Under my last entry post, I asked how the Archbishop has violated human rights. That question was then put back to me. I was challenged to show how the NCW was being persecuted, and I did. Now the commenter comes back only to defend his/her right to persecute the NCW. Those comments can be found here.
Then another commenter (or probably the same one) finally listed down what he/she thought were human rights violation done by the Archbishop. According to that commenter (the black are my responses):
Let's see if you'll post this list to start off Diana.
1. removing priests to make way for neo priests who are hard to understand/comprehend.
It is within the authority of the Archbishop to replace priests; therefore, this is not a persecution. Although many of these priests speak English as a second language, they can speak and read English. The rumor that one cannot understand them is just that - a rumor. I have heard them speak, and I can understand them. Even the teenagers in the NCW can understand them.
Furthermore, Father Paul was removed, but he was not replaced with a "neo" priest; therefore, this statement is false and misleading.
2. removing Fr. Paul who was so instrumental at the Dededo church.
It is within the authority of the Archbishop to remove any priest and transfer him to another parish; therefore, removing Father Paul for disobedience is within the Archbishop's right and authority and therefore not a persecution.
2. having the locks changed out at the Dededo church while having a meeting with Father Paul.
It is within the Archbishop's authority to remove the parish priest; therefore, this is not a persecution. There is no evidence of locks being changed other than the jungle's sayso. In fact, Father Paul never said that he was locked out of the parish in any of the media.
3. dragging the Lastimoza family out by insinuating he was a danger to children.
The Archbishop never said that the Lastimoza FAMILY was a danger to children. He said that Joseph Lastimoza was a danger to children. Joseph Lastimoza was a convicted criminal and is on the sex offender registry. It was unknown at the time that he raped and murdered an 18 year old. Therefore, he is perceived a danger to teenagers and adults. Therefore, to insinuate that he is a danger to the public is not an allegation because he is indeed a convicted sex offender and murderer. Despite Lastimoza's repentence, the rape and murder of a teenage girl is something he has to live with for the rest of his life because no matter what he does, he cannot bring back the life he took.
4. spreading gossip to other priests that Father Paul and Mr. Lastimoza were in a homosexual
relationship.
The Archbishop recognized that what he did here was wrong and APOLOGIZED for it. When someone recognized their mistakes and apologized for it, that is NOT a persecution.
5. denying our local boys support/sponsorship to off-island seminaries since they didn't want to be formed at RMS.
Actually Aaron Quituga was given a choice of TWO seminaries: the RMS or the John Paul II seminary. To say that Aaron was denied sponsorship unless he attends the RM Seminary is false and misleading. Furthermore, it is within the Archbishop's authority to deny sponsorship; therefore, this is not a persecution.
6. making public charges against Msgr James without permitting him to see it.
It was FIRST made public in the jungle that Monsignor James was removed due to financial mismanagement without going to the Archbishop first to confirm it. Since the jungle had no problems making public the accusation of Monsignor James without going to the Archbishop first, then there should be no problem when the Archbishop made it transparent the charges against Monsignor James without going to him first. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
7. removing Msgr James, instrumental at the Cathedral and placing neo newbie Fr. Jucatan in his position.
It is within the authority of the Archbishop to remove any priest and transfer him to another parish; therefore, this is not a persecution. It is within the authority of the Archbishop to place a priest in a vacant position; therefore, this is not a persecution. While you bring up the fact that Monsignor James was placed by a "neo priest," why did you also not bring up the fact that Father Paul's position was placed by a "non-neo" priest????
8. removing Santa Guadalupe statue at Santa Rita church and saying she can be placed in the rectory instead.
The parishioners are supposed to worship God alone, not a statue of Santa Guadalupe. It was God who told Moses to build a bronze serpent to heal the people. But when God saw the people worshipping the bronze serpent, He had it destroyed.
9. assigning neo priests as parish pastors and all of a sudden, things start changing. Mass schedules are changed, rosaries for the dead at the church are restricted, parish councils are being abolished, no finance councils.
Below is a schedule of all the Mass on Guam. The schedule has not changed.
http://www.guam.net/pub/archdiocese/Parishes.html
Rosaries are still being prayed in the Church. They are not restricted. As for the parish councils, they were not abolished. They simply chose to walk out just like those at the Cathedral when Monsignor James left.
