Monday, March 17, 2014

Comments Being Purposely Misconstrued

This is Zoltan's comment, which was posted on Junglewatch:

Zoltan March 15, 2014 at 8:56 PM 

Chuck, I told this also to Tim: our interpretation of the liturgical books allow us to follow contemplated consumption of the Eucharist, while your interpretation would not allow this.  So this is a question of interpretation.  We accept that differences in interpretations are possible.  You should ask for an official confirmation for your interpretation from Rome.  Unless you have this confirmation, we cannot accept it and just follow ours.  We ask you to, please respect our community based Catholic lifestyle.  

After reading Zoltan's comment, Tim Rohr accused Zoltan of stating that the Way is not Catholic.  He implied that Zoltan views GIRM as a book of suggestion:  According to Tim Rohr in his blogsite:

It appears that I assume too much, I actually assume that people would see that treating the General Instruction of the Roman Missal as a book of suggestions would sort of speak for itself.  But apparently not, so more explanation is needed.   

Apparently, Tim Rohr believes that Zoltan was implying that one can freely interpret the GIRM the way Protestants do with the Holy Bible.  He never made such implication.   What Zoltan is saying is that Tim has a different interpretation of what the GIRM means while those in the Way hold a different view, and this can only be settled with clarification from Rome.  So, Zoltan is pointing out that it is a question of interpretation that needs to be clarified with Rome. 

Zoltan goes on to say that different interpretations are possible (simply because we are human), and the only one who can clear the matter up would be Rome.  Thus, this is the very reason he tells Tim Rohr to get confirmation from Rome as to whether his interpretation of what he's reading in the GIRM is the correct one. The Way cannot accept ONLY Tim's interpretation unless he has the confirmation from Rome that his is the right one. 

So, in no way is Zoltan saying that the Way is not Catholic, but the problem lies in how one interprets the GIRM.  

Tim Rohr goes on to say:  

However, this idea that the GIRM is only a GUIDE is so thoroughly imbued in the thinking and comments of the members of the NCW who comment on this blog, we have begun to see that this is not the view of just a few individuals, but a view originating in a higher authority.  Later in the comments, we get a bit of a hint, when one commenter says:  
GIRM is a document providing us with a guideline how to perform liturgy.  Monsignor David informed us it is only a guide and we interpret the document in the light of inculttration (sic) to our needs and culture on Guam.  We are the catholic church on Guam so we have a new way now of doing things. Monsignor David supports this so we are right. 

I sincerely hope that Monsignor David (David C. Quitugua) DID NOT say this, but whether he did or not, the view that the GIRM is only a GUIDE and not an INSTRUCTION, certainly comports not just with the majority view of NCW commentors, but in the constant practice of the Neocatechumenal celebrations of the Eucharist. 

The bold is my emphasis.  Evidently, Tim Rohr has a problem with the GIRM being a guideline or guide as he mentions.  Would it help if he knew that the GIRM itself says that it is a guideline?  According to the GIRM, Chapter 1, Section 21 on the Importance and Dignity of the Eucharistic celebration:

21.  This Instruction aims both to offer general guidelines for properly arranging the Celebration of the Eucharist and to set forth rules for ordering the various forms of celebrations.  

The bold and underline is my emphasis.  So, now we have evidence in the GIRM calling the Instructions a guideline.  Thus, the GIRM is both an Instruction and a Guideline. 

Furthermore, the GIRM also states the following in Chapter IX, Section 386: 

386 The renewal of the Roman Missal, carried out in our time in accordance with the decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, has taken great care that all the faithful may engage in the celebration of the Eucharist with that full, conscious, and active participation that is required by the nature of the Liturgy itself and to which the faithful, in virtue of their status as such, have a right and duty. [147] 

In order,however, to enable such a celebration to correspond all the more fully to the norms and the spirit of the sacred Liturgy, certain further adaptions are set forth in this Instruction and in the Order of Mass and entrusted to the judgment either of the diocesan Bishop or of the Bishop's Conferences.   

The bold and underlined are my emphasis.  According to the GIRM, certain further adaptions in the GIRM and in the Order of the Mass are entrusted to the JUDGMENT of the Diocean Bishop.  Is Tim Rohr the Diocean Bishop?  Why then does he demand the Neocatechumenal Way to follow HIS interpretation of celebrating the Eucharist when in the first place, it was not his judgment to make? 

