THE DIANA: "WHY SHOULD ONE LISTEN TO TIM ROHR?"

By Tim Rohr

First, I want to thank The Diana. 

JW had been bumping along at about 20,000 pageviews per month with boring posts about abortion and same-sex marriage, but we are barely halfway through June and JW already has nearly double the views:

The only thing that can account for the sudden increase is a single JW post about the NCW, which I wouldn't have posted except that The Diana functionally invited it (as demonstrated in the JW post). And now that The Diana has replied with a retaliatory post, I'm excited about the numbers going even higher.

Well, no, it's not really about "the numbers" as in "stats," it's about the number of people around the world (see the Flag Counter in the sidebar) who otherwise would never know the truth since the NCW leadership continues to operate behind cloak and veil. 

Speaking of "cloak and veil," the fact that The Diana still has to post behind a pseudonym after all these years tells us all we need to know. (Note: It's true that some contributors to JW have used pseudonyms. However, the name Tim Rohr was and is always on this blog, and in such a way that I can be held personally accountable - and "persecute-able" by my detractors.) 

Also, before going on, I again want to make the distinction between the rank and file members of the NCW and its leadership. Any post on JW about the NCW is about its leadership, not the rank and file members who, as far as I know, are sincere Catholics only wanting to deepen their faith and are kept in the dark or misled by the NCW leadership as much as the rest of us are.

Just Like Old Times

Just like old times, it's always hard to know where to start when countering The Diana. (I'll assign the pronouns "she" and "her" for convenience.) As usual, she makes the most laughable "reaches" in efforts to make the most absurd connections. 

The Diana's main "thesis" in her retaliatory post is...well, I'll copy it here:

Nowhere in Scripture does it mention the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, where did we get this teaching? Well, certainly not from Tim Rohr.

Here's the context:

Rohr misleads people by focusing that the letter was to the Rome Diocese. However, what I placed in bold clearly showed that the Statutes of the Neocatecumenal Way allowed for small-group celebrations of the Easter Vigil. Does Tim Rohr think that the NCW in Rome have a DIFFERENT approved Statutes? Rome was referring to the Statutes that all NCW worldwide have.  Rohr goes on to say: 

Meanwhile, the episcopal council of Rome appears not to have read the NCW Statutes which say nothing about "small-group celebrations of the Easter vigil." 

 So what? Nowhere in Scripture does it mention the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, where did we get this teaching? Well, certainly not from Tim Rohr. We got this from the Holy See...the Vatican. Tim Rohr is simply taking a stance that all Protestants use against the Catholic Church. Who is Tim Rohr to dictate what should be and should not be in the approved Statutes?

So The Diana says that because the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not found explicitly in Scripture then neither do the practices of the NCW have to be found explicitly in its Statutes. (Note: See how The Diana equates the NCW Statute with Dogma, the Dogma of the Assumption!)

It would be fun to go on and on about the those things which are set forth explicitly in the Church's official teaching and its laws which are wholly ignored by Kiko and his clan (the NCW leadership), but Chuck White has already done a pretty good job of doing that here.

Meanwhile, for the edification of all, let's review some stuff The Diana says - however ridiculous and tiresome this exercise may seem.

The Diana says:

Rohr misleads people by focusing that the letter was to the Rome Diocese. However, what I placed in bold clearly showed that the Statutes of the Neocatecumenal (sic) Way allowed for small-group celebrations of the Easter Vigil.

What The Diana placed in bold is this:

An exception exists for “national churches,” like the U.S. Catholic community at St. Patrick Church in Rome, and for members of the Neocatechumenal Way, whose Vatican-approved statutes allow for small-group celebrations of the Easter vigil, Midili said.

In my initial post, I noted that Midili and his crew appeared to have not read the NCW Statutes since the Statutes say nothing about "small-group celebrations of the Easter vigil." I shall copy the relevant Statute again here:

Art. 12

[Paschal Vigil]

§ 1. Axis and source of Christian life is the paschal mystery, lived and celebrated in a pre- eminent way in the Sacred Triduum,42 whose brilliance fills the whole liturgical year with light.43 For this reason, it constitutes the fulcrum of the Neocatechumenate, since this is a rediscovery of Christian initiation.

§ 2. “The Paschal Vigil, focal point of the Christian liturgy, and its baptismal spirituality inspire all Catechesis.”44 It is for this reason that during the itinerary, the neocatechumens are initiated gradually45 into an ever more perfect participation in all that the holy night signifies, celebrates and realizes.