10. keeping silent and not addressing his "whole" flock on the church's situation.
He has addressed the flock. The Archbishop already said he took out Father Paul for disobedience and Monsignor James for financial mismanagement. He already said that the NCW has the permission from the Pope to celebrate the Eucharist the way they do. It is already said that the RM seminary belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana, and the title of the property is under the Archbishop. How many times do you want to hear the same story?
11. lying that the RMS is for the formation of diocesan priests.
The RMS is for the formation of the diocesan priests. A priest can follow the life and itinerary of any religious order (including the Jesuits), but that does not mean that they are FOR the Jesuits. They are for the Church. Nothing in the RMS document says that the priests are being form FOR the NCW. It states that they are being formed FOR the priesthood FOR the evangelization, following the life and itinerary OF the NCW. There is a big difference between the words "FOR" and "OF." The fact that Pope Francis has ordained 9 priests from the RM Seminary is evidence enough to show that those in the RM Seminary are being formed as legitimate Catholic priests for the Church.
12. removing Deacon Steve as SARC and replacing him with Deacon Larry who doesn't handle the position very well....case in point, Fr. Luis Camacho.
It is within the Archbishop's authority to remove a deacon and replace him with another; therefore, that is not persecution. As for Father Luis, he has an ongoing case with the police. As you can see, the police department could not give any information to Tim Rohr regarding Father Luis' case due to the fact that it is still an ongoing case. Interfering in any police investigation would jeopardize the rights of the accused, which goes against Guam's law.
Furthermore, no victims came forward charging Father Luis with child abuse just as no victims came forward charging the Archbishop of child molestation. What you have is Deacon Steve who got the information from someone who was not even the victim. In the same way, John Toves got his information from someone other than the victim. Thus, all these stories are "third hand" information that has no validity or reliability. Until the victims themselves come forward, any investigation is a waste of time and money.
13. scandalizing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by allowing the NCW to "do their own thing".
The NCW has permission from the Pope to celebrate the Mass the way they do; therefore, this is not a persecution on anyone. How the NCW celebrates its Mass has no impact on anyone outside the NCW; therefore, it is not a persecution.
If you feel the NCW is in error in celebrating the Mass, then simply write to the Vatican and take it up with them.
to be continued....
It's amazing how much of a public hypocrite you are. You carry on here about the Archbishop's authority to do this or that, simply because it is favorable to you personally and to your NCW interests. But when it is pointed out that the NCW disobey the lawful authority of the Church particularly in relation to the Eucharist, you squirm and shift and wriggle into all sorts of positions because that would not be favorable to you or your interests. Your blindness to this predicament is extreme, and in fact, we can only conclude that you do this knowingly with a feeling of proud arrogance, that you are untouchable because you belong to this radical group. That is why you think it is acceptable to say things like "simply write to the Vatican and take it up with them", because it is a way for your to avoid the painful truth. I'd feel sorry for you if you had the least bit of humility, but you don't, so I don't.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:57 am,
DeleteWe tell you to write to the Vatican and take it up with them because they were the one who gave the NCW the permission to celebrate the Eucharist in that manner. From what I heard, the junglefolks have been sending their letters, emails, and manila envelops. That is really all you can do because you have no authority over the NCW.
WELL SAID DIANA :-)
ReplyDeleteitem #9 your link is out-of-date
ReplyDeleteBelow is a schedule of all the Mass on Guam. The schedule has not changed.
http://www.guam.net/pub/archdiocese/Parishes.html
Dear Anonymous at 4:04 pm,
DeleteThank you for the correction. :-)
11:57 AM don't be Hatin
ReplyDelete#8 Wow Diana!
ReplyDeleteThanks for validating that the NCW is out to change Catholic tradition. So all along, all the Catholic Churches with all our statues have been wrong.
Dear Anonymous at 7:05 am,
DeleteThis is why the Archbishop does not want to share any documents. You twisted the words I said. I NEVER said that the Catholic Churches with all the statues are wrong. I said WORHIPPING the statues is wrong.
Diana at 7:35 AM, your item 8 reads as follows "The parishioners are supposed to worship God alone, not a statue of Santa Guadalupe. It was God who told Moses to build a bronze serpent to heal the people. But when God saw the people worshipping the bronze serpent, He had it destroyed." I literally copied and pasted your statement because I need to know:
DeleteAre you accusing the parishioners of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church of WORSHIPPING that statue? I find that hard to believe. I know that Protestants have consistently accused Catholics of WORSHIPPING statues, but this is the first time that I have read a Catholic accusing other Catholics of doing so! Do you really believe that the parishioners in Santa Rita or those visiting that church were WORSHIPPING the statue?