According to the commenter (comment placed in red) whom Tim Rohr criticized, he/she said that the document must be interpreted in light of the culture and need of the people. According to the GIRM, Chapter IX, Section 395: 

395. Finally, if the participation of the faithful and their spiritual welfare require variations and more thoroughgoing adaptations in order that the sacred celebration respond to the culture and traditions of the different peoples, then Bishop's Conferences may propose such to the Apostolic See in accordance with article 40 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for introduction with the latter's consent, especially in the case of peoples to whom the Gospel have been more recently proclaimed. [156] The special norms given in the Instruction On the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation [157] should be carefully observed.   


  1. Dear Diana, thanks for giving excellent insight to the short comment I made to Chuck over at the Jungle Watch blog. It is true that even the General Instructions (GIRM) need discernment and we may end up with different interpretations. Tim Rohr claims that his own interpretation is the only and exclusive truth. But he only has a handful of anonymous followers, perhaps on his payroll, who spew this interpretation out on his blog day and night. A simple analysis of the writing styles of the comments over there point to one single person, who probably writes all anonymous comments for the Jungle. You also see the same, unique and characteristic obsession in all these comments, which unifies them under the same umbrella of an obsessed mind.

    Our discernment of the General Instructions prompts our view of a unified community that celebrates the Eucharist together, as One Body. Therefore the distribution of the Sacred Host concludes when all members of the community have received it and then the consumption occurs together in one act of unity for the whole community. I made this point in my blog at

    But what can we say if Tim Rohr and his ilk are not willing to open their minds to the Holy Spirit?

  2. Of course, the final word should come from the Vatican. If they don't say anything, it means there is nothing to talk about... Period! ;)

  3. This is why Tim is requesting a clarification from the Archbishop... but since he disregards us, the regular catholics, he will not respond. But this is something that does need to get addressed because of the division between the NCW and the rest of us Catholics. The Archbishop is the problem here, all the Archbishop needs to do is address the concerns presented by Tim Rohr.

    1. Dear Anonymous,
      Do you honestly think that a clarification from the Archbishop is going to help especially in light of how Tim treated a priest who has a Ph.D in Liturgy? Tim Rohr is insistent that the GIRM is NOT a guideline. Yet, the GIRM stated in Chapter 1, Section 21:

      21. This Instruction aims both to offer general GUIDELINES for properly arranging the Celebration of the Eucharist and to set forth rules for ordering the various forms of celebrations.

      If Tim Rohr has already made up his mind that everything he says is true, then why does he need the Archbishop for clarification? Regardless of what the Archbishop says, Tim Rohr is still going to insist that his opinions are right and the Archbishop is wrong.

    2. Concerned Catholic ChamorroMarch 18, 2014 at 10:11 AM

      Please . . . Diana, you certainly are neck deep in your denial. This has nothing to do with Tim and you know it. Your focus on Tim is indicative of the desperation of your clinging to your position.
      If the Archbishop speaks, he has to with the authority of the Church. If he speaks otherwise, he will be open for criticism, and rightly so. You offer nothing but weak excuses for the silence of the Archbishop.
      I think that if he does speak in favor of manipulating the GIRM, then he will get the attention of the Vatican, and thus may be reproved publicly.
      As long as he remains silent, he avoids accountability.
      I hope you possess some courage and post this comment.

    3. Diana,
      okay, Tim will be Tim. But he is still a faithful within the Diocese. Tim has done so much for this Archbishop and our Church that the least the Archbishop can do for him is address his concerns he's presented. These are concerns I have as well. Addressing these concerns will at least answer the same questions that so many of us regular Catholics have as well.

      GIRM, Chapter 1, Section 21 are guidelines for Special Celebrations listed in Section 36, not General Celebrations such as, NCW Masses.

    4. Dear Anonymous,
      I don't think you quite understand my point. I said that Tim is insistent that the GIRM is NOT a guideline as he stated in his comments. There was an anonymous poster who told Tim Rohr that even Monsignor David informed them that the GIRM is a guide, but Tim Rohr did not listen to him/her. Rather, he brushed the poster off and criticized the poster and the Way, insisting that the GIRM is NOT a Guide, despite that the GIRM says otherwise.. Is there any guarantee that Tim Rohr is not going to do the same to the Archbishop?

      Furthermore, What makes you think that Chapter 1 Section 21 of the GIRM are guidelines only for Special Celebrations when the GIRM never indicated as such. Did you read Chapter 1 in the GIRM? For your information, Section 36 is found in Chapter II, not Chapter I of the GIRM.

    5. Oh dear Diana, yes I did read it. at the end of section 21, it says for various forms of celebrations [32]. If you click on [32] it will take you to where it describes the various forms of celebrations where it is to be used as guidelines. Therefore, these are Instructions.

