The Archbishop, everyone, is accountable for their own actions, regardless of how many others do the same or more. Your entire post is the argument of an immature child.
Dear Jose, It is hypocrisy to give credit to a priest who accomplished something despite that he had the Archbishop's signed approval and then place blame on the Archbishop for the bad things the priest has done. If you are going to call the Archbishop an "airport Catholic" do the research and tally all the travels of the other priests and not just focus on the Archbishop alone. After all, it was the jungle who first made the accusation that the Archbishop and RMS priests are airport Catholics. Since they made the accusation, it is only fair that they provide the evidence for it. One does not make an accusation out of nothing unless of course........ they simply just hate the person. Ask your leader to show you the tally. Question your leader. Since the jungle first made the accusation of labeling the Archbishop and RMS priests an airport Catholic, then show the tally of ALL priests Do not give excuses.
No Jose it has nothing to do about being immature. If you want to place standards, then apply them to everyone. You do not pick and choose who you want to put the magnifying glass upon. I encourage you to read some of Pope Francis' homilies and you will find that he too talks about double standards towards priests. He tells them to look at themselves first before speaking at the pulpit.Its hard to accept when I criticize your hero in brown but then again you'll call me coward as expected.-Jokers Wild
Is there a connection between Father Eric and T. Rohr?
So much verbosity from fictional characters. At least J. Bautista has courage. Yes, Joker, you are a coward.
Dear Jose, The moment a person resorts to name calling rather than discussing the topic at hand is the moment one lost the debate. Is name calling all you have to offer in dialogue?
Quick recap for those lost in this thread : Its hard to accept when I criticize your hero in brown but then again you'll call me coward as expected."Is name calling all you have to offer in dialogue?"You, Diana, are a fictional character as is Jokers Wild, you've already called yourselves names. Besides, the Jokers have already labelled themselves cowards on my behalf. I respectfully reiterated. Are you incapable of comprehension . . . ? Never mind. Your entire blog has already affirmed my question.
Dear Jose, Jokers Wild did not call you "coward." He simply predicted what you would do......and he turned out to be correct. Jokers Wild found you predictable.
thank you Diana; maybe the question should have been; what is the connection between Father Eric Forbes and Mr. Rohr? I will contact them for a response.
Dear J. Bautista, The following was published on January 27, 2015 at 12:17 am by an anonymous commenter: You can find the weblink below: AnonymousJanuary 27, 2015 at 12:17 AMIt is obvious that there is a concerted and an ingenious strategy to discredit Archbishop Apuron. But who is orchestrating all this campaign against Archbishop Apuron? Who is the leader? Who is the mind of this devilish plan?The spokespersons are Tim Rohr, Chuuk White and Patty Arroyo. They have strong links within the PDN in the person of Gaynor Dumat el Deleno. And they are friends of Archbishop Krebs.What is their common link? It is obvious. It is Father ERIC FORBES. They are Latin mass lovers. They frequent the friary up in Agana Heights. They belong to the Catholic Evidence Guild. Patty has a son who is a Capuchin student.Father ERIC FORBES was seen dining with Archbishop Krebs on January 6th when the latter was here for the pastoral visit together with Archbishop Hon. A horrible gaffe of diplomacy on the part of Krebs.Father ERIC FORBES is keeping himself out of the limelight of publicity and working behind the scenes orchestrating the downfall of Apuron, perhaps in the hope of taking his place. Come out of darkness to live in the Light!http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/01/internal-review-discloses-specific.html?showComment=1422281854840#c3442258216831413900
According to its website, Father Eric Forbes is the Spiritual Director of the Catholic Evidence Guide of Guam. And the home website of the Catholic Evidence Guide shows the anti-Neo publication of Chuck White. http://cegguam.org/other_topics/talks-and-homilies/
Archbishop is very aware the Forbes' designs on his office. This is not new. Pray for Archbishop.
Anyone who seeks to be archbishop will certainly not be.
Immature child. Look at your Jungle trash In Jungle, Just give them a Tim coloring book and crayons. so they can color their own stories. at 10:17 AM
This includes Fr. Adrian Cristobal?
Sounds like Timmy knew that Father Eric traveled more times than archbishop, but his reason for keeping it quiet was cuz Pale Eric is not a parish priest and assigned a parish. Sounds like Timmy has a personal agenda against archbishop.
Please, whoever is calling Tim Rohr "Timmy", it is not clever and you lose the good that you comment here. I'm not Diana, so it's not my blog, but it's not helping us. It's not the level we operate on, is it?
Sounds like it because we all know it....but really, Father Eric is not beholden to a parish of people. So there is a difference. And he always lets people know where he is and what he is doing--I even know what he has been up to with these travels. I walk and I implore our people to stay the course and not fall to creating something out of nothing. We don't need to bring someone else down to justify our position. We just need to clarify and explain. And if they don't believe, then that is their problem.
Dear Anonymous at 7:08 am, I disagree with your statement when you said that Father Eric is not beholden to a parish of people. When one is going to accuse the Archbishop of taking the most trips, one would have to tally up ALL priests. Who is at the top of the list? Who came in second? Who came in third? And so on. The reason for the accusation is because the jungle thinks that Archbishop Apuron spends too much of their money to go on these trips. So, if Father Eric has more travels than the Archbishop, whose money is he using? According to Tim Rohr: "Take the money that Apuron has spent jetting about the world with his newly ordained presbyter pets and throw in the big bucks he just spent on that Denver law firm, and we probably could have kept the school open another year."http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/04/meanwhile-pizza-and-travel-for-rms-boys.html#moreIt has ALWAYS been about money. He accused the Archbishop of taking the MOST trips because of money. Therefore, it should not matter whether Father Eric has a parish or not.
I don't think Fr.Forbes desires to be Archbishop. Fr. Forbes is certainly a worthy candidate to be considered for an episcopal candidate. There is no candidate inside the chancery who can be considered.
Archbishop said he does. Who knows.
3:12 pm. Do you mean Msgr. David and Chancellor Adrian are not qualified? They are the only ones at the chancery. That's kind of personal. Besides they are more familiar with administration of Archdiocese. Why do you say such a thing?
Maybe no to Father Forbes. We won't want extraordinary form for whole local church. Would we? Probably a good question.
and so everyone should listen to Anonymous September 28, 2015 at 3:12 PM; no other candidate inside the chancery who can be considered. there you go folks; the word of man who thinks he or she knows what God is thinking or should doI
Let's face reality; if it is God's will...even Anonymous Sept 28, 2015 at 3:12 PM can be the next Arch Bishop. If it is God's will; it will be the most unworthy.and where will we be then? Complaining; protesting; writing to the Vatican; forming groups like ccog or the newest Laity Forward Movement Group?How rich and deep are the wisdom and the knowledge of God! We cannot reach to the root of his decisions or ways. Who has ever known the mind of the Lord? Who has ever been his advisor?White; Rohr, Arroyo, CCOG or the Laity Forward Movement Group may believe they know what is God's will. By their actions against Arch Bishop Apuron to date, they in fact are not following the will of God.
I also heard Archbishop say that Pale Eric " Is ready to take over this Archdiocese." It was years ago. Archbishop has persevered faithfully; in spite of this attitude. Pale Eric seems to have found his direction. So let's leave this one alone. We have enough negativity. Peace.
2.01. It is not God who identifies our next bishop. It is a long processes which is also political which identifies the candidate. two chancery puppets were campaigning in all kind of ways to be made bishops do you think that is God's work ? they were both abruptly terminated as potential candidates for good reason. j.Bautista you have no idea what you talk about. . But one thing for sure we know who we will accept and who we will not. Vatican knows. Vatican knows what will happen should they ever be appointed.
Dear Anonymous at 9:26 am, God is the Master of history. He already knows who will be the next Pope before we do.
"Who has ever known the mind of the Lord? Who has ever been his advisor?White; Rohr, Arroyo, CCOG or the Laity Forward Movement Group may believe they know what is God's will."Whoa, that's rich. Doesn't the NCW believe that the catechists know God's will? Isn't it the default position that whatever the catechists tell you must be God's words and God's will?
Dear Anonymous at 10:46 am, The NCW is told to always discern what is God's will. Sometimes, people do things they think is God's will only to find out that it was their own will that they were following. However, we can be sure that God's will never go against what is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism states clearly that baptized Catholics should submit and respect to the Church leaders and Archbishop Apuron is the Church leader. He is the local Vicar of Christ.
Did you actually read my comment? I mentioned catechists, not the catechism. I personally know of situations where the catechists have stated "If you wish to know God's will for you, speak to us".
Dear Anonymous at 10:54 am, Who is the Catechists who said that? I know what my Catechist said. He said that each of us should discern what is God's will for us. Like I said, the NCW is always told to discern what is God's will. So, who is the Catechist you heard say that?
"Like I said, the NCW is always told to discern what is God's will"That's all very well. Its the "how" that matters. The catechists are the ones with discernment, aren't they Diana?