Please respond!!!
Diana - #8 says "removing" the statue. You responded with "worshipping". It was you who did the word twisting. Removing the statue and replacing it with a neo icon is persecution...when one group imposes their beliefs on another.
DeleteDear Anonymous 1:44 pm, and 4:37 pm,
DeleteIt is the ones who have been protesting too much over the statute to the point where they are falsely accusing the NCW of getting rid of the Santa Guadalupe Statue. The Church in Santa Rita was vandalized in 2010. Vandals broke into the Church and vandalized it. They threw the statute of Santa Guadalupe on the grown, causing much damage to it. Her crown and halo were badly damaged, and the statue was put aside. See the weblink below:
http://www.guampdn.com/article/20101123/NEWS01/11230304/Santa-Rita-parish-vandalized
Whether it was sent for repairs....who knows? Apparently, it is not put back because there were no repairs done on it......that is if repairs are even possible. But the NCW did not purposely remove the statute. The statue was removed because the statue was badly damaged through vandalism. Me thinks one doth protest too much over a statue to the point of inventing stories. It appears that those who protest too much idolized a statue more than the truth.
What is the truth Diana? That's what people want to know. And the fact that the responses coming from Fr. Krystoff don't make any sense, makes them wonder. He said he needed to get permission from the Archbishop and the response back was that the Archbishop said the statue can be put in the rectory. Parishioners have vouched that the damage is very minimal. It just makes people wonder what the hidden agenda is. If the parishioners want her back, I don't see why she can't be put back in her spot. I'm sure as the patron saint of Santa Rita, she has been part of that church for many, many years and the parishioners should have a say in the matter. Because they do not have a say, that is PERSECUTION!
DeleteSpeaking of the vandalism at that church, many have suspected that Father Fabio was the one who staged that whole incident. That says much about him, when people think that he, a priest, is capable of such an act.
DeleteThat's not what the parishioners were told...they were told it can go up in the rectory not the church. Maybe if the Pastor was forthcoming with his reasons, and showed the people the extent of the damage (IF that is indeed the case) they'll stop asking!! Or maybe they'll help to get it restored!
DeleteNo, Diana, this is a case of the Neo Presbyter at the church trying to change things at the church and being met with some resistence. "Doth protest too much"?? That statue has sentimental value to long-time parishioners and they just want it back where it has been for many years--not a case of idol worshiping!
Typical Neo response: accuse the people of idolatry when they ask too many questions! smh!!
Dear Anonymous at 8:47 pm,
DeleteI think it is a matter of putting words in Father Krzysztof's mouth. If the statue is damaged, it should not be placed in the Church.
Dear Anonymous at 8:52 pm,
DeleteI am not surprise when those who oppose the Way would make such a judgement without evidence.
Dear Anonymous at 9:23 pm,
DeleteThe statue was removed as a result of vandalism. That is the simple truth unless you are denying the news report that vandalism and burglary took place. You care more about the statue to the point that you would ignore the vandalism and concoct some story about the NCW purposely getting rid of the statue?
Talk about twisting words...again...
DeleteNo one is denying the damage to the statue. In fact, it was acknowledged and suggested that the people will more than likely step up to help get it restored. (If there was that much concern by the congregation, you'd think the Pastor would get a group of them together to take care of the restoration! ) And how did you come up with they are ignoring the vandalism?? The people of Santa Rita felt that vandalism more than anyone else!
Fact of the matter is: people were told they cannot put the statue back in the church-- their thoughts, feelings disregarded.
One more example of how the Neos want to change the Catholic church as we know it on Guam. They prefer the small community model, not the parish community. If you are not on board, you will be disregarded.
Dear Anonymous at 7:43 am,
DeleteThese are not people from Santa Rita who are making up the stories. I am certain they know what happened to their Church and statue. There is an NCW community in Santa Rita. It is the people outside of Santa Rita who made up the stories . Below are their comments from the jungle:
AnonymousAugust 15, 2014 at 8:13 AM
People of Santa Rita speak up NOW! or you will come to regret not doing so.
