Wednesday, November 22, 2017


Last month we were fortunate to attend the Catholic Identity Conference sponsored by THE REMNANT.  The main attraction for me was Bishop
Athanasius Schneider.  Bishop Schneider is no stranger to JungleWatch Nation having been quoted from Rorate Caeli  in these pages as stating:

"It is a Trojan horse in the Church. I know them very well because I was an episcopal delegate for them for several years in Kazakhstan in Karaganda. And I assisted their Masses and meetings and I read the writings of Kiko, their founder, so I know them well. When I speak openly without diplomacy, I have to state: The Neocathecumenate is a Protestant-Jewish[12]community inside the Church with a Catholic decoration only." 

A couple days ago THE REMNANT published a You Tube interview of Bishop Schneider by Michael Matt, Editor of THE REMNANT.


  1. I tried to post this with Diane, - her excuse for not posting appears to be nothing negative against the NCW and its members will be posted. How is it that this attitude negates correction? Are we not to correct our brothers and sisters in Christ with love?

    the letter:
    I'm from another country, but very interested in what is happening in Guam. In time, the whole truth will surface. Falsehoods should sadden every Christian.
    However, my concern for my own country deals with the Mass that the NCW celebrates. My research shows that the additions and deletions that the NCW continue to embrace, are not "embraced" by any of the Popes - otherwise there would be written approval. The NCW was very clearly denied that approval when the NCW did not succeed in obtaining the written permission in January 2012 in Rome. The NCW group here told me personally that they definitely were getting this permission - including the way they do Communion. So in essence, the NCW is promoting its own falsehoods when it continues celebrating "their" way.
    Is Archbishop Byrnes wrong in not keeping a NCW seminary open in Guam?- Maybe, but maybe not. Would things be different if the NCW would cease to teach these liturgical abuses? Would things be different if the NCW would admit that these alterations were, in fact, liturgical abuses?
    As long as the NCW insists that the Popes have approved these Mass alterations without providing the written approval, (approval not in the 2008 Statutes), was this Archbishop Byrnes way of correcting these errors?
    I write this with no hatred towards the NCW.
    Surely, if any of the Popes had liked the alterations in the NCW Mass, any one of them would have been overjoyed to present the NCW with the documentation that the NCW desired and needed to prove the alterations are licit. It didn't happen.
    Praying that truth be embraced, and for peace in the Church. May we all be ONE in Christ.

    1. RMS Yona, aka Julio's Happy House, was not closed because of NCW liturgical abuses. It was closed because it was a failed institute incapable/unwilling to fix its serious problems.

    2. unwilling to teach future priests the proper way of celebrating Christ's Mass in obedience to the Pope(s) would indeed be considered a serious problem -

  2. In defense of Pope Francis - In his A.L. he spoke of "certain" cases where a divorced and remarried couple can receive the Eucharist.
    Pope Francis values the Sacrament of Matrimony - stating that it is forever. I don't see anywhere in that document where he gives blanket permission for "all" (divorced and remarried) to receive. If the Bishops are supposed to be in union with the Pope (Catechism #883), why am I not seeing more Bishops (although some are) backing and explaining what the Pope actually said. Catholics who have no mortal sin may receive the Eucharist. If these "certain" couples, with guidance of their Bishop, are determined that no mortal sin is attributed to them, why should they be denied Jesus in the Eucharist.
    Am I missing something?
    In regards to the pre-Vatican II Mass versus post-Vatican II Mass. Vatican II did not make some of the new Masses irreverent. Some interpretations (with many liturgical abuses) of the Mass did. Many priests celebrate the new Mass with greatest reverence (i.e. St. John Paul II) So can we say Vatican II was a mistake?
    A pre-Vatican II Mass can be celebrated with liturgical abuses just as easy as one that came after Vatican II. Probably the greatest danger would be the pride that comes with "we are doing this better."
    I do believe a better catechesis of the Eucharist would bring more unknowing and/or misquided parishioners to embrace some beautiful acts of reverence - such as communion on the tongue which "prevents particles of Jesus from falling to the ground, etc; kneeling at the Eucharistic Prayer and after the Agnus Dei; preparation before Mass instead of chatter, etc. etc.

  3. Bishop Schneider tells it like it is.

  4. Lurch lucks out. Seriously? Does this mean Adrianna flunked her courses in Canada?

  5. 11/24 I've asked more than once if Adrianna passed the Canadian canon law courses the Faithful were forced to pay for. So far, none of the usual know-it-all loudmouths have bothered to reply.

    Either way, Byrnes is in the hot seat for keeping that treacherous p.o.s. on archdiocesan payroll. His documented, long record of canonical and civil crimes is more than enough to get him defrocked.