Dear Anonymous at 11:52 am, Who is the Catechist you heard say that they know God's will for you?
Are you kidding me? You claim to have been in the community for 8 years?
Dear Anonymous at 12:06 pm, I have been walking for over 8 years. So, who is the Catechist whom you heard say they know God's will for you and therefore should speak to them?
Would it help if I gave you their confirmation names?
No, but it would help if you correct them. If you are in a community, brothers and sisters are supposed to correct one another out of love if they made an error. After all, we are only human beings and prone to make mistakes. Being a Catechist does not mean that you are perfect.
Diana, I am walking and there is a catechist that is telling is what is God's will for us. Catechist told me I should refuse medical treatment as its God wishes me to offer the suffering . I believe like you in discerning God's will. There is a catechist teaching confusing teachings. I sinsecerly hope you can do something about this for us. Thank you.
Dear Anonymous at 12:57 pm, Correct your Catechist. If you need medical treatment or even medicine for an illness, you should not be denied. Suffering that comes to us is something we can be thankful for. But to SEEK to suffer by depriving yourself of medicine or medical treatment is not God's will. With that said, the Catechism says that it is legitimate to discontinue medical treatment if it is found to cause more harm than benefit.
Dear Anonymous at 12:57 pm,The following is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which a Catholic should follow:2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Your answer is also confusing Diana.Look, whether or not you have personally heard from the catechists something like "we will tell you God's will for you" is not the point. You have been walking for long enough to know how it works.Right from the beginning we are told that God is passing by, and don't miss the opportunity; we are told that the catechists (and others) giving the catechesis are like angels, or like prophets, or like Jesus himself, in announcing the community. We are told that we shouldn't ask questions because our understanding will develop over time, but now its time to just listen; we are led in every way to believe that everything we thought we knew about our faith was wrong before the Way, and now we are like little babies, having to learn it all properly again. We are taught in this way not to trust our own judgement, because we were so wrong before and we are sinners, with no chance yet of stopping sinning.So, in all these ways and more, we are encouraged to rely on the instruction of the catechists - in big decisions and events in our lives, but also in the little things. Everything is opened up before the community, and we are made to feel bad and feel as though we betray the community if we seek to "do our own will". This is the main way that catechists tell us what the will of God is for us. It is built into the system. They don't ever really have to say it - but sometimes they do say it loud and clear.
Dear Anonymous at 3:42 pm, In the beginning, you should listen because they have been walking longer. Our understanding will grow in time especially when you read the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But that still does not mean that the Catechists are NEVER wrong. They are human and can make mistakes like everyone else. However, when you read the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then you will come to know Christ more. That takes time. If a Catechist says that he is like Jesus, then you know right away that something is wrong. If a Catechist says that God speaks through them, that is okay. It is within the teachings of the Church because God can speak through the Bishops, priests, and even through regular people, but that does not mean that they are God. Once a lay person start saying that the brothers should listen to them because they are like Jesus, then that is the sin of pride.
Yes, but what about people like us who were brought up in the Catholic faith, who prayed every day and went to Mass regularly - who read the bible, and knew the catechism? We are not treated any differently in the community. In fact, we are treated worse because we are supposedly mistaken and have mistaken images and beliefs about God. We are accused of being naturally religious. So we have to relearn the Catholic faith according to a new set of rules and understandings, and as you know, it hardly matters how long you have been walking, there is always secrets and secret doctrines, archani and special knowledge that only a few people possess. That is why we have to be obedient isn't it? Because we don't know what's good for us - others with more knowledge know better than us.
Dear Anonymous at 4:12 pm, Before I joined the Way, I also went to Mass every Sunday. I was baptized into the Catholic Church, but I am no better than the person who occasionally went to Mass or who never went to Mass. I went to Mass out of obligation. Going to Mass out of obligation is not faith. During Mass, I admit that I was not paying attention to the readings or the homilies. I was only going with the flow. That is not faith. I also pray every day, but I was praying with my mouth, not with my heart. The only time I prayed with my heart was when I was in a crisis and needed God's help. I read the entire Bible only once in my life. I did not understand a lot of it. The NCW made me understand it more because we look at it in bits and pieces using words (like rock) and themes (like Abraham). The Catechism of the Catholic Church was the only book that was helpful to me. I actually understood that more than the Holy Bible. And it was the Catechism that helped me to understand the Scriptures. In time, everyone will possess the archani and everything else because everyone gets older and die and the younger communities will soon take the place of the older communities. But knowledge is useless if that knowledge is not applied in our daily life. In other words, the knowledge that we are to love our enemies is useless, if we do not apply it in our life. If we go around hating our enemies, then what good is the knowledge we have?