The NCW is suppose to catechize and bring back into the church those who have fallen away, NOT DESTROY OUR COMMUNITY. If you want dancing, clapping, kissing, new liturgy, new confession, secret secrets...then just attend your closest Protestant church.
AnonymousAugust 15, 2014 at 9:39 AM
How long does it take to restore a statue? The parishioners are being duped by the NCW. The parishioners of Santa Rita must snap out of the Neo's clutches before it's too late!! I feel sorry for the devout faithful, especially the elders of the village who cherish the history and traditions surrounding Our Lady of Guadalupe.
I was a parishioner there for 17 years and I see and feel the difference between then and now. The only parishioners who are content are the members of the NCW. Sad.
As you can see from the comments above, these commenters from the jungle are not from Santa Rita. Only one claimed he WAS from Santa Rita for 17 years. What village he is living in now. Is unknown. But they are the ones who put a statue above the truth by inventing stories.
Diana 7/2 @ 7:45 PM, this is Anonymous at 1:44 pm asking you to clarify:
DeleteAre you accusing the parishioners of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church of WORSHIPPING that statue?
I read the response you directed to my inquiry. You stated:
* "It is the ones who have been protesting too much over the statute to the point where they are falsely accusing the NCW of getting rid of the Santa Guadalupe Statue." (This was not a response to my question)
* "The Church in Santa Rita was vandalized in 2010. Vandals broke into the Church and vandalized it. They threw the statute of Santa Guadalupe on the grown, causing much damage to it." (This provided background info but did not answer my question.)
* "Her crown and halo were badly damaged, and the statue was put aside." (You even provided the link to a shortened version of the article. I was not willing to pay to read the archived article BUT this was still not a response to my question.)
You also admitted that you don't know if it efforts were made to repair the statue: "Whether it was sent for repairs....who knows?" (Still not a response)
You then guessed that no repairs were made: "Apparently, it is not put back because there were no repairs done on it......that is if repairs are even possible." (Again, not a response)
You also stated "But the NCW did not purposely remove the statute. The statue was removed because the statue was badly damaged through vandalism." (Not a response)
You concluded your response with the following "Me thinks one doth protest too much over a statue to the point of inventing stories. It appears that those who protest too much idolized a statue more than the truth." (You used the word "idolized" but it still did not answer my original question)
With all those words, you did not answer my question which I am asking again as one Catholic to another: Are you accusing the parishioners of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church of WORSHIPPING the statue of Santa Guadalupe?
My question can be answered with:
"YES, in my opinion the parishioners in Santa Rita WORSHIP their Santa Guadalupe statue."
OR
"NO, even though I wrote "I said WORHIPPING the statues is wrong." I don't think the parishioners in Santa Rita WORSHIP their Santa Guadalupe statue."
OR
"MAYBE, as I wrote "I said WORHIPPING the statues is wrong." and it seemed to me that the parishioners in Santa Rita WORSHIP their Santa Guadalupe statue."
Dear Anonymous at 12:32 pm,
DeleteI have given my response. It is the ones making up the stories who ADORES that statue more than The truth. There are some people in Santa Rita who know the truth and understood that a damaged statue should not be in the church.
Look at my response in my entry post. It was made to the commenter who made this statement on his list of how the Archbishop violated human rights. He stated: "removing Santa Guadelupe statue and saying that she can be placed in the rectory." Nowhere was his comment ever made that the statue was damaged by vandalism.
Ah I see now a Neo tactic. Accuse Catholics of adoring statues. It's a damaged statue you say. Then have it repaired or dispose of it permanently. Having it repaired and restored to its proper place is not adoration. And when you continue to make false accusations, you bring more discredit to your already discredited argument.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:47 am,
DeleteIf you had read the entire thread especially those comments below, you would have found this comment written by a Catholic:
AnonymousJuly 6, 2015 at 12:27 PM
Diana statue must always remain in church. Same statue even if broken glue it and put back. Original statues in our church must stay forever. Statue is our protector . Same statues protected our parents, grandparents. Statues save us.
When one starts to think that statues become their protectors.....then that is "worshipping statues." Statues do not save anyone. ONLY God can save.
As I read items 1-13 above; I am astounded as to depth of ignorance of people who comment on a subject of which they know close to nothing about. But the comment made by Anonymous July 1, 2015 at 11:57 AM is perhaps the most disturbing of all.
ReplyDeletequote: "You carry on here about the Archbishop's authority to do this or that, simply because it is favorable to you personally and to your NCW interests".
I find this accusation not based on truth but of RANTING.
verb (used without object)
1. to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave:
The demagogue ranted for hours.
verb (used with object)
2. to utter or declaim in a ranting manner.
noun
3. ranting, extravagant, or violent declamation.
4. a ranting utterance.
We cannot offer any concrete examples of Arch Bishop Apuron singularly acknowledging the NCW as the only way of salvation to our Catholic communities on Guam. I doubt very much if anyone else can.
Maybe being a brother in the WAY is helping the Arch Bishop? I don't know. Maybe not. For anyone questioning his true devotions; this is a issue that can only be answered only by the Arch Bishop. It take courage to for the accuser to face the Arch Bishop and until this face to face meeting actually happens, comments like Anonymous July 1, 2015 at 11:57 AM is simply RANTING.
It take courage to look at God in the eyes, naked, with all our transgressions laid before us. It is going to happen one day. Might help to start practicing.
JSB
"It take courage to for the accuser to face the Arch Bishop and until this face to face meeting actually happens...."
Delete"It take courage to look at God in the eyes, naked, with all our transgressions laid before us"
Aha...I see what you did there!
You see everything but youself in front of the Arch Bishop discussing your issues.....aaahhhhaaa.
Deleteranting again until then
JSB
if a statue is damaged significantly or worn through age, it serves no purpose in the main church. It however can be stored or placed in another location for safekeeping as an antique for its historical significance. Then again some of us dont understand the concept of or purpose of statues.
ReplyDeletealso, the statue was not replaced with a NCW icon. Rather, it was replaced with a replica/copy framed painting of the original tilma that Saint Juan Diego had when the apparition took place.
-Jokers Wild
Dear Jokers Wild,
DeleteThank you. The statue was not replaced by a NCW icon, but with a replica of a painting of the Santa Guadelupe. So, those who invented the stories that the Way deliberately took out the statue and replace it with a Kiko-made icon has an agenda. They do not care to know the truth.
Joker....Icon or not, it's from a neo donor, hence the refusal to put the Santa Guadalupe statue back. This info is from a reliable source close to the church.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 5:52 pm,
DeletePutting a damaged statue at the altar is very disrespectful no matter how much you ADORE that statue. The fact that the icon was donated by someone regardless of whether they are walking in the Way or not is a charitable behavior. The fact that you only see that the donor is from the NCW only shows that the Way is indeed being persecuted through discrimination. You only accept a gift from someone who is not in the Way is uncharitable and prejudice.
you hit it on the dot Diana, if the donor of the painting was not in the NCW then they wouldnt have a problem with it but because the donor is indeed from the NCW all of a sudden it raises suspicions.
DeleteSanta Rita village is fortunate to have a high per capita average earning, supposedly the pockets of residents of Santa Rita are thick. Even with those figures no one was quick to offer replacing the statue with a new one. It could be that simple but yet no one has offered. Instead they are telling a half truth that Fr. Fabio and Fr. Kryszstof have avoided putting the statue back. This is a half truth because they have avoided but the whole truth is that the statue needs to be replaced with a new one and no one has offered to purchase. It is also true that an NCW lady helped purchase the painting but the entire truth is that all the others have been told to stop giving so who else is gonna pay.
-Jokers Wild
Dear Jokers Wild,
DeleteAnd even if Father Fabio or Father Kryszstof did put out the damaged statue as they wanted, the NCW would STILL be persecuted for it.
The damage is minimal. All we ask is for the Santa Guadalupe statue to be returned to her spot and the painting can go in the rectory.
DeleteAnd yet some people in Santa Rita will not see or realize that God is actually working in their parish today.
DeleteI say some people because there are many that gladly give in Spirit to the Church without hesitance or second thoughts. Maybe they give because somehow in their lives or someone in their lives experienced the REAL presence of God.
How easy it is today for us to forget that the villages of Agat and Santa Rita were disseminated during the war. Maybe their grandparents and parents realized that is was through the grace of God that they survived the war. The grace of God that gave them the gift of children for the family to flourish. The grace of God that help them rebuild their lives, homes and villages.
How easy it is for us to forget that no one had money after this tragic event in their lives. God saw their suffering; and heard their prayers for those whose lives were lost; their prayers from the heart. No...no...one was a theologian; there was probably no priest for awhile and yet they saw that God did not leave them.
Does God really need our money? The Creator of the universe does not need anything from anyone but one thing;
Matthew 17:5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"
Listen to those who say; do not give; follow their instructions but know this...your heart is still at war
JSB
Dear Anonymous at 7:38 am,
DeleteIn the House of God, everything must be beautiful. Nothing damage should be placed there. And when flowers are placed at the altar, it should not be fake flowers. The flowers should be real flowers and there should not be any wilted flowers. All good, beautiful and new things are in the Church. Anything damage (even if it is minimal) should be kept in storage for historical purpose.
The issue of damaged statues should be addressed in its proper context.
DeleteThe utmost beauty of a Church are "damaged" people seeking communion with Jesus Christ. And if we in true communion with the Church somehow moved by the Spirit of Jesus Christ; we should bring other damaged people with us so they also can find communion.
Damaged statues exist perhaps as a reminder that Jesus does not come to repair things without a heart.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas....via web.
So what is more important; our damaged hearts or our damaged statues?
Dear Anonymous at 11:07 am,
DeleteWell stated. I agree with what you said.
Well if you agree Diana, then there should be nothing wrong with putting the "damaged" statue of Santa Guadalupe back to her original spot.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:58 pm,
DeleteA damaged statue should not be in the Catholic Church.
Diana statue must always remain in church. Same statue even if broken glue it and put back. Original statues in our church must stay forever. Statue is our protector . Same statues protected our parents, grandparents. Statues save us.
DeleteA damaged statue should be repaired.
DeleteSome criticize the Neocatechumenal Way basing solely on hearsay. Douglas Mallach said it perfectly. “The biggest liar in the world is They Say”. It is like someone who has never been to Guam who passes judgment on Guam and its people! Tim Rohr and company fall in this category.
ReplyDeleteIt stands to logic that if one makes erroneous premises, he will arrive to mistaken conclusions. This is what is happening here in Guam.
ReplyDeleteThe Neocatechumenal Way is not a movement. The Holy See has made it clear that it is a Christian initiation. This is the basic misunderstanding that falsifies reality. This is where the adversaries of the Way fall short,
History helps us to see things in their true perspective.
ReplyDeleteSome say there is too much controversy around the Neocatechumenal Way and so there is something wrong.
The truth is controversy is not necessarily a sign of inauthenticity; on the contrary in the Gospel vision, it may well be a sign of validity.
One typical case is the suppression of the Jesuits. In the eighteenth century, they were doing sterling work both in Europe and in the missions. Yet they created such a racket they were unfairly suppressed by Pope Clement XIV (1769–74) in the brief Dominus ac Redemptor “for the good of the church”. It was only in 1814 that Pope Pius VII restored the Society of Jesus to its full legal validity. Today everyone agrees that the Jesuits are a fantastically good religious congregation. Pope Francis is a Jesuit!
Perception is that they have some similarities to sectarianism. This is the big thing that Chuck White keeps insisting.
ReplyDeleteThis is simply ridiculous. How can the Church in its official Magisterium and all the recent Popes recommend so highly the Neocatechumenal way if it has an odor of sectarianism?
The Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way has been approved solemnly by the Holy See and spoken highly by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. It has been examined meticulously and approved by five (5) different Vatican dicasteries - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Congregation for the Clergy and the Catechesis and the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Pontifical Council for the Laity, which coordinated and concluded the process of approval and promulgating this Statute. It is absurd to think that the Magisterium is going to approve and advocate a sect-like ecclesial reality.
But Guam is not following the Statutes, some claim. And don’t these critics understand that if this is true, the Holy See would have long intervened…
They are so absorbed in their agenda that they fail to see reality.
A Capuchin priest asserted that this ecclesial reality may be good for Europe but rather ambiguous for Micronesia.
ReplyDeleteWell, the facts prove otherwise. The Neo-catechumenal Way has now a proven record of nearly two decades of fruitful insertion in the Micronesia culture, ranging from such diverse realities as Guam and Kiribati.
Also in Micronesia, we have witnessed what one author said in the North Star, “There is little doubt that the Neo-catechumenate has addressed many important needs and undertaken tremendously good work… many sincere conversions…worked with the youth… turned around lives otherwise burdened by drug and alcohol abuse and brought energy and enthusiasm in areas needing evangelization…”
Is not the tree judged on its fruits?
Yes, judged on its fruits .... so many fruits that they can't even cover for Masses so they end up being cancelled. In Santa Rita, they have two priests, yet the weekday mass has been cut from two to one. Fruits?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:54 am,
DeleteYou say that the weekday Mass in Santa Rita were cut from two to one? Below is the scheduled weekday Mass under Father Jack Niland. The weekday Mass in Santa Rita had always been one Mass even under a Capuchin priest.
Our Lady of Guadalupe-Santa Rita
Pastor: Rev.Jack Niland, OFM Capuchin
Telephone 565-2160
Daily Masses: Mon., Tues., Wed., Fri.: 6:30 p.m.; Thurs. & Sat.: 6 a.m.
Sunday Masses: 6 a.m., 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.(6:30 p.m. Saturday)
http://www.guam.net/pub/archdiocese/Parishes.html
again your link is out-of-date
DeleteOUR LADY OF GUADALUPE, SANTA RITA
P.O. Box 7355 Agat, GU 96928
Tel: 565-2160 Fax: 565-7078
Pastor: Rev. Fabio Faiola
Office Hours: Mon, Tues, Wed & Fri. 8:00 am – 5:00pm,
Thurs 8:00am – 1:00pm & closed 12:00 – 1:00 pm
Weekday Mass: Mon to Wed & Fri 6:30pm, Sat 7:00am,
1st Sat of the month 8:00am.
Sunday Mass: Sat vigil 6:30pm, Sun 6:00am, 8:00am & 10:00am.
Confessions 30 minutes before Mass or by appointment.
Dear Anonymous at 10:10 am,
DeleteMy point was to show that when Father Jack was the pastor, people still celebrated one weekday Masses each day.
Now there are two priests there though. You'd think they'd increase the number of Masses and the priests become more available. It's become more business-like. Parishioners have commented how different the vibe is, not like how it used to be. It's become a cold environment, not very welcoming.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:20 pm,
DeleteHas Church attendance in Santa Rita during the daily Mass increased so much that you feel there should be two Masses each day rather than one?
That is not the point Diana. They should make Mass available to the people. Right now, only morning mass is available during the weekdays.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:36 pm,
DeleteLook at the schedule again. The weekday Masses are all in the evenings. The weekday Masses are in the evenings because people usually get out of work in the afternoons and can attend the evening Masses.
That is an outdated schedule. As you know, Fabio is no longer the pastor. Weekday masses now are only in the morning. So much for "masses in the evening because people usually get out of work in the afternoons and can attend the evening masses." That's exactly the point, Diana.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:22 am,
DeleteThen perhaps, you should bring that up to Father Krzysztof. But why were you complaining that the weekday Mass in Santa Rita was cut from two to one?
Because there used to be one mass in the morning and one in the evening. Now only one in the morning. There is no mass in the evening for those who get out of work in the afternoon like you said. Now that there are two priests, they should start up the evening mass.
Delete
ReplyDeleteDiana, there needs to be more choices for mass times. Three masses daily . Morning noon, night. I want a lunch time mass and a 6pm mass. I am not a morning person sometimes I have lunches or dinner if a dinner I want lunchtime mass, if I have lunch I go evening mass. hope you understand. Church needs to cater to all our personal needs.
Dear Anonymous at 12:23 pm,
DeleteVery few people attend the weekday Mass. And even if you do not attend the weekday Mass, it is not a sin. The Sunday Masses are more important. Because very few people attend the weekday Mass, perhaps, it would be a good exercise for you to meet the whims of the Church schedule rather than having the Church trying to meet the whims of your schedule.
Anonymous at 12:23 PM, I think Diana at 10:52 PM is absolutely right when she suggests that you learn to adapt to the Church schedule rather than having the Church "meet the whims of your schedule."
DeleteI don't know if you realize how unrealistic your last sentence ("Church needs to cater to all our personal needs") is. Your personal needs are probably different from my personal needs, Diana's personal needs, Tim Rohr's personal needs, JSB's personal needs, the personal needs of all the other Anonymous commenters, etc. To expect the Church to cater to ALL our personal needs is not only unrealistic but also impossible.