overwhelm any opposition to his agenda, even if it is the pope. The passage from Luke is a description of what will happen in Heaven, Kiko manipulates it to justify his practice on earth. Skip the passion and death of Jesus Christ (the Sacrifice), skip the solemn reverence due him in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and sit down and be waited on.

Theologians and exegetes can argue all they want, but in the Catholic Church (which the rest of us belong to) the Pope has the final say on the Liturgy. Yet, Kiko, Gennarini, and Apuron, all tell him to go to hell, that they are going to continue doing it their way. And so they have.

Now WHO is disobedient to the pope?

NOTE: The CCOG, the LFM, and all people who care that the title Archbishop of Agana still belongs to a man named Anthony S. Apuron, will continue to publicly call for his resignation if not total and absolute LAICIZATION. 

This has nothing to do with Archbishop Hon, his duties, or his authority. The people have a right, and have always had a right to show to the world their absolute revulsion of the man who not only wreaked havoc on this diocese for three decades but, as we are now learning, raped and mutilated our children. In this regard, WE WILL CARRY ON. 


  1. The type of diarrhea coming out of Diana's mouth is similar to what I am always faced with, when trying to establish a debate with an Atheist or a Communist.
    This is double language all the time. Leading the conversation to a field of questions and answers always pre-determined in advance, which they have trained for like monkeys in a circus.

    In order to have a conversation, you need to have both parties willing to follow an intelligent and honest set of rules. In the case of the neos, you have neither.

    What you get is a set of prearranged quotes for a situation or another.
    The Neos are the Pavlov dogs of the religious world.

  2. Dear Frenchie,
    You think the quote from St. Paul is misplaced here. I doubt very much that you also think the exercise of love itself is misplaced in addressing the problems we face in the Church on Guam. These problems have been long in the making. It will require patience to sort them out. If love is to find us a solution and bring eventual healing and unity, unkind words aimed at sinners as well as those sinned against will have to fall away. Dishonoring of the suffering and those causing suffering will have to desist. Tempers all around will have to cool. Self-seeking, from whatever quarter, will have to give way to care for the other. If we do not prepare the soil for the flower of love, we will choke both it and, eventually, ourselves. I think you agree, n'est pas?

    1. Care for the other is obvious and inherent in the Christian heart. That is not in question. For there to be resolution of the problems on Guam, certain things need to happen.

      1. Reach out to the victims - chastise those that have called thm liars
      2. Revoke the decree against the CCOG
      3. Remove the NCW structures (and personnel) from the administration of the Archdiocese
      4. Immediately instruct the NCW to conform their liturgical practises to those of the Church.

      That would be a start. In time, the Deed Restriction on the RMS would need to be removed, and the influence of Pius and Gennarini addressed.

      These things are non-negotiable in my mind. I have been following this blog for about three years and Tim has been correct right from the beginning. There can be no hope for reconciliation without the above, but that does not preclude them being done with charity for all the people of the Church.

    2. Dishonoring the suffering? How does the truth dishonor the suffering? Tempers need to cool? So you don't like confrontation! The soil (church)has been infected with weeds(NCW). Remove the weeds and the flowers(love)will flourish.
      The laity must step forward as we've witnessed here on Guam. Confrontation is not rude, impolite, selfish or a dishonor to anyone but the faint of heart.

    3. Mr. Williams, one dishonors those who suffer by vilifying them.

  3. Ah Mr Guile!
    In order to prepare the soil for the flower, one of the first thing you do is rid yourself of the bad weeds.
    The gardener is very nurturing and attentive to his flowers, not only does he need to keep the bad weeds away, but the snails and other invasive species.
    Only through his careful and loving attention, do the flowers come to their full potential.

    Since you have a liking for studying the Bible, I will refer you to
    Matthew 13:25 and the parable of the weeds. It is very appropriate in our case. It reflects the challenge Archbishop Hon is facing as a careful and loving tender of his field.
    Love is to be use with wisdom and discernment, it grows in the trust of the other, and has to be unconditional.
    At this point, in the history of our Church on Guam it certainly does not meet these criterias.
    Trust has been broken.
    The love was too conditional.

    I think Mickey (God bless her soul) would agree, n'est ce pas?

    1. Frenchie, Of course, those who are unfit for office should be removed, perhaps even laicized or punished financially or otherwise, but such is done for the greater good (cf. Thomas Aquinas), that their old selves be deconstructed to become a new being in Christ. As Christians we are meant to love others, even with a hard, punishing love, but not damn them. That's up to God to do.

  4. Dear Mr Guile,
    Calling a cat a cat, is in no way damning said cat. Some people find it hard to love a cat, because cats are peculiar in the way they express or not their attention.
    The cats, even the domesticated ones, are inherently predators, and as such their nature displays some of these talents in ways that can be problematic, for some people. Ergo the number of dog lovers.

    In the same way some people can be predatorial in their behavior. This of course can become a big problem in a societal environment.
    This kind of behavior among societies in general, and small ones in particular can be destructive. Since you studied so called (and I don't like the term) primitive societies, you certainly know that there are moral codes that channel and in some cases sanction these behaviors.
    Hence the societal taboos in place in most if not all societies, from the most basic to very developed.

    We as Christians have codified these norms to a greater degree, and enforced them for centuries.
    Demanding as faithful that these norms be enforced is in no way throwing the oprobe, or anger on the culprits, just enforcing what is just and necessary.
    Implying in a passive/aggressive round about way, that people demanding that these norms be applied, is tauntamont to having non Christian feelings is grossly misguided, if not preposterous.

    Once more there is no need to apologize for the indefensible,specialy in regards to those amongst us who dare going after our most innocent and most weak, the children. This is even more unlawful morally when the offender is one that has the responsibility to keep and share the moral values in total contradiction with these actions.

    Any such suggestion at this time would be sterile and counter productive.

  5. Frenchie, Sorry if I misunderstood you, but your reference to Mt. 13 led me to think you sought a damning of the weeds or evil-doers. If you read the parable of the weeds to the end, you read that the owner of the field (i.e., God) orders the weeds to be collected to be burned (i.e., to be condemned). But here the owner, or God, does the condemning.