"Before I joined the Way, I also went to Mass every Sunday. I was baptized into the Catholic Church, but I am no better than the person who occasionally went to Mass or who never went to Mass. I went to Mass out of obligation. Going to Mass out of obligation is not faith. During Mass, I admit that I was not paying attention to the readings or the homilies. I was only going with the flow. That is not faith. I also pray every day, but I was praying with my mouth, not with my heart."This statement could come from just about any person in the NCW. It is the same because it is the "right" answer to be given at certain steps. ( Before I joined the Way I....; After I joined the Way i...). It is absolutely typical of the testimonies we hear, and it carries absolutely zero personal conviction.It is also denigrating of the Church outside of the NCW, of the Church that has existed for centuries. The very fact that you gave this testimony in reponse to the previous commenter shows just what you think of the Church that is not respresented by the NCW.The NCW makes no distinction. It doesn't care whether you actually "prayed with your heart" or not. It tells you that you didn't because in the philosophy of the NCW it is not possible to do that unless you ware "walking". It doesn't care whether you think you understood the Scriptures or not, because it is inconceivable that you did, without Kiko's interpretations. It doesn't allow for the possibility that someone outside of the NCW would actually go to Mass out of love, not obligation. For these reasons the NCW insults and demeans the real Catholic, and misrepresents the real Church.
Dear Anonymous at 5:46 pm, You stated: "It is also denigrating of the Church outside of the NCW, of the Church that has existed for centuries. The very fact that you gave this testimony in reponse to the previous commenter shows just what you think of the Church that is not respresented by the NCW." This is where human bias comes in. I was not speaking about the Church before I entered the Way.....and that is the problem. I was speaking of MY experience and my experience alone. There are people in Church who have a different experience than I do, but I cannot speak for them. I can only speak for myself. I am certain that there are people who go to Church out of love rather than out of obligation. For example, I can assume that people who go to DAILY Mass go more out of love because it is not an obligation to go to Mass every day. So, what is it that drives these church goers to Mass EVERY DAY when it is not an obligation? When I speak of my own experience before I joined the Way, people interpret this as speaking about the Church. This is false. If I wanted to speak about the Church. I would speak about the Church. But as anyone can see, the things I spoke about was about myself. When I said that I did not listen to the readings and the homilies.....that has to do with me. It has nothing to do with the readings or the homilies or the Church goers or even the building itself. And this is where the misconceptions come in with those who are not walking the Way. You stated: "For these reasons the NCW insults and demeans the real Catholic, and misrepresents the real Church." This is the problem that I see with those who are not in the Way. When we give our testimony of our experiences, they automatically assume that we are insulting and denigrating the Church. Just because I was going to Mass out of obligation does not mean that I am demeaning YOU, the Churchgoers, or the building itself. The FACT that I was not listening to the readings or the homilies is not the fault of the Church. It was my fault because I CHOSE not to listen to the readings or the homilies. And in the first place, my reason for going to Mass was also the wrong reason. The NCW was able to help me, and the NCW is part of the Catholic Church; therefore, I can say that it was the Catholic Church that helped me. The fact that you see the NCW as Protestant is the reason why you separate the NCW from the Church.
Dear Diana,please try to understand. It would be different if your testimony was truly personal to you - that is, if it weren't a carbon copy of the next NCW member's testimony. The fact is, your "testimony" is exactly, prescisely the same as the four people that spoke at the catechesis. You all have the same testimony, using the same language. The reason for this is that your testimony is the result of a strict formation that asks certain questions of you at certain times, following certain paterns of teaching.So, while you say it is your personal experience - and it may be what you truly believe to be your personal experience - what you say is really an advertisement for the NCW. By your testimony you at least imply, and sometimes say explicitly, that the Church was not "useful" to you in the way it was offered to you prior to the NCW. In fact, this is exactly what the NCW priest said at the catechesis. The implication is that the Church is deficient in some way, because it could not bring you to a state where you prayed with your heart, and attended Mass out of more than mere obligation.In doing so, you also claim that the NCW has something more than the Church as it has existed, and is a superior option to the "ordinary" Church. This perspective is reinforced by the content of the catechesis. For example, the timeline offered by the NCW neglects the period of time from Constantine to Vatican II; the catechesis belittles devotions and other traditions as being "pagan accretions" and there is much talk about "natural religiousity" implying that this is basically what "ordinary" Catholics practice.Another example is the catechesis on the Exodus, where, regardless of whether you are a life long practising and devout Catholic or whether you are unbaptised and new to the faith, the "right" answer to "Where are you and who is your Moses" is - "I am a slave in Egypt, and my NCW brother, or you the catechist (etc), is my Moses". You know this is true, because every time this catechesis is given, the same conversation occurs with those present.So, you can see now that I can acknowledge your own personal testimony of experience (because as Kiko says, you can't argue with experience), but at the same time, I can see it for what it actually is - a denigration and belittling of the Church we have inherited, and a claim that the NCW is superior.
