Tuesday, November 8, 2016

BISHOP JUAN IGNACIO ARRIETA: CORRUPT OR DOESN'T KNOW CRAP - PART 4

Posted by Tim
Continued from Part 3



The real tragedy here is not simply Arrieta's wrong opinion about a piece of dirt on the far flung island of Guam, but that it is so SLOPPY

Arrieta is the Secretary for a critical dicastery in the Roman Curia: the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

It is the primary duty of Arrieta's Council to interpret the laws of the Church, laws which underscore and affirm the just governance of our Church and the more than a billion souls who depend on this "just governance." 


And in Arrieta, we see nothing more than a HACK at work, regurgitating the garbage facts fed to him by a pedophile bishop in need of hiding why he alienated the property in the first place, and massaged into place by a filthy opportunist masquerading as an itinerant-catechist/monk. 

I'm glad we have the hack-job opinion of Arrieta because it confirms our constant warning NOT to look to Rome to solve our problems, and reminds us that the same people (like Arrieta) are now tasked with clearing Apuron's name and permitting his return to Guam where he can undo all that has been done. 

Much of Rome has sold its soul to serpents like Kiko Arguello, and this opinion of Arrieta is Exhibit A. 

Today's entry will be as short as it is staggeringly stupid:


Wow. Where to start with this! 

First, he doesn't even know the name of the institute which is: Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores Catholic Theological Institute for Oceania.

Second, "San Diego" WTH?

Third, apparently he doesn't know that Blessed Diego is a "Blessed." 

Fourth, "an Institute of Religious Sciences"? Umm, NO. It is a Theological Institute (or pretends to be), NOT an Institute of Religious Sciences, which the Vatican says is a very different thing:
"The study of theology and the study of Religious Sciences follow two distinct courses. What differentiates them from each other is the nature of their teaching and the course of formation proposed."

GEEZ. SMH!




Continued on Part 5

9 comments:

  1. Not much need be said about the utter incompetence of this Arrieta creature: jaw-dropping incompetence of a nincompoop!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is this the prelate who is putting Pope Francis's new ideas into legislative text? He has his hands full and was probably distracted. Besides isn't little Guam just a pain in the "neck"?? Guess they thought this analysis would do the trick. Next in line?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't forget that Arrieta also concocted this fantastic explanation of the NCW Statutes and what they mean - namely that the NCW both is and isn't. It contains gems like:

    "realities that are difficult to recognize in conventional associative systems." Uh-huh

    and this:

    "the greatest consequence of this public personality, applied to the itinerary of neocatechumenal formation, regards the particular ecclesial authority, with which, under the direction of diocesan bishops, the Way is imparted, and in the particular commitment that, consequently, is assumed so that it be proposed - as resulted before, but now with renewed juridical commitment - by means of people particularly selected and especially formed."

    wha? I think he just said that the Bishop is a figurehead only?

    Anyway, you can read it for yourself and sigh quietly before getting angry. Its a (diabolical) work of art and a big lie:

    http://www.camminoneocatecumenale.it/new/default.asp?lang=en&page=statuto08_4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't understand this? 4:53 it means that it all depends on what the meaning of IS is. Nothing more that that. Now I'm going back to reading my 42 page homeowner's insurance policy. Now, where was I?

      Delete
  4. Do they all talk like that in Rome? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!

    ReplyDelete
  5. This Arrieta guy is an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Arrieta makes easier the truism: the road to help is paved with the skulls of bishops. Always wondered what it meant but now leaves no doubt in my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Under the direction of diocesan bishops" yet "difficult to recognize in conventional associative systems" in other words when is a "diocesan" itinerary/seminary not a "diocesan" itinerary/seminary? When it's the NCW/RMS.

    Wouldn't Companies House/Charities Commission and equivalents in all other countries like to look into what the "documents" they have been given are the substitute for!!!

    Never mind said bishops who haven't done due diligence/have got skeletons in cupboard this All Hallows tide.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 4.53 p.m, I can't thank you enough. This is of the HIGHEST importance. Watch how it is FULL of slick contradictions. It needs pulling apart in extreme detail.

    For only one thing, it is being obliquely admitted that the NCW / RMSs don't catechise, don't evangelise, don't form priests, and aren't a diocesan itinerary or diocesan seminary. To be one of their "catechists" you must be "grateful for goods received through the NCW" NOT through the Church, Holy Spirit (real version), Christ, Holy Scripture etc. But oh no, that doesn't mean they have any "association" with each other !!!

    (As for faith and moral life, now that they have been given lip service, they can be left out of the picture. Things like honesty in small things, whilst of course we should be merciful with each other, when institutionalised they are a symptom.)

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch