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.