Dear Anonymous at 6:51 pm. Now that is what I call an insult. Those are my personal experience. My experience may be different from others, but they can also be similar. Be realistic. There are many teenagers who attend Church not because they want to, but because their parents tell them to go. If an NCW testifies that he felt he attended Mass as a kid because his parents told him to, would you call him a liar?If I really wanted to demean the Church, this is what I would say: "The Church is a hypocrite. The women there dress like they are going to a night club, and the men dress like they are going to the field to feed the pigs. Rather than worship, the women are looking to attract men." That is deeming and insulting the Church. Learn the difference. You say that my experience is an implication that the Church was not useful prior to the NCW? No, that is your prejudice speaking. As I said, in no way was I putting down the Church. I was actually speaking of how the Catholic Church has helped me appreciate the Mass more because it was the Church that brought the NCW in just as it brought other organizations in. Thanks to the NCW, I learned to appreciate the Mass and not take it for granted. A member of the Legion of Mary can also speak of her experience before she joined he Legion of Mary and how it has changed her. It is the same with those in the Way. This does demean the Catholic Church at all. The only reason you say the Church is deficient is simply because your prejudice cannot see the richness of the Catholic Church. The Church knows that each individual is unique and offers many ways for the individuals to be close to Christ. The Church reaches out to all people in different ways, not just in one single way.
"The Church knows that each individual is unique and offers many ways for the individuals to be close to Christ. The Church reaches out to all people in different ways, not just in one single way. "Now, that is what I call ironic. I just showed you how every testimony of the NCW is the same. "The Church just didn't do it for me until the NCW came along". I showed you that this was as a result of a deliberate structure in the NCW, and that the NCW does not care where you are in relation to your faith, baptised or not, devout or not. Rather you are considered infantile in faith and pagan in practise unless you are in the NCW.And your response? To say that each individual is unique! In that case your testimony should be unique. But it is isnt, is it? It is entirely predictable and exactly what the NCW would have you say. Grow up. You surely smarter than that.I say that the NCW implies that it is superior to the Church and that the Church is deficient because it couldn't bring to a deeper faith without the NCW - and your answer is what? That you weren't putting down the Church outside of the NCW because... wait for it... it brought you the NCW!!You speak of how a member of the Legion of Mary might say that the Legion changed her (presumably for the better). Well, perhaps. But I can assure you that each Legion member would be distinguishable from each other in their "testimony" about it. And I'll guarantee that they would give up the Legion in a flash if there was any hint that it brought into question any aspect of the Church that existed before it.In contrast the NCW sells itself on the deficiencies of the Church. The reason you stand up and give testimonies in the Mass presumes that you think that those attending Mass have an undeveloped and/or infantile faith. It presumes that they need the NCW to be truly Catholic. Now that is what I call an insult.
The catechist is sent; they proclaim the kerygma; they bear witness to the power of the living Word of God; the Spirit that changes people; saves families; save lives.Can anyone stand and face the Word of God? Free will allows us to choose. Do I follow Jesus Christ? Yes or No. There is no maybe...only on Sundays or when I pray the rosary....do I follow Jesus Christ; YES or NO. And if I choose follow Jesus Christ and walk in the Neocatechumenal Way; what gives anyone justification to criticize?
And there you go, Diana. J Bautista interjects, and shows the truth of everything I have been saying. Look at what he/she wrote:"The catechist is sent....can anyone stand and face the Word of God". Ergo, the catechist is the Word of God. But isn't the Word of God Jesus Christ? And evidently he/she believes they "save families" and "save lives".And when he/she asks "Do I follow Jesus Christ", what is implied is "Do I follow the catechist?"Then, to prove the rest he/she has a dig at the "ordinary" (non-NCW) Catholic who apparently does something "only on Sundays" (weak, only for obligation) or "when I pray the rosary" (mocking devotion and tradition - well its just natural religiosity after all)And finally, a statement that following Jesus Christ is to "walk in the NCW" (as opposed to what those other "ordinary Catholic" losers do).Its all there. Thankyou J Bautista for perfectly illustrating the point.Do you see now, Diana?