      As for what Monsignor David says, if he told you something wrong you would believe him anyways because he is Monsignor, don't dare question him. Same goes for this Archbishop, they don't care about their people, only those in the NCW. Thats why they won't answer our questions or suspicions further creating an us and them mentality. This is our Church and they are ruining it.

    6. Dear Anonymous,

      So, why mention section 36? Or was that a typo? And what makes you think that the Way's celebration is NOT a Special Celebration? Do you have any evidence showing that the Way is a General Celebration......especially when the Statutes of the Way already indicated that certain liturgical rites are adapted to meet its special needs for the catechumen on page 21-22?

      It was clear in Tim's comments that the GIRM was NOT a guideline at all.He never said that the GIRM was a guide ONLY for special celebrations. He said it is NOT a Guide. So, are you saying that the GIRM is NOT a guideline as Tim Rohr says?

      And how is our silence ruining the Church? As I pointed out, even when members of the Way told Tim that the GIRM is a guide, did he listen? Did you listen? Do you still think that the GIRM is NOT a guideline at all? And I all as Tim Rohr says.

      Part of having a dialogue is "listening" to the other person rather than mocking them. It was already told by one anonymous poster that the GIRM is a guide, and the response was mockery. Did it ever occur to you that the reason they remain silent is because you already made up your mind on what the answers are regardless of what the Archbishop or anyone says?

  4. Diana,
    We are going around in circles here so I just realized and I wonder, did it ever occur to you that you are in fact just like Tim? The only difference is the side debate or dialogue. You argue for something that has been founded by Kiko and that Tim argues for something that was founded by Jesus Christ himself.

    1. Dear Anonymous,

      I am unlike Tim, and here is the reason why.

      In Tim's blogsite, he concluded that the GIRM is NOT a guide at all, and he gave no substantial evidence showing that. He only went by his own opinion. In fact, I don't see any scientific method of any kind showing how Tim concluded that the GIRM is not a guide at all.

      I, on the other hand, pointed to Chapter 1, Section 21 in the GIRM, which states that it is both a guideline and an instruction. When one does not substantiate their opinion with some sort of evidence, then it simply remains a biased opinion and nothing more. My citing Chapter I, Section 21 of the GIRM collaborates what I stated, and therefore becomes a factual statement.

      If Tim believes that the GIRM is still NOT a guideline, then his next step is to show how Chapter I, Section 21 of the GIRM is wrong.

  5. Please read the relevant section again. Chapter 1 Section 21:

    "This Instruction aims both to offer:

    general guidelines for properly arranging the Celebration of the Eucharist; and
    to set forth rules for ordering the various forms of celebration"

    The "guidelines" relate to the 'proper arrangement' of the Celebration of the Eucharist, whereas the "rules" are for "ordering the form" of the celebration.

    Obviously, the manner of receiving communion is a part of the 'ordering of the form' not the 'proper arrangement', and is therefore a "rule" (instruction) rather than a "guideline"

    Please be more careful in the future.

    1. Dear Patrick,

      If you re-read my post, I stated that the GIRM is BOTH a guideline and an Instruction. The topic of discussion is not about whether receiving communion is a guideline or an Instruction. The topic of discussion is whether the GIRM is also a guide or not as Tim Rohr has concluded that is NOT a guide at all. I would greatly appreciate if you would stick to the topic of discussion and not try to derail this thread.

    2. The issue at the heart of this discussion is the method of receiving Blessed Sacrament in the "communities".
      This matter is dealt with under the GIRM, and under that part of the GIRM which is clearly a "rule" (ie the ordering of the form).

    3. Dear Patrick,

      READ my post in the OP. The title is "Comments Being Purposely Misconstrued." Please stick to the topic of discussion and do not derail the thread.

  6. Simple solution for Zoltans comments not to be misinterpreted or misconstrued....STOP COMMENTING! All the comments do is add fuel to the fire and Zoltan, you either don't explain what you are trying to say clearly enough for ppl to read it as you mean it or your words are twisted....seriously, JUST STOP ALREADY. pray instead.

  7. I found that people over there at the Jungle Watch are not interested at all in learning about the Way. I am not going to post for them at least until the Vigil night. May the Resurrection of our Lord bring also them a renewal of their hearts and minds so that they might become open to the Holy Spirit.

    Read the summary about the discussion here:

  8. Dear Zoltan,

    Tim Rohr is not interested in learning the truth about the Neocatechumenal Way, which is the reason I refuse to meet with him in person. His entire blogsite shows that he is not willing to listen nor give an honest discussion. Tim Rohr believes that the GIRM is NOT a guideline at all as he stated in his posts. Yet, Chapter I, Section 21 reveals that it is a Guideline and an Instruction.