Continued from Part 4
In light of our expose of this curial hack, Arrieta, it is good to revisit what Apuron published in the Umatuna about his report in April of 2015:
When I first read this, I wondered what the hell a Vatican authority was doing opining on a matter of Guam law. The issue of land titles is the domain of the civil governments in which the subject properties exist, NOT some Vatican dicastery.
An honest curial official would have declined comment knowing that not only was the matter outside the competence of his office, but in fact, in the world outside the Vatican, he could be held civilly liable for abusing his office.
However, Arrieta is no "honest curial official." He is a Kiko hack. In fact, he is the architect of the Neocat's strange structure which has allowed it to invade the Church through the unguarded gates of dioceses with bishops who were otherwise distracted or easily bought.
It was Arrieta who wrote the "canonical notations" to the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way which received "definitive approval" in 2008. The only thing that can be said about it is that it is purposeful gobbledegook, designed specifically so that no one would know what the hell he's talking about, and so that Kiko could bullshit his way into any diocese and say "the pope sent me."
Take a look at this:
"...the Council for the Laity had been appointed by the Servant of God John Paul II as the dicastery that had to assume in the name of the Holy See the work of approving these statutes, even though it had nothing to do with an association of faithful."
The Council for the Laity oversees "associations of the faithful" such as World Wide Marriage Encounter, Legion of Mary, and Focolare. According to the Council's Directory, there are 122 canonically recognized associations but the Neocatechumenal Way is not one of them. So why was the Council for the Laity given purview over the approval for the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way if, as Arrieta states: "it (the NCW) had nothing to do with an association of faithful."
And what's more, if the NCW is not within the orbit of this Council why does Kiko sit on the Council as a designated observer?
Again, another master stroke of intrigue by Kiko Arguello (more likely co-founder Carmen Hernandez - since Kiko himself is rather stupid). So the Council for the Laity oversees the approval of the NCW Statute, but then has no authority to oversee that the Statute is followed. Perfect!
There is also another part to the story, another corrupt Vatican prelate, a certain Cardinal Rylko, who is prefect for the Council for the Laity. He's another Kiko puppet. In fact, it was Rylko who privately and illicitly gave Kiko permission to ignore the restriction in the Statute to conform its liturgy to the Liturgical Books (Article 13) and continue his bastardized communion rite. Or, at least this was the explanation I received from Fr. Francis Walsh (RMS professor) on April 26, 2008 (emphases mine):
Kiko spoke to Cardinal Rylko, the head of the Council for the Laity, back in December when the two year transitional period ran out. Both Kiko and Cardinal Rylko knew that the statues would contain a modification of Cardinal Arinze's instructions. Rylko gave an oral reply to Kiko to maintain the present practice so that the Holy See would not be put in the awkward position of seeming to change its mind by going from Arinze's letter to the new statues in a very short time. The pope approved the statues in the beginning of February and they were to be promulgated on February 27th. But just before the promulgation, the statues were removed from the hands of the Council of the Laity and sent back for further considerations by the other four dicasteries of the Curia that have to review any changes in the statues. We were just told to hold tight until you receive further word. No explanations were given at the time. There is, however, evidently still some strong resistance to the statues on the part of some in the Curia and they are trying to introduce further changes. However, there are no documents to show you at this point. All our instruction have been oral, but we are satisfied with that. We have no choice.
On December 1, 2005, Pope Benedict, through Cardinal Arinze, the then-Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments, gave the neocats TWO YEARS to stop their illicit communion rite and conform to what was required by the Missal and the General Instruction for the Roman Missal (i.e. the "liturgical books).
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.
When I wrote Fr. Walsh in April of 2008, five months had already passed since the December 1, 2007 deadline. I asked him why the neocats continued to persist in their illicit communion rite in violation of the pope's 2005 directive via the CDW.
As you can see from Fr. Walsh's response, the permission to ignore the pope's directive came from Cardinal Rylko via Kiko. The rest of Walsh's response is the typical convoluted neocat baffle-them-with-bullshit stuff (which Walsh was probably just passing on). But bottom line is that, according to Walsh, Cardinal Rylko gave Kiko permission to ignore the pope, and as usual "there are no documents to show you." And to this day, the Kikos still ignore the pope, with their only excuse being that the pope hasn't stopped them. (Talk about immature! LOL!)
But back to Arrieta.
Check out this other gem from his "canonical notations":
"...since no fundamental change has been made in this new passing of the Statutes, and almost all of the articles are reproduced identically from the old ones."
This is an ABSOLUTE LIE. The very core of the issue was Kiko's communion rite because it differed substantially from what was required for the rest of the Church. Kiko's "sitting" at communion was critical to his theology, which eschewed the reality of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Kiko teaches that Christ is "really" present only in the community). Thus the community sits because Christ is not ACTUALLY present under the appearances of bread and wine, but only "mystically" present amongst the community.
Compare the new statute (2008) to the old one (2002):
In the 2002 statute, Kiko uses his "baffle-them-with-bullshit" with a scripture quote to justify this practice of making the communicants SIT. The 2008 statute demands that they stand. Yet, Arrieta tells us that "...no fundamental change has been made in this new passing of the Statutes," when THIS was the very FUNDAMENTAL which WAS CHANGED!
And so this is the guy, the same guy, who opined on the status of the Yona property. We'll come back to that in our next post.