Dear Tim Rohr at 9:31 pm and at 11:46 pm, I am not here to entertain your questions when I know that you have already made up your mind to destroy the NCW. Yes, I know you are Tim because of what you stated here (Capitalization is mine): "That you weren't putting down the Church outside of the NCW BECAUSE... WAIT FOR IT... it brought you the NCW!!"I have read enough of your blog to recognize your language and writing style. And no, J. Bautista did not say that the Catechists is the Word of God. This is what J. Bautista stated, which you deliberately left out (parenthesis is mine): " they (Catechists) bear witness to the power of the living Word of God;"
Sorry to disappoint you, dear Diana, but I assure you I am not Tim Rohr. He has no qualms about identifying himself. But thanks for the compliment.IN the meantime, perhaps you will ruminate on what has been said. You know it is true. Maybe you're getting tired of living inside a cliche. Now would be a good time to reconsider the whole gambit.
Dear Tim Rohr at 12:10 am, You can deny it all you want, but I recognize your signature. The phrase: "WAIT FOR IT....." is found in your writing, and here are some samples from your own blog: 1. However, the Church foresaw such disobedience from its pastors in 2004 in the following instruction from Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued in 2004 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament which is subtitled...wait for it:http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/01/this-sunday.html2. And WHO DID NOT HAVE THE LETTER? Wait for it....TIM ROHR. http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/06/amazing.html#moreAs anyone can see, this is one of Tim Rohr's signature that I recognize. Only he says this on his blog. And yes, Tim, I can stay up late tonight since I will not be reporting to work tomorrow.....doctor's appointment.
Dear Diana, I hope you're feeling better and the doctor was able to assist you.I notice that your conclusion that the commenter above is Tim Rohr was based on a judgement that "Only he says this (Wait for it) on his blog"Well, you'd better check again:http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/04/archbishop-villegas-homily-abuse-can.htmlhttp://www.junglewatch.info/2015/03/notice-to-deacon-larry-claros-sarc.htmlhttp://www.junglewatch.info/2014/04/not-willing-to-call-them-gnostics-but.htmlhttp://www.junglewatch.info/2015/03/notice-to-deacon-larry-claros-sarc.htmlhttp://www.junglewatch.info/2015/06/rudy-rudy-rudy.htmlhttp://www.junglewatch.info/2015/07/exposing-kiko-beast-in-our-midst.htmlhttp://www.junglewatch.info/2015/06/mia-rohr-on-catholic-answers.htmlhttp://www.junglewatch.info/2015/03/if-this-is-true.htmlhttp://www.junglewatch.info/2015/08/kiko-no-rosary-for-12-years.htmlhttp://www.junglewatch.info/2015/06/its-your-fault.htmlEach of these pages includes comments that contain that phrase - some are by anonymous commenters and some by identified persons. I think it is rather ironic that you should accuse an anonymous person of being someone you can identify when you have had the same experience from others, and presumably know how easily people can be wrong about it.So, once again, I am not Tim Rohr. I think you were just a bit overwhelmed with the truth that was posted yesterday and had no where else to turn but to try and defuse the tension by saying I was Tim, in an effort to avoid the subject matter.I hope you're feeling better today, and you might actually re-read what was written and try to think, honestly, whether any of it is actually true. Seriously, I know how relentless and organised is the indoctrination of the NCW - in its language, structure and practise. I know that it is almost impossible to swim against the current. But its never too late to take another look. TO test everything and make a new assessment.You could do a great deal of good for the Church and your poor brothers in the NCW if you finally admit to what it really is.
Dear Tim Rohr at 3:52 pm, You can always write in your blog as "anonymous" because that is what the jungle have accused me of. When one accuses the other of something, it tells more about the accuser.
Diama. disobedient people all seem to congregate In Junglewatch to support each others campaign. Every day now same group of disobedient names leave comments in Jungle.We can almost name the list of those who will comment on every media post.
Dear Anonymous at 10:45 pm, The jungle folks do not need to remain anonymous. Yet, when some of them come to this blog, they hide their identity????
" Yet, when some of them come to this blog, they hide their identity???? "You hide your identity Diana. How can you criticize? And why would you think that we do not need to remain anonymous? I work in the Church. Do you think that would last very long if I was identified?Anyone who voices concerns about the NCW is at risk of serious repercussions.
Brings up good question, Diana. Why do you NEED to remain anonymous?