§ 3. In this way, the Neocatechumenate will stimulate the parish to have a richer celebration of the Paschal Vigil.46

(Full Statutes of the NCW linked here.)

Clearly, nothing about the NCW celebrating the Easter Vigil in small groups. And, as pointed out in JW's initial post, the fact that the NCW Statutes set out the provisions for the celebration of the Eucharist in small groups for the other Sundays of the year in a separate statute (the very next one), clearly indicates that The Pasch/Easter is separate and unique to the other Sundays of the year. But then most of us already know that, or should.

More Fun

Here's another fun Diana statement:

Does Tim Rohr think that the NCW in Rome have a DIFFERENT approved Statutes? Rome was referring to the Statutes that all NCW worldwide have. 

Well, yes. There may in fact be a difference between the Diocese of Rome and the Archdiocese of Agana and in fact, every diocese in the world because the NCW Statutes clearly state that the NCW is "at the service of the bishop," not the pope:

Art. 1

[Nature of the Neocatechumenal Way]

§ 1. The nature of the Neocatechumenal Way is defined by His Holiness John Paul II when he writes: “I recognize the Neocatechumenal Way as an itinerary of Catholic formation, valid for our society and for our times.”1

§ 2. The Neocatechumenal Way is at the service of the bishop as one of the forms of diocesan implementation of Christian initiation and of ongoing education in faith. 

Thus, the diocesan bishop is authorized by the NCW's own Statutes, and in its very first article, to implement, apply, enforce, regulate, or completely disregard and/or dismiss the NCW Statutes however said bishop pleases. 

Thus, contrary to The Diana's claim that Fr. Romy has to obey the pope, Fr. Romy, the papal-appointed Apostolic Administrator for the Archdiocese of Agana, with all the administrative authority of a bishop, pursuant to Article 1 of the NCW Statutes, can require the NCW to do or not do whatever he sees fit.

The bishop's role and authority is further emphasized - and precisely relative to the NCW's celebration of the Easter Vigil - in Art. 21 §2:

...the neocatechumens solemnly renew their baptismal promises in the Paschal Vigil presided over by the bishop...

So, if the NCW is celebrating the Easter Vigil in their "small groups" then just how is "the bishop" to preside over all of "the neocatechumens solemnly renew(ing) their baptismal promises in the Paschal Vigil?"

Obviously, the subject statute presumes absolute attendance and participation in the Easter Vigil as presided over by the diocesan bishop (or his canonically appointed substitute) which can only be (normally) at the diocesan cathedral. 

Meanwhile, as Chuck White demonstrates, the Neocats' own "pope," Kiko Arguello, commands "his people" to not only avoid the cathedral, the bishop, and even the parish church, but to celebrate the Paschal Vigil in their homes. See: Sprinting Towards Schism

The authority of the bishop, as set forth in the NCW Statutes, also speaks to The Diana's conclusion at the end of her retaliatory post:

The NCW received its instruction and interpretation from the Holy See since the approval of its Statutes. And the NCW recognize only Pope Francis...not pope Tim.

Once again, as so often in the past, The Diana (and whoever backs her) refuses to acknowledge the plain meaning of the text of the NCW Statutes which clearly set forth the authority of the diocesan bishop relative to the governance of the NCW and NOT the pope - who, in his capacity as a bishop, is only the bishop of the Diocese of Rome.

And Finally

Finally, The Diana says this:

In the same way, just because one does not see "small-group celebrations of the Easter Vigil" in the Statutes does not mean that we should not celebrate it in small groups. The NCW have been saying all along that we are allowed to celebrate the Easter Vigil in small groups, and it was that document from the Episcopal Council of the Rome Diocese who interpreted the approved Statutes in that way. So, why should one listen to Tim Rohr?

As noted in my initial post, while the NCW has "been saying all along that we are allowed to celebrate the Easter Vigil in small groups," the fact is that it - the NCW in Guam - doesn't. And it didn't even before Fr. Romy's recent directive. Instead, the NCW in Guam has historically gathered all the communities together for a single "large-group" celebration of the Paschal Vigil, albeit in their own unconsecrated space. 

So "why should one listen to Tim Rohr?" Well because Tim Rohr does not say anything that the NCW Statutes don't already say. The NCW leadership just can't keep track of its fabrications. And I do. It's not hard.

Meanwhile, thank you for Diana for the bump up in pageviews. Please reply. Yours Always. Tim