Dear Anonymous at 4:57 am, I answered this question about five times already, and you still ask the same question over and over and over and over and over. Now, do you understand why the Archbishop remain silent to the same questions that CCOG keep asking over and over and over and over?
Dear Anonymous at 12:10 am You stated: " I work in the Church. Do you think that would last very long if I was identified?Anyone who voices concerns about the NCW is at risk of serious repercussions." Anyone who voices against what the Pope endorses and supports already put himself outside of the Catholic Church. So, you might as well step down.
Sorry, Diana, I never asked that question before. Patience.
"Anyone who voices against what the Pope endorses and supports already put himself outside of the Catholic Church. So, you might as well step down. "Ha. That's rich. I don't sit down to receive communion. And besides, I don't oppose anything the Pope might have said about the NCW. The Pope has reiterated the Statutes of the NWC as being the regulatory charter - I'm more than happy to accept that. Now the NCW should do as the Statutes require. The Vatican has approved the publication of the 13 volume directory - so I'd be happy to see them made available.Finally, if the Pope were to endorse something or someone strange, such as for example communion for the divorced and remarried, or Marcial Maciel of the Legionnaires, would "voicing against" that put one "outside of the Catholic Church"? Be careful, your fallacies are showing.
Dear Anonymous at 10:56 am,We already told you that we have the permission of the Pope. We said that many times over and over and over because people still ask the same question over and over and over. The Pope has the authority to change some things in the liturgy. Martial Marciel was excommunicated for disobedience. As for the moral law, that can never change. If the Vatican were to allow priests to marry, would you protest? The Vatican can allow priest to marry because that was never a dogma, but a practice.
"We already told you that we have the permission of the Pope. We said that many times over and over and over because people still ask the same question over and over and over."You "telling" us this has no weight. It means nothing, because there is no evidence to support this assertion. Nor does the Holy See ever vary liturgical practices verbally and informally. We have "told" you this over and over and over because you are delusional about how these things operate in the Church."The Pope has the authority to change some things in the liturgy"No, he doesn't. You imply he can "change some things in the liturgy" in private and without collaboration with his congregations. No, you are mistaken.Did I say anything about priests marrying? I questioned whether it would be right or wrong to "voice objections" should the pope endorse or promote unusual ideas, such as communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. Well, what do you think? Perhaps you think it hypothetical, but I'm asking you a serious question. You mentioned that Maciel was excommunicated. Yes, but that was very late in the piece and after many concerns had been raised for many years. Do you think it would have been wrong to object to JPII's support of Maciel? I don't, and hindsight would support that view.What you think the Pope endorses may not be what he thinks he endorses. Do you think the Pope is aware of the NCW's disobedience? Do you think the Pope understands everything that is contained in the "archani" and in the practices of the community? I don't. So his "endorsement" as you put it is limited. Which is why when asked by Kiko for more direct "endorsement" he simply pointed to the Statutes. That is also what we are doing, but your pride is an edifice and you can't surmount it.
Dear Anonymous at 12:45 pm, Then I highly recommend that you write a letter of complaint to the Holy See and tell them that the NCW is is committing liturgical abuse as they stand to receive the Body of Christ and sit to consume His Body together with the priest. Then you have done your duty, and we will wait for any corrections from the Vatican.........that is if there is one.
Dear Diana,I walk, but I must confess that what Anonymous at 12:45 makes sense to me. I have talked with others in my community who also would like to see something in writing. We have our statutes and we have what the Pope has approved. What we don't have is what Pius says he heard Kiko say was approved. Please don't take this as being disobedient, because it is what we as intelligent people have concluded for ourselves. We walk, but we do think for ourselves.
Dear Anonymous at 5:29 pm, I heard Father Puus say that in 2008 at the Beginning of the Year Convivience. The Statutes were approved by the Vatican at that time, and the entire statutes was read to us. Then the change was made in how we received the Body of Christ. Previously, we received the Body of Christ sitting down. I heard Father Pius tell us that we are to stand to receive the Body of Christ and then sit down. He said that this instruction came from Kiko who received the same instruction from the Pope.
Dear Anon at October 1, 2015 at 5:29 PM,thankyou. In one small comment you have given reason for us to be consoled somewhat about the NCW. You have shown that you are rational and thoughtful. You are absolutely right to expect some written evidence for what you have been told. And it is encouraging that there are others who feel the same. On the other hand, Diana at 1.06pm, you have once again provided a non-answer. We know what you have been told - that is not in dispute. We believe you when you say this is what you have been told. But anon has suggested that this is not quite enough. How is it that you do not agree with him/her? Being in a position of authority, you should take his/her concern seriously, and not try to sweep it under the carpet once again.Why do you not ask Fr Pius for the written permission? If you did you could then decide for yourself, based on his response, whether or not it actually exists. You could ask him for guidance in respect to whether the Vatican actually ever provides private and informal permissions to vary the rubrics of the liturgy - and if he replies that it does, to ask him for some examples or precedents. When he is unable to provide those, you can then finally come to the realisation that something is not quite right. Please do this. You are in a position that others are not. You are morally obliged to do more than merely recite the "I heard Fr Pius say" line.
Dear Anonymous at 2:13 pm, I am sure that that written document will come out. After all, among the Apostles, there is always a doubting Thomas who need to put his finger on the wounds of Christ. And if it does come out, I hope that it will only be distributed to the NCW.
Your are wrong Diana...you wrote -"If the Vatican were to allow priests to marry, would you protest? The Vatican can allow priest to marry because that was never a dogma, but a practice."....ABSOLUTELY FALSE!The Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change.
Dear Superales, Allowing priests not to marry is NOT a dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is a practice. Practices can change. The Apostle Peter, for example, was married. Later, the Latin rite Church decided that part of the seminarians' ordination is a requirement not to marry and have a family.
Well....its been four days now and I have been waiting for someone to answer my question.....And if I choose follow Jesus Christ and walk in the Neocatechumenal Way; what gives anyone justification to criticize?Would it be right for me to go to Agana Heights and start criticizing the people attending the Latin Mass? How about if I start writing about the Latin Mass, individuals who attend and the priest who perform the Latin Mass?In truth; the utmost respect must given.How a person performs the practice of faith should be respected not criticized. so how is it that people cannot respect a persons right to practice their faith? What make them so self righteous?
Here is a question for you J. Bautista. If I chose to walk the Path of Protestantism because the Catholic Faith has not fulfilled my inner spirit, what right do you have to criticize me about leaving the Catholic Church? What right do you have to label me as a fallen away Catholic? Do people label Baptist who leave to become Presbyterians as fallen away Baptist? We all have our beliefs. We all take different paths to seek that spiritual fulfillment in our lives. I do hope that you ALL find some means of reconciliation with one another. At this point in time, I see none!
Dear Anonymous t 7:49 pm, The fallacy of your argument is that J. Bautista was never referring to any Protestant church, but to the NCW, which is legitimately Catholic.
There is a responsibility that we all have, that when we see a brother/sister falling, we pick them up. There are some people who are not in the NCW who sincerely feel a need to be sure that we who are in the NCW are in good standing with the Church. We can tell them apart because when we explain to them that the NCW is in all its ways Catholic, they move on. Then we have those radicals who even after explaining to them why and how we have come to this point, they are not satisfied. We also have those who obviously know nothing about the situation but because they have surrounded themselves with the radicals, they have been brainwashed to think that the NCW is not Catholic in any shape or form. There are also brothers/sisters who have the left the NCW and are now bad mouthing The Way. If anyone was to read the Statutes of The Way and compare the different stages to the time in which these people have left, you will see some reason. For instance, up front you will see people leave in the 1st or 2nd year with a consistent complaint, that the NCW was too time consuming. Of course it is if you are not used to it. You will see people leave in the 2nd scrutiny with a complaint that the NCW wanted all their property or the NCW wanted them to empty their wallets. Not wanting to judge but you will find these same people to be part of society indulging in the material wealth of life. Of course they would have a problem with the 2nd scrutiny which by the way does not force anyone to give up anything that they dont want to since the Lord only wants what is given cheerfully from the heart. Despite the fact that members have left bitter, these same members are always welcomed back and many have made their way back into communities.Weve come to a point where people like JBautista now feel like others are impeding on how he wishes to live out the Catholic Faith. This shouldnt be. The NCW never said that all Catholics should live out their faith in the manner of the NCW. If this was true, then we all would be members of the NCW by now. The reality remains that the Archbishop has experienced something good and all he wants is for the same to be afforded to all of the flock that he shepherds. Remember, the NCW arrived here on Gods will and timing, the Archbishop did not invite them here. Even after receiving the approval of the Archbishop a clergy member was instructed by him to go and investigate this group in the early years. My sincerest advise to Diana is to stop allowing comments from the radicals. We will never fill their fantasies. -Jokers Wild
Dear Jokers Wild, Your point is taken. The radicals have a blog of their own. Why they come here to make comments is beyond me. I will filter out the comments from the radicals.
Thank you diana for your help.
What!!! Anonymous TIM, what a COWARD, His